Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Dwelling Unit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Richmond planning commission weighs allowing detached accessory dwelling units
Summary
The Richmond City Planning & Zoning Commission discussed whether to permit detached accessory dwelling units (ADUs), asking staff to draft code language on utilities, size, setbacks and owner-occupancy after citing state requirements for interior ADUs and local examples.
The Richmond City Planning & Zoning Commission on Feb. 3 debated whether to allow detached accessory dwelling units — separate small homes or units on the same lot as a primary residence — and directed staff to prepare draft code language for further review.
City Recorder Justin Lewis told commissioners that "interior accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are quite popular and are required to be allowed under State Code," while detached ADUs are not currently permitted in Richmond. He said the city has fielded requests for detached units and that staff needs direction on whether to pursue changes to the municipal code.
Commission member Cache Christensen said allowing detached ADUs could help address demand for rental housing and suggested design limits, including keeping an ADU "no larger than 80% of the main structure." Commissioners raised practical issues: owner-occupancy requirements, parking, setbacks, height allowances for units above garages, potential rezone or boundary-line adjustments handled at the county level, and how utilities would be metered or shared.
Cindy Allen said she is concerned about preserving neighborhood character, adding she would not want a detached unit next to her home but acknowledged housing pressures. Brock Meacham and Todd Smith said the commission should study the issue because residents have been asking about detached options.
Staff and commissioners agreed on next steps: staff will draft a basic outline addressing utilities, height and setback limits, parking, owner-occupancy and potential grandfathering (for example, fire-wall separations) and will bring the draft back to the commission next month. Commission members were asked to research other cities' codes and provide suggestions; Joel Draxler recommended consulting Nibley City, and Lewis referenced examples from nearby jurisdictions that have confronted subdivision or utility complications.
No formal ordinance change was adopted at the meeting; the discussion concluded with staff direction to prepare draft language and return it for further deliberation.
