River Heights planners agree revisions to ADU draft, set 90‑day rental minimum

River Heights planning commissioners on April 14 consolidated a series of line‑by‑line edits to a proposed accessory dwelling unit ordinance and directed staff to issue a revised draft for legal and engineering review.

Chair Keenan Ryan opened the discussion by confirming the group would use a SharePoint draft labeled with the recorder’s name as the working document and then moved through definitions, occupancy, parking and technical provisions. "If it looks good, I'll accept a motion to approve them," Ryan said early in the meeting when returning to procedural items; later the commission used Sheila's draft as the base for tonight's edits.

Why it matters: the state has encouraged local governments to allow ADUs to expand long‑term housing supply; River Heights’ revisions aim to align local language with state definitions while retaining tools to address neighborhood impacts.

Key policy changes agreed by the commission

- Terminology and definitions: commissioners agreed to replace the word "external" with "detached" and to clearly distinguish "internal (IADU)" and "detached (DADU)" accessory dwelling types. Speaker 2 noted the state statute defines detached and internal ADUs and the city’s language should be consistent with that definition.

- Occupancy and unit size: members retained a 1,200‑square‑foot cap on ADU living area (matching nearby municipal models) and confirmed a two‑bedroom limit as the base standard. To avoid overcrowding, the commission voted in favor of lowering an earlier proposed cap of six occupants to a four‑person maximum in the ADU text and to reference River Heights code on unrelated occupants.

- Parking and site standards: the draft now defers to the city’s Chapter 10‑14 parking table rather than the state's lower minimums; the working language requires two off‑street spaces for an ADU where the chapter calls for it. Commissioners also clarified setbacks: ADUs must meet the same front/side/rear setback requirements applied to the primary dwelling, with minimum separation distances between adjacent accessory structures and a 5‑ to 10‑foot buffer in specific corner/adjacent‑lot scenarios.

- Inspections and building permits: planning staff and commissioners confirmed that Cache County performs building inspections and issues occupancy/certificates of occupancy when required. The commission agreed the ADU code should reference compliance with Cache County building rules rather than restating inspection procedures in two sections of the city code.

- Utilities and septic: the commission clarified billing practice — a property with an ADU typically receives one meter and a single bill that itemizes service charges for each dwelling — and added a requirement that properties using septic must obtain Cache County Health Department approval showing the system can handle the additional load.

- Height and stories: members removed an erroneous 15‑foot maximum and instead tied ADU height to the primary dwelling. ADUs should not exceed the height of the principal structure and generally should be no more than two stories; the draft keeps absolute maximums from the city’s height table where applicable.

- Rental‑term minimum to discourage short‑term use: after discussing state language (which allows ADUs rented for 30 consecutive days or more), the commission opted for a local minimum of 90 consecutive days to reinforce ADUs’ role as long‑term housing rather than short‑term vacation rentals.

What the commission did not finalize

Commissioners removed or softened language they judged infeasible to enforce — for example, a broad bar on subleasing portions of ADUs was questioned as impractical to monitor, and members directed staff to rework enforcement language rather than keep an absolute prohibition.

Next steps

Planner/recorder Sheila (working copy author) will incorporate the agreed edits and circulate a revised draft to the commission, then forward the package to the city attorney and the city engineer for review. Commissioners requested attorney/engineer comments by Apr. 28 and tentatively discussed a public hearing on the revised ADU code for the May 12 meeting. Chair Ryan closed the discussion by asking staff to prepare the draft changes and the cross‑code edits needed for setbacks and area tables.

Attribution: quotes and paraphrases in this article are drawn from the planning commission’s April 14 transcript; speakers are identified by the name or role used in the record.