Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the ADU Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission delays ADU ordinance, debates residency waiver and temporary-absence language
Summary
River Heights commissioners delayed approval of proposed ADU ordinance language to incorporate city-attorney suggestions about temporary leave of absence and owner-occupancy waivers; members expressed concern about a proposed two-year occupancy requirement and discussed a compromise six-month residence standard and variance/attorney review processes.
The River Heights City Planning Commission on June 9 voted to delay final action on a proposed accessory dwelling unit (ADU) ordinance so members could review suggested language from the city attorney on temporary-leave and owner-occupancy waivers.
Keenan Ryan, chair of the Planning Commission, distributed an email from City Attorney John Jenkins outlining qualifying circumstances by which owner-occupancy could be temporarily waived. Commissioners said Jenkins’s draft contains useful clarifications but flagged one provision that would require a homeowner to have lived in a house for two years before applying for an ADU. Several commissioners said the 24-month residency requirement could unfairly burden legitimate owners and suggested shortening it to six months or instead relying on the qualifying-reasons language Jenkins provided.
Commission discussion covered verification and enforcement: commissioners asked whether the zoning administrator should exercise discretion to approve waivers or whether such extenuating circumstances should route through the variance process or legal review by the city attorney. One commissioner worried giving broad discretionary authority to staff could create inconsistent precedent; others pointed to the attorney as an available check.
After debate, the commission agreed to insert the attorney’s temporary-absence language under the owner-occupancy section (to appear as subsection e3 in the draft code), circulate the revised draft to commissioners, and hold a future public hearing rather than adopt the ordinance that night. A commissioner moved to delay approval and another seconded; the motion passed on a voice vote. The commission asked staff to incorporate the attorney’s suggested qualifying reasons, to consider reducing the minimum occupancy period (suggested compromise: six months), and to return with an updated draft for detailed review and public notice.
Commissioners said the additional time will allow residents and elected council members an opportunity to review the changes; the chair outlined a timeline that could place a public hearing roughly a month after the commission completes its redraft and noticing requirements are met.
