Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the ADU Regulations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff proposes ADU code changes: one ADU per lot, 50% size limit and owner-occupancy requirement
Summary
City staff recommended clarifying accessory dwelling unit rules in the Unified Development Code: consolidate repeated standards, require one off-street parking space per ADU, limit ADUs to 50% of principal dwelling size for detached units, require owner-occupancy and HOA written consent where applicable, and add an administrative variance option; council discussed numeric height limits and possible grandfathering.
City staff presented proposed text amendments to the Unified Development Code to clarify rules for accessory dwelling units (ADUs).
Mary Baker, a community development intern, described the proposed changes to Section 104.0202 and related code: move repeated requirements into a general ADU section; require an additional off‑street parking space to serve an ADU; permit only one ADU per lot; list residential zoning districts where ADUs are allowed; restrict ADUs in RA‑6 to lots with a single‑family home; set a 50% size limit for detached ADUs (to match the existing interior‑ADU standard of 50% of heated floor area or 1,200 square feet); require a written HOA statement when applicable; and require owner‑occupancy of either the principal dwelling or the ADU.
Staff also proposed a change to administrative-variance authority (UDC section 105.1102) to allow the community development director to grant up to a 20% increase to the maximum allowed square footage for ADUs in limited cases. Staff said the city currently lacks a height limit for ADUs and suggested matching accessory-unit height to the principal dwelling or adopting a numeric cap (staff cited 24 feet as common and acknowledged some council members prefer the existing primary-structure height limit of 35 feet).
Council and staff discussed whether a two‑story ADU should be allowed behind a single‑story primary house, how to treat garage‑apartment forms and potential grandfathering of existing units, and whether owner‑occupancy or rental restrictions are appropriate. Staff said the proposed revisions are intended to increase clarity and align Canton’s code with neighboring jurisdictions.
Votes and next steps: the presentation was informational; staff indicated the item will return for a public hearing and formal ordinance action at a future meeting.
