Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council weighs citywide ADU rules and tighter short‑term rental limits in length workshop
Summary
At a lengthy workshop, staff proposed permitting ADUs citywide (internal, external, detached), revising parking and lot‑coverage rules, and tightening short‑term rental separation and occupancy standards while adding a special category for purpose‑built resort communities; council asked for visuals and data before a public hearing.
Council spent an extended portion of the evening reviewing a package of land‑use code changes addressing accessory dwelling units (ADUs), home occupations and short‑term rentals (Ordinance 24‑18).
Planning staff outlined the main ADU proposals: permit ADUs across all zones (ending the USU‑area exclusion), allow internal and external ADUs as well as detached units on qualifying lots, cap external ADU size (maximum 50% of available backyard area and not to exceed 1,000 square feet), and require one on‑site parking stall for ADUs with limited flexibility to use driveway space when physically possible. Staff said existing ADU permitting has been limited (five permits since 2021), and the changes aim to expand housing options while preserving residential character.
On short‑term rentals (STRs), staff described multiple options considered by planning commission and council: prohibiting STRs in single‑family zones (original planning commission proposal) was discussed and withdrawn; the current draft retains separation distances (1000 feet for single‑family zones; 500 feet in some multifamily areas in planning commission revisions), reduces citywide caps from 3 per 1,000 residents to 1 per 1,000, and limits maximum occupancy (planning commission recommended returning to a formula of two people per bedroom plus two; staff briefly referenced an alternate flat cap of eight people). Staff also proposed a new category for "purpose‑built" resort or destination communities with different standards.
Council members raised concerns about enforcement of illegal STRs, neighborhood compatibility (noise and parking), the practical effect of a 1 per 1,000 cap on driving operators underground, and the role of homeowners associations in regulating uses. Staff said enforcement requires proof and described investigative techniques (observational patterns, parking/vehicle tracking) and confirmed some enforcement shifts to night/weekend schedules when necessary.
Council asked staff to prepare graphics and the supporting data—such as the number of dwelling units, current licensed STRs and maps showing proposed separation zones—for the upcoming public hearing so neighbors and stakeholders can better evaluate tradeoffs. The ADU/STR package will return to council for formal public hearings and possible adoption.
