Clinton council asks staff to tighten ADU, home-business rules to limit neighborhood impacts

At its Feb. 24 work session the Clinton City Council directed staff to draft clearer ordinance language for accessory dwelling units and home-based businesses, saying existing code language leaves too much ambiguity about when an ADU becomes a commercial operation.

Peter, the city’s community development director, told the council staff “just created a kind of a quick table of issues that we've run into administering the code” and flagged recurring problems: how to treat a detached garage or shop when it’s combined with an ADU, design standards such as roof pitch and door orientation, and the lack of clear numerical limits for how much accessory space may be used for business storage.

The council debated approaches to resolve those ambiguities. Several members said home offices used for remote work should remain allowed in ADUs, but activities that generate customer traffic, on-site classes or large storage and fleets warrant limits or a different zoning treatment. One council member noted a common reference point, saying, “you look at a 400-square-foot structure in your rear property, generally, we allow that,” as an example of the size thresholds under discussion.

Members also discussed the practice of allowing the same accessory structure to serve both as a rented dwelling and as business storage or workshops. Committee member 4 argued the same unit “can't be used for a business purpose and for a dwelling unit” at the same time, and others used the phrase “double dipping” to describe the concern that a single structure could be rented as an ADU while simultaneously serving as the headquarters or storage for a business.

Other topics the council asked staff to address include: whether to set hard square-footage or lot-percentage caps for accessory uses, how to define “commercial vehicle” (by gross vehicle weight, axles, or another metric), and what limits to place on outdoor storage so as not to turn residential lots into de facto commercial yards. Staff and council members raised fire-code and hazardous-materials concerns tied to certain storage types, noting those issues could trigger building and fire inspections.

Peter agreed to prepare draft ordinance language and examples for council review. The council did not vote on a specific change at the meeting but asked staff to return with options that clarify which accessory uses should be permitted, which should be restricted, and which should be handled as conditional uses with mitigation requirements.

What happens next: staff will draft sample code language and return to the council for further direction.