The purpose of this item is to provide a follow-up to the City Council work session held on May 26, 2026, regarding the City's current accessory structure standards and the definition of building height. During the work session, staff presented the City's existing regulations, identified areas where the current ordinance may create ambiguity or unintended limitations, and requested Council feedback regarding potential amendments. Council's discussion focused primarily on how building height should be measured, the appropriate scale and location of accessory structures, the relationship between accessory structures and principal buildings, and whether additional flexibility should be provided based on lot size and surrounding context. Current Standards The City's accessory structure regulations are contained within Section 90-4.02.01, Accessory Structures, of Chapter 90, Zoning. The regulations establish standards for residential and nonresidential accessory structures, including requirements related to height, size, setbacks, number, materials, lot coverage, and location. For residential properties, the current ordinance allows an accessory structure to be no more than two stories or 28 feet in height and no taller than the principal building, whichever is lower. The ordinance also limits an individual accessory structure to 50% of the floor area of the principal building and establishes a cumulative 60% limitation when multiple accessory structures are located on the property. The current regulations also utilize height-based setbacks. Residential accessory structures 15 feet or less in height are subject to a five-foot rear setback, while structures exceeding 15 feet are subject to a ten-foot rear setback. Interior side-yard requirements similarly increase when an accessory structure exceeds 15 feet in height. The City's current Building Height definition establishes the starting point for measurement as the average of the highest and lowest points of grade within the portion of the lot covered by the building but defines the endpoint only as the "highest point of a structure." This language does not specifically identify whether the measurement should terminate at the roof ridge/peak or include features such as chimneys, cupolas, antennas, satellite dishes, or similar appurtenances. This ambiguity was the primary issue presented to Council during the May 26 work session. Council Direction Based on the discussion, staff believes Council's feedback can be organized into the following categories. 1. Clarify Building Height Measurement The clearest direction provided by Council was to clarify that building height should be measured to the roofline/roof peak, rather than to an incidental feature located above the roof. It was suggested that the measurement should be from the ground to the roofline and that the same methodology should apply to both accessory and

Bastiat Liberty & Property Rights Analysis

This motion is scored as RESTRAINS_GOVERNMENT (Impact Weight: 2.9/10). Under the Bastiat Liberty Watchdog Index, voting YES on measures that cap or reduce ad valorem tax burdens, expand taxpayer exemptions, retire debt early, enforce competitive bidding caps, or remove regulatory/zoning barriers to private property rights earns a positive Pro-Liberty score.