Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Powell council holds first reading on three ordinances defining accessory dwelling units

5719382 · August 4, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Powell City Council opened and closed a public hearing and approved three ordinances on first reading to add definitions and standards for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in Title 17 of the City Code.

Powell City Council opened a public hearing and advanced three ordinances on first reading to add definitions and requirements for accessory dwelling units, commonly called ADUs, to Title 17 of the Powell City Code.

The measures — Ordinance No. 14, 2025 (adding new Chapter 104), Ordinance No. 15, 2025 (amending Title 17, Chapter 4, Section 10 to add a definition), and Ordinance No. 16, 2025 (adding Chapter 104, Section 020 with ADU requirements) — were introduced together and called for public comment; no members of the public spoke during the three calls for comment. The council then voted to approve the ordinances on first reading.

Council and staff described the ordinances as intended to clarify whether accessory living spaces are counted as duplexes or separate dwellings, and to give staff specific standards to enforce. Planning staff said the change responds to repeated inquiries over the past decade about “mother-in-law suites” and other accessory units.

Staff described key numeric limits included in the draft ordinances: a minimum lot size threshold (discussed as 6,000 square feet in RG zoning), a maximum ADU size of 800 square feet, and a relative-size limit of roughly 75% of the existing primary dwelling. The draft also limits ADU height so an accessory structure cannot be taller than the main house and retains conventional setbacks and lot-ratio provisions.

Council members and staff said the clearer definitions will make enforcement more straightforward because previously the city lacked specific definitions and had to address instances case-by-case. Staff noted Planning and Zoning had reviewed the proposals and there was little public comment during the PNZ process; councilmembers said additional input could follow once staff posts more information.

The ordinances were advanced on first reading; council members voted to approve the first reading of Ordinance Nos. 14, 15 and 16, 2025. The items will return for subsequent readings and final adoption, as required by council procedure.