Hooper council weighs major changes to accessory-dwelling and oversized-structure rules

Hooper City Council members discussed a planning-commission recommendation to substantially increase the sizes allowed for detached accessory structures and to revise accessory dwelling unit (ADU) rules at their Oct. 2 meeting.

Malcolm Deakins, Hooper city planner, said the planning commission recommended raising the threshold at which accessory structures require a conditional-use permit and increasing the maximum detached accessory-dwelling-unit (DADU) size — including a proposed allowance of up to 2,500 square feet in R-1 zones under the recommendation. "So it's a big change," Deakins said, summarizing the commission's proposal.

The draft changes presented would: increase the allowed accessory-structure size across zones; allow one attached secondary dwelling and one detached secondary dwelling per principal dwelling; allow detached ADUs to extend to the center of the primary residence (rather than being fully behind the primary structure); require additional parking spaces for any ADU where living area exceeds 1,000 square feet; and convert violation fines to daily fines tied to the consolidated fee schedule.

Deakins also noted a proposed split between attached and detached secondary units in the definitions and code text. "Attached is more required. You can't really do a lot," he said, describing how state code treats attached units differently from detached units. Council members pressed on parking enforcement and winter parking impacts, noting that "adequate off-street parking" can be hard to define and to police. One council member suggested specifying two off-street spaces for primary dwellings and adding a second space for larger detached ADUs.

Council discussion addressed enforcement practicality: city staff said permit reviewers would check submissions but that routine policing of parked vehicles on neighborhood streets is complaint-driven. "That's a hard thing to police," a council member said of on-street parking associated with ADUs. Another concern was consistent definitions: staff recommended simplifying the ADU definition and placing detailed rules in the ordinance section so the definition itself remains concise.

Legal counsel and staff indicated they would draft ordinance language to reflect the council's preferences for size limits, parking, and definitions. Deakins said the planning commission's recommended language and red-line ordinance text in the packet show how the changes would operate if adopted. "If you draft it as it is, this is what would occur," he said.

Next steps: staff and the city attorney will prepare an ordinance draft for council review and future action; a prior meeting motion to draft ordinance language was noted by staff as already made, and final ordinance language will return to council for formal reading and vote.

Provisions still to resolve include precise square-foot thresholds, parking-quantity language (specific counts versus "adequate" parking), and enforcement mechanics for winter street use.

Ending: The council did not adopt ordinance text at the Oct. 2 meeting; staff and the attorney will return with a formal draft for council consideration.