Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hooper planning staff advance draft changes to accessory dwelling and oversized-structure rules; parking and impervious-surface caps debated
Summary
Planning staff presented proposed ordinance changes to accessory dwelling units and accessory structures that would allow one attached and one detached secondary unit per principal dwelling and tie maximum detached-unit size to accessory-building limits.
Planning staff presented a package of proposed ordinance edits to Hooper’s accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and accessory-structure regulations, focusing on allowable sizes, parking, impervious-surface limits and how oversized accessory buildings interact with ADUs.
Malcolm, the planning staff lead, told the commission the draft would allow each principal dwelling to qualify for one secondary attached unit and one secondary detached unit, with a proposed minimum living area of 400 square feet. The draft ties the maximum detached secondary unit size to a percentage of allowed accessory building area — staff proposed 50% as a starting point, or up to the accessory-building cap if a conditional use permit is granted.
The commission discussed how those percentages would affect existing ADU practice in different residential zones. Staff noted the current maximum ADU size in some areas is 960 square feet and that a strict 50% cap on accessory buildings could reduce achievable ADU sizes in R-3 and other zones. Commissioners suggested alternative approaches, including a zone-specific percentage (for example, 75% in R-3 to permit a 900-square-foot ADU) or setting a higher absolute cap in certain zones so ADUs remain feasible.
Parking emerged as a key issue. Staff said the city currently requires one off-street parking space per dwelling and that commissioners had discussed increasing that to two spaces per unit for ADUs, while allowing staff discretion where site plans demonstrate reasonable arrangements.
Commissioners also discussed impervious-surface and rear-yard caps to avoid large contiguous paved areas in rear yards. Staff referenced common practices in other cities — for example, a 65% total impervious cap with a lower rear-yard sublimit — as a way to balance larger accessory structures with stormwater and neighborhood character concerns.
Flag lots and the city’s moderate-income housing plan were discussed as related items. Staff suggested pairing the ADU ordinance work with flag-lot standards and incorporating ADU allowances into the city’s state-mandated moderate-income housing strategies so the city can report implementation progress.
Commissioners asked staff to circulate the draft ordinance and the city council’s working version so commissioners can provide feedback before the council’s meeting; staff said they will email the ordinance and supporting data to commissioners and to city council staff for review.
No formal ordinance vote was taken; commissioners directed staff to refine the draft, clarify parking and impervious-surface language, and return with a version that addresses R-3 ADU size concerns and the fee and public-hearing implications for oversized-structure requests.
