Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Dwelling Units topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Garden City council approves ADU rewrite after state rule limits local size caps
Summary
Garden City approved Ordinance 26‑17 updating accessory dwelling unit (ADU) rules after recent state code changes removed municipalities' authority to limit the size of internal ADUs. Council preserved owner‑occupancy requirements for detached ADUs, tightened parking expectations and banned ADUs as short‑term rentals, while removing redundant local size caps.
Garden City’s town council voted to adopt Ordinance 26‑17 on May 26, revising local rules for accessory dwelling units after a state change curtailed municipal limits on internal ADU size. The ordinance strikes local square‑footage limits on internal ADUs and updates lot‑size and parking language while keeping several local safeguards in place.
During an extended discussion, a council member noted that the “state has removed our ability to limit the size of an internal ADU,” and the council agreed to remove the offending sentence from local code. Council members debated whether the town could still regulate where internal ADUs are allowed by zoning and whether external (detached) ADUs should remain subject to square‑footage limits; staff pointed out the council retains more zoning levers for detached ADUs.
Council members emphasized two policy objectives that remained in the ordinance: requiring owner‑occupancy for properties with external ADUs and preventing ADUs being used for short‑term rentals. One member framed that restriction as preserving ADUs for long‑term housing rather than increasing short‑term rental inventory. The ordinance also adds explicit off‑street parking requirements for ADU occupants and retains setback and other standard development controls; the council discussed enforceability of occupancy limits and neighbor complaint mechanisms as the primary enforcement path.
Councilors also reviewed technical edits: removing redundant text, changing a lot‑size numeric threshold where state code required different wording, and clarifying that internal ADUs are allowed in residential zones but cannot be limited by a local relative‑size cap. After stipulating the edits, a council member moved to approve Ordinance 26‑17; the motion was seconded and passed by voice vote.
The ordinance reflects a tension many municipalities face after state ADU reforms: limited authority to set internal‑ADU size caps while retaining some local control through zoning, parking and occupancy rules. The council concluded by directing staff to finalize the redline revisions and update public materials explaining which ADU types remain subject to local limits.
What happens next: Ordinance 26‑17 was approved on final vote and will be incorporated into the city code; staff will publish the final redline and an explanatory summary for applicants and neighbors.
