Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Adus topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Richmond planners begin rewriting ADU ordinance to expand housing options, clarify enforcement
Summary
At its July 7 meeting the Richmond Planning & Zoning Commission gave initial direction on Ordinance 2026-10, a rewrite of ADU rules intended to expand life‑cycle and affordable housing options while clarifying size, parking and enforcement requirements. Staff will revise the draft for a public hearing.
Get email alerts on the Adus topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Richmond City Planning & Zoning Commission on July 7 opened a formal, item‑by‑item review of Ordinance 2026‑10, an amendment to Part 12‑805‑21 of the Richmond LUDMO code that would define and regulate accessory dwelling units (ADUs).
Commission Member Cache Christensen proposed adding a purpose statement that frames ADUs as a tool for multiple goals. "Accessory Dwelling Units are intended to expand life‑cycle housing opportunities, provide affordable housing options, support aging in place, encourage small‑scale incremental development, increase housing diversity while preserving neighborhood character, and make efficient use of existing public infrastructure," Christensen said. Commissioners described the language as a helpful starting point for the ordinance's intent section.
City Recorder Justin Lewis told the Commission the draft has been submitted to the Cache County Building Inspection Department and that items from that review have been incorporated. Lewis also warned that the City is already seeing instances where properties appear to be offered as duplex rentals while zoned and permitted as single‑family homes, creating an enforcement challenge. He said enforcement would likely focus on cases that cause problems for neighbors.
The Commission discussed three general ADU types—internal/attached units, detached units and remodeled additions—and debated how the code should treat each. Commissioners also flagged several operational details to resolve in the next draft, including parking, utilities, height and footprint limits. Mr. Lewis said staff will revise the ordinance based on the Commission’s direction and bring it back for a public hearing and final consideration at a future meeting.
The meeting recorded no formal vote on the ordinance itself; commissioners instead provided policy direction to staff and requested clearer draft language ahead of public notice and hearing.
