Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council introduces code amendments reducing small‑shed setbacks and updating ADU standards; planning staff to pursue container rule discussion
Summary
The council introduced an ordinance to reduce rear/side setbacks for small accessory sheds from 5 to 2 feet and to align accessory dwelling unit (ADU) design standards with state law; the planning commission had recommended the changes and council appointed an ad hoc committee to explore proposed changes to shipping‑container rules.
Staff presented Development Code Amendment 2025‑05A and the Wildomar City Council introduced related ordinances after a staff explanation and council discussion.
Robert Flores explained the proposed Title 17 updates would reduce side and rear setbacks for small accessory structures (typically 120 square feet or smaller) from 5 feet to 2 feet, while leaving front‑yard setbacks unchanged. Flores said the ADU amendments correct provisions that were in conflict with state law by requiring objective review standards for ADU design. The planning commission reviewed the proposals on Sept. 3, 2025 and recommended adoption to the council.
Council members asked clarifying questions: the setback reduction applies only to side and rear yards, the separation distance between the shed and primary residence remains set by zone (10 feet typically for fire/safety), and ADU changes are intended to bring the municipal code into compliance with state requirements. The council introduced ordinance 256 for first reading with the appropriate CEQA finding and voted 5–0 to move the item forward.
Separately during council communications the planning commission’s related recommendation to change shipping‑container allowances (currently limited to parcels of five acres or more) prompted extended discussion. Planning staff said the commission recommended reducing the minimum lot size to allow containers on smaller lots (the staff recommendation considered one acre; planning commission recommended a half acre). Council members expressed divergent views about whether size alone should determine container allowances, noted an existing code‑enforcement case prompted interest, and directed formation of an ad hoc committee (Bridget and Dustin appointed) to study whether and how to change rules for shipping containers.
