Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Dwelling Unit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board backs ADU ordinance draft, asks staff and city attorney to clarify homestead rule
Summary
The board recommended a citywide accessory‑dwelling‑unit (ADU) text amendment to the City Council but instructed staff and the city attorney to revise and clarify a homestead requirement that drew strong public opposition.
The Planning & Zoning Board on June 9 voted to forward a text amendment (LDR2602) allowing accessory dwelling units (ADUs) citywide to the City Council, while asking staff and the city attorney to refine language related to a proposed homestead requirement.
Planning staff described ADUs as ancillary units with a separate kitchen, bathroom and sleeping area and said the draft ordinance would require a separate 911 address, architectural compatibility with the primary structure, placement to the side or rear of the primary dwelling and a minimum size of roughly 400 square feet and a maximum of 900 square feet or 50% of the primary structure. Staff framed ADUs as a tool for rental income, aging‑in‑place and modest increases in affordable housing stock.
At public comment, several speakers supported ADUs in principle but strongly opposed a proposed requirement that the primary dwelling be homesteaded for an ADU to be permitted. One commenter said the homestead language would limit builders and affordable housing options and urged the board to table the item. "I don't think that you should have to have a homestead in order to do a ad," the commenter said during public comment.
City Attorney Clay Martin and other board members noted the homestead provision was intended to prevent circumvention of single‑family zoning (e.g., allowing rentals that function as duplexes) but raised enforcement and edge‑case questions (for example, owners who homestead a different house for tax purposes). Martin recommended the board forward the amendment provided the council works with staff and the city attorney to clarify the homestead language before final action.
After discussion the board voted to send the draft to the City Council with instructions for staff and the city attorney to refine the homestead language and enforcement mechanics. Staff emphasized ADU proposals in historic districts would require high architectural compatibility and that ADU work in historic neighborhoods would likely be reviewed as a major project.
The matter will appear on a future City Council agenda after staff completes the suggested clarifications.
