Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Adu Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning and Zoning delays ADU ordinance, asks engineer to revise lot‑size and detached‑unit language
Summary
Commission heard market and technical perspectives on proposed accessory dwelling unit (ADU) rules, flagged inconsistencies in lot‑size and setback provisions, and voted to defer the ordinance so staff can request technical corrections from the engineer and return the item to the next agenda.
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed proposed changes to the city’s zoning code intended to allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and to create an overlay zone, but agreed to postpone action so staff can request clarifying edits from the consulting engineer.
Brandy, a local real estate agent invited to provide a consumer perspective, told the commission the changes respond to market demand and recent state law changes that make ADUs easier to use for multi‑generational housing and to qualify buyers using rental income. "ADUs are genius because they're allowing, retired families to build on one spot," Brandy said, arguing they can provide affordable options without increasing high‑density development in town.
Commissioners raised multiple concerns about the draft ordinance. Staff and commissioners identified numeric inconsistencies in minimum lot‑size language (a 6,000‑square‑foot reference appears in the draft while staff said the city's residential minimum is a quarter‑acre and one calculation noted 9,900 square feet), unclear treatment of preexisting nonconforming lots, and a clause that the draft reads as prohibiting detached ADUs. One commissioner summarized the code text as saying "no detached ADU shall be permitted," and members debated whether to preserve that restriction or allow detached tiny homes on some lots.
The commission also discussed technical constraints that shape ADU feasibility locally, including a high water table that limits basements and existing setback and easement requirements. A local contractor reported completing eight ADUs in the broader region this year, most of them used as rental units near college markets, which prompted discussion about enforcement and rental‑term limits; the draft requires rentals longer than 30 days.
Rather than adopt the ordinance, the commission directed staff to send the draft back to the engineering consultant for corrections (align lot‑size figures with city standards, clarify detached vs. attached ADU permissibility, and confirm setbacks). Staff agreed to place the revised draft on the next Planning and Zoning meeting agenda. The commission also asked staff to research comparable code language from neighboring jurisdictions (Willard was cited) and to provide options for how the city might treat tiny homes vs. mobile homes.
Next steps: staff will request edits from the engineer, return a revised draft and comparative code language to the commission at the next monthly meeting, and conduct any required public hearing if code text is amended.
