City Council Packet October 20, 2025

Home Browse Search

The applicant is proposing a total of 2,648 sq ft. of accessory structures exceeding the maximum allowed by 148 sf, as well as proposing 1,600 sf of ADU exceeding the maximum allowed by 600 sf. They are requesting the variances to build a dual-purpose building on their property as they are planning for a father-in-law who retired last year and a disabled sister-in-law to move in with them and provide comfortable accommodations for them. Board of Adjustments The Board of Adjustment reviewed the variance request during their August 26, 2025, regular meeting, where they denied the request. City code states that decisions by the Board to deny a variance shall not be final and must be reviewed by the City Council in the same manner as an appeal of a decision by the board. The Board cited the following findings: The request exceeds the maximum ADU size by 600 sf and accessory structure area by 148 sf. The property can be reasonably used without exceeding ordinance limits. The applicant’s situation is not unique but is based on garage design and economic preference. Approval would conflict with the intent of the ordinance and weaken consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The variance, if granted, could alter the essential character of the locality. Staff also clarified questions from the Board and neighbors pertaining to who is allowed to have an ADU, can the ADU be detached, and who can live in them. September 15, 2025, City Council Meeting During the council meeting, the city attorney explained that the disability portion of the request was not expressed at the Board of Adjustments, but it was expressed tonight (9-15-2025), and therefore suggested the Council continue this item to get more information regarding the variance as it pertains to the disability criteria. Since the Council discussion on September 15, the city attorney has reviewed the application in greater detail and the additional information related to the ADA request. The attached "V 25-13 Update Letter", sent to the applicant on September 26, 2025, explains the city attorney's recommendation. Findings The request exceeds the maximum ADU size by 600 sf and accessory structure area by 148 sf. The property can be reasonably used without exceeding ordinance limits. The applicant’s situation is not unique but is based on garage design and economic preference. Approval would conflict with the intent of the ordinance and weaken consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The variance, if granted, could alter the essential character of the locality. Additionally, the city attorney recommends that the city create an avenue for an applicant to present evidence for a reasonable accommodation request. City staff requests direction from the City Council to work with the city attorney in creating this process. Financial Impact None