Citizen Portal
Sign In

Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows

Commissioners weigh raising accessory-structure size limits and loosening roof-pitch rules

Planning and Zoning Commission · March 5, 2026

Loading...

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

The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed draft changes that would allow accessory buildings of 500 sq ft or 3% of lot size (whichever is larger) for lots under 40,000 sq ft, raise by-right allowance to 5% for 40,000+ lots, open SUP eligibility at 20,000 sq ft, and permit two permanent accessory buildings subject to total-square-foot caps. Staff will post the draft for public hearing and city council consideration.

The Planning and Zoning Commission on March 5 reviewed a staff-drafted package of changes to accessory-structure rules that would let more homeowners build larger detached garages and other permanent outbuildings without seeking special permission.

Staff said the proposed framework would allow accessory buildings by right of 500 square feet or 3% of lot area (whichever is larger) for lots under 40,000 square feet, and 5% by right for lots 40,000 square feet or larger. The draft would also open the SUP (special use permit) pathway to lots of 20,000 square feet or more and permit two permanent accessory buildings per lot provided the combined area stays under the adopted maximum.

"Let residents enjoy their land to the utmost possible extent that they can as long as it's not looming over the neighbor's yard," the Chair said while summarizing the commission's leaning toward a balanced approach that expands property-owner flexibility while guarding neighborhood character.

Staff presented the reasoning behind the change, citing local case history and permitting patterns. The presentation noted that many past SUPs involved requests that, on average, exceeded the current 2.5% threshold for larger lots and that using a percentage-based rule scales permitted size with lot area. "This is a proposal that was shared with you… to essentially leave 20,000 square-foot lots the same at 500 square feet maximum floor area and then scale upward for larger lots," the staff member explained.

Commissioners debated the right numeric limits. One commissioner said "5% was really huge on that lot," arguing it could produce overly large buildings on smaller parcels, while others favored a 3–4% middle ground that would reduce the number of SUP applications without dramatically changing silhouettes next door. The commission also discussed whether existing height and roof-pitch controls should remain in place or be loosened; staff noted that building-code provisions and materials affect roof-pitch options.

Participants also pressed staff on measurement rules: whether covered but unenclosed overhangs should count toward the accessory-building area, and how portable buildings and ADUs (accessory dwelling units) intersect with the proposed limits. Staff said portable buildings under 200 square feet are treated differently in the code and that ADUs remain governed by separate standards.

On building form, commissioners discussed keeping a ceiling on overall height and whether roof-pitch standards should be relaxed from the current 4/12 to a lower standard such as 2/12 or a range (for example, 2/12–6/12) so accessory structures better match neighborhood rooflines. Staff cautioned that roofing materials and the international building code influence what is feasible in practice.

After discussion, the commission coalesced around midline options — a 3%/500-square-foot threshold for sub-40,000 lots, 5% for 40,000+ lots, opening SUP eligibility at 20,000 square feet, relaxing roof-pitch toward a lower standard, and allowing two permanent accessory buildings provided total square footage remains within the cap. Staff said it will post the draft ordinance for public hearing and that city council consideration is scheduled for April 13.

The commission did not take a formal recorded vote during the March 5 work session; staff will return the finalized draft for the required public hearing and then forward recommendations to the council. The work session concluded with the item set for public notice and hearing at the commission's next meeting.