Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Adus topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hooper City Council reviews proposed size increases for oversized accessory structures and ADUs
Summary
City staff presented Planning Commission recommendations to raise size thresholds for accessory structures and to allow larger accessory dwelling unit (ADU) living areas, while councilmembers discussed parking, impervious-surface limits, owner-occupancy verification and conditional-use safeguards.
Hooper City Council members on Tuesday reviewed Planning Commission recommendations to increase permitted sizes for accessory (oversized) structures and to change how accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are measured and monitored.
City planning staff presented draft changes that would raise maximum accessory-structure sizes in several residential zones and allow ADU living area to increase from a fixed cap to up to 50% of the associated accessory-structure allowance.
Malcolm, a city staff member, said the Planning Commission recommended raising the size caps to simplify administration and reduce the number of conditional-use permit applications. "These are the averages of sizes we're seeing for the 2 different zones for oversized structures: 3,600 in an R1 and 2,000 in an R2," Malcolm said, then described proposed new maximums: 5,000 square feet in R1, 3,000 in R2, and 2,500 in R3 (as summarized by staff).
Why it matters: Councilmembers said the changes could speed approvals and improve the city's ability to map and count ADUs, a stated strategy for increasing the available housing stock. At the same time, several councilmembers and staff raised concerns about parking, stormwater impacts and the need to preserve staff review for structures that raise safety or easement issues.
Key points and council concerns
- ADU living area and mapping: Staff said the Planning Commission proposed allowing an ADU’s living area to be calculated as up to 50% of the allowed accessory-structure size instead of the current fixed cap (previously 960 square feet). Staff argued that increasing the allowable living area would likely incentivize more ADU applications and improve the city's ability to track those units for housing policy purposes.
- Proposed size caps: As summarized by staff, the Planning Commission's recommendations would change accessory-structure maximums roughly to R1 = 5,000 sq ft, R2 = 3,000 sq ft, and R3 = 2,500 sq ft. Staff said larger projects with living space (ADUs) would still require conditional-use review; only purely storage or nonhabitable accessory structures under the new cap would avoid conditional-use review.
- Parking: Councilmembers repeatedly emphasized off-street parking. One councilmember said any change that increases ADU living area should be accompanied by parking requirements sufficient for the additional dwelling unit and for emergency access. Staff noted the city’s existing parking standards (for example, duplexes currently reference a two-car garage requirement) and suggested drafting thresholds keyed to ADU square footage (for example, one parking space for ADUs up to a given size, two for larger units).
- Impervious surface and stormwater: Staff said the city’s current impervious-surface limit is 65%, and the proposed amendments would not change that standard. Councilmembers noted that any larger structures would still have to comply with the impervious-surface limit and other site standards.
- Permanency and unit type: Councilmembers asked that the ordinance specifically require ADUs and accessory structures to be permanent, fixed structures (for example, foundations); mobile or trailer-style units should be excluded. Staff said they would confirm wording and coordinate with building-code staff on foundation definitions.
- Owner-occupancy, proof of occupancy and enforcement: The draft continues to reference owner-occupancy and a requirement that proof of occupancy be provided, but staff said the city has no current form or administrative process to collect that proof. Staff proposed options such as requiring an initial business-license filing or an annual certification (for example, a yearly January snapshot) and noted the city’s limited enforcement tools (misdemeanor fines under existing code are available but have not been robustly applied). Councilmembers asked staff to propose an implementable tracking approach and a fee/fine schedule tied to comparable city fines.
- Grandfathered spaces and basements: Staff and councilmembers discussed existing basement units and grandfathered conditions. Staff said older basement units may be effectively grandfathered if built before current code changes but that conversion or significant alteration would trigger building-code requirements (egress, window size). Staff cautioned that converting such units could change their tax classification (some jurisdictions classify converted units as duplexes).
Next steps
Staff said they will draft ordinance language consistent with the commission’s recommendations and the council’s feedback — including clearer language on conditional-use thresholds, parking requirements tied to ADU size, foundation/permanency definitions, proof-of-occupancy procedures, and a proposed fee schedule — and return the item for a future council meeting with an ordinance ready for formal consideration.
No formal vote or final action was taken at the work session. The council agreed to place the drafted ordinance on a future agenda for formal action after staff completes the drafting work and confirms code cross-references.
