Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Adus topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission delays ADU ordinance pending impact-fee review
Summary
The River Heights Planning Commission reviewed a draft accessory dwelling unit ordinance but agreed to postpone a public hearing until the city engineer and public works clarify whether impact fees apply and how they should be inserted into the code and fee schedule.
The River Heights City Planning Commission on June 23 reviewed a draft ordinance to allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) but agreed not to advance the measure to a public hearing until the city’s engineers and public-works staff clarify whether impact fees apply.
Chair said the commission had incorporated attorney edits but that one open question remained: “we're not willing to advance it to a public hearing until we know what the impact fees if they apply or do not apply.” Commissioners asked staff to solicit written guidance from the city engineer and from Craig, who previously performed impact analysis for the city, and to forward any written recommendations before scheduling the hearing.
Commissioners debated several substantive points in the draft. Committee member raised concern about paragraph E.3.5’s wording and whether the phrase “other extenuating circumstances” needs to be tightened or require written approval; another committee member suggested cleaning up punctuation and other minor editorial issues before public notice. Commissioners also discussed the difference between internal (within a primary dwelling) and detached ADUs: while utilities for internal ADUs would be tied to the primary residence, detached ADUs may create additional neighborhood or park impacts that could justify impact fees.
Committee members sought clarity on utilities and billing. One commissioner noted the draft requires “one service, one billing point, but the owner will be billed for each separate dwelling on the property on one bill,” and asked staff to confirm how water, sewer, garbage and emergency-service charges should be applied in practice. Commissioners also discussed the draft’s 11,000-square-foot minimum lot size for ADU eligibility and confirmed that variance procedures would be available for near-threshold cases.
Staff (Sheila) said the earliest advertising deadline for a public hearing would be this Thursday under the city’s timeline but that the commission had a three-week window if more review time was needed. The commission concluded it would not set the public hearing until the engineer and public works had the opportunity to weigh in; Chair said that if the technical review returned only minor suggested changes, the commission would proceed, but larger fee or policy changes would require returning to commission discussion.
Next steps: staff will request written input from the engineer and public-works staff, coordinate with Craig and Clayton as appropriate, and circulate their responses to commissioners. The ADU ordinance and any related code cleanups will be considered together at a subsequent meeting and at public hearing once the outstanding fiscal and technical questions are resolved.
