Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Adu Oversized Structures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hooper planning commission directs staff to draft ordinance raising size limits for oversized structures and ADUs
Summary
The Hooper City Planning Commission voted July 10 to ask staff to draft amendments increasing allowable square footage for oversized accessory structures and accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and to include parking and permit clarifications.
The Hooper City Planning Commission on July 10 voted to send a draft ordinance to staff that would increase the allowable sizes for certain oversized accessory structures and set parameters for accessory dwelling units (ADUs).
The commission moved that staff prepare a revision increasing maximum accessory-structure sizes in several residential zones and that the draft include rules for detached and internal ADUs, parking requirements and a single detached plus one internal ADU limit per property. Commissioner Prince moved the drafting motion and Commissioner Greener seconded; the motion was approved by voice vote.
Under the revisions discussed at the meeting, the commission described these target limits (as discussed during the July 10 meeting): oversized accessory structures — R-1 up to 5,000 square feet; R-7.5 up to 3,000 square feet; R-2 up to 2,500 square feet. For detached ADUs the commission discussed maximum structure sizes of 2,500 square feet in R-1, 1,500 square feet in R-7.5 and 1,250 square feet in R-2. The commission also directed that an ADU’s floor area be limited to a maximum of 50% of the applicable accessory-structure allowance in each zone.
The commission also directed that only one internal (attached) ADU and one detached ADU be allowed per property, that ADUs continue to be processed through conditional-use permitting, and that each ADU must provide two dedicated parking spaces verified as part of the permit review. Staff was asked to draft clear language about where the parking spaces must be located (for example, not counting spaces directly behind a garage without clear access) and to include the parking requirement in the conditional-use permit review.
Commissioners and staff noted administrative steps they want included in the draft: standardizing the owner-occupancy documentation and filing processes for ADUs, ensuring the notice procedures tied to conditional-use permits (including notification to neighbors within the typical radius used for such permits) are reflected, and creating a single standardized form so applicants sign and file consistent documentation.
The motion did not change existing provisions that require owner occupancy where those rules already apply; commissioners asked staff to confirm which owner-occupancy obligations remain in force and to report back. The commission did not adopt an ordinance at the meeting — it approved a motion directing staff to prepare the draft for future consideration and for eventual submittal to the city council.
Next steps: staff will produce the draft ordinance with the elements the commission listed for the commission’s review and recommendation to city council. The commission determined the draft should return to the commission for review prior to any council submittal.
