Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Ordinance Amendments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee forwards broad zoning amendments including ADU changes, narrower three‑story apartment houses and building‑separation rules
Summary
The Zoning & Annexation Committee recommended approval of Bill 22-26, a package of zoning ordinance changes that would allow certain accessory dwelling units to be taller than primary structures (within size caps), permit narrow apartment houses to add a third story, change building-continuity rules, reduce accessory parking distances, and add measures for drive‑thru and service vehicle access.
The Zoning & Annexation Committee forwarded Bill 22-26 with a favorable recommendation after staff described a wide-ranging set of zoning ordinance updates intended to modernize the code and remove duplicative or outdated language.
Michael Davina, assistant director of planning, explained several substantive changes: permitting accessory dwelling units (ADUs) that may be taller than the main house in some cases while retaining other dimensional controls; keeping ADU size limits as the lesser of 800 square feet or 75% of the primary structure footprint; removing a frontage requirement where an ADU does not face a street; and reducing the listed separation for accessory parking lots from 250 feet to 150 feet.
Davina also described a change to allow apartment‑house buildings under 30 feet in width to have three full stories while preserving the city’s maximum height measured in feet. He said the change is intended to increase usable top‑floor space without increasing overall measured height. On building continuity, staff proposed allowing separate building sections connected by setback, open hallways (set back at least 20 feet) to be treated as distinct massing for purposes of building‑width rules.
Mark Dela Street, a zoning specialist, described additional adjustments such as allowing multi‑story gallery fronts that previously required variances, permitting small vans or buses to park on property for residential care facilities, clarifying allowable rooftop amenity spaces, and tightening outdoor lighting rules in residential areas for enforcement.
Committee members asked clarifying questions: one member pressed whether restaurants in certain districts would remain subject to conditions and staff said that proposed deletions related to restaurants were being retained for further consideration. Another member asked whether there is any size limit for service vehicles; staff said the allowance would be limited to specific uses (schools and residential care/healthcare uses) but that the ordinance text does not set a numerical vehicle‑size cap.
A committee member said they had initial concerns about ADUs and three‑story proposals but after visiting neighborhoods and reviewing maps concluded the changes “make sense,” particularly in denser corridors rather than in single‑family areas. After discussion, a motion to forward Bill 22-26 with a favorable recommendation passed by roll call (five ayes).
The committee asked staff to provide a revised ordinance text reflecting the presented amendments before the next hearing.
