Royce City Planning Commission advances draft rules for detached ADUs, sets public hearing

Royce City Planning Commission staff continued discussion July 28 on draft zoning changes to allow detached accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on parcels 11,000 square feet and larger and said the item will be scheduled for a public hearing.

A staff member presenting the draft listed the core provisions: only one detached ADU per lot; the property’s primary residence must be occupied by the owner of record; the ADU must be rented for "90 consecutive days or longer"; a rental/dwelling license would be required; and a notice would be recorded at the county to show the unit is a legal ADU. The staff member also tied the draft to SB 284, saying the proposed code is intended to comply with state requirements. "Must be rented for 90 consecutive days or longer," the staff member said, summarizing the rental restriction meant to prevent short-term rentals.

The presenter also described design and placement rules: an ADU should be similar in appearance to the primary dwelling but need not match materials exactly; detached ADUs could sit as close as 3 feet to a property line in some cases (consistent with many existing accessory structures); and ADUs may not be located within the front-yard setback. For parking, the draft kept a threshold consistent with other code language: ADUs under 649 square feet require one parking stall; units 650 square feet or larger may require two stalls.

The staff member noted conversions of legally constructed accessory buildings would be allowed, subject to building-code upgrades. He said the city could deny an ADU application if the area lacks sufficient sanitary sewer or culinary water capacity until infrastructure is upsized. The presenter also said legal counsel (named in the meeting as Colton and Matt Wilson) reviewed the language for consistency with state law and city code.

Commissioners asked for clarifications on phrasing and grammar in the draft language to ensure the owner-occupancy and rental provisions read as intended; one commissioner said the wording "tripped me up twice while reading through" and asked staff to review the text. Staff responded that they would double-check wording before the public hearing. The commission did not vote on the ordinance at this meeting and directed staff to place the item on the next agenda for a public hearing.

The commission’s next scheduled work meeting was set for Sept. 8; the commission will take public comment and consider formal action at the public hearing once posted.