Bountiful council delays vote on accessory-structure height increase after hours of debate

The Bountiful City Council debated a proposed text amendment on July 8 that would raise allowable heights for single‑family residential accessory structures — a change aimed at making detached accessory dwelling units (ADUs) easier to design and live in. After more than two hours of public testimony and council discussion, a motion to adopt the ordinance as drafted failed for lack of a second. Councilmembers asked staff to return with a revised ordinance that narrows the change and clarifies how height will be measured.

Council members, planning staff and the applicant said the amendment responds to repeated applications that staff could not approve under the existing limits. Amber Corbridge, a city planner, told the council that the current code limits overall height for accessory structures to 20 feet and sidewall height to 15 feet, which she said has made two‑story ADU designs difficult on flat lots. "We believe that it is the best interest of the city to promote more moderate‑income housing options such as ADUs," Corbridge said. The staff recommendation was to raise the maximum overall height to 25 feet and increase the sidewall allowance by 5 feet, coupled with larger setbacks for the taller option.

The planning commission recommended a larger change: it forwarded the amendment with a 28‑foot maximum instead of staff’s 25 feet. Supporters, including applicant Lisa Hicks, said the higher limit would allow non‑flat (architectural) roofs and full‑height living space above a garage without forcing a flat roof design. "When we made the application for the side wall to go from 15 to 20, it was so that we could put a non‑flat roof on it to make it an architectural home," Hicks said.

Opponents raised concerns about neighborhood character, privacy and shading. Several council members emphasized that detached ADUs can be visually and functionally distinct from internal ADUs and said they worried the draft would permit structures that appear as a second dwelling on a lot. One council member summarized the concern as a risk of losing predictability for surrounding homeowners if taller detached units become common.

Council discussion focused on three technical points: (1) whether to keep a sidewall‑height limit (measured from eave to average grade) or simplify to a single overall height, (2) whether to measure overall height at the midpoint of the roof (the current method) or at the peak, and (3) whether to treat ADUs differently from other accessory structures. Staff said the sidewall rule was originally intended to avoid a large flat box and to preserve form; they also noted the code currently measures the primary dwelling height at the roof midpoint. Planning staff said they could draft a bifurcated approach that would keep existing accessory‑structure rules but create a separate ADU section with a clear peak‑to‑peak measurement and a 25‑foot maximum.

Instead of adopting the ordinance on July 8, council members directed staff to prepare a revised draft for a future meeting. The council asked staff to:

- return with a version that sets a clear maximum overall height for ADUs (council discussion suggested 25 feet as a working maximum), measured consistently and in a way that is easy to administer; - keep or clarify setbacks tied to increased height (staff and commissioners proposed increased setbacks — e.g., an 8‑foot side setback for enhanced heights); and - separate ADU‑specific standards from general accessory‑structure rules so ADU review can include privacy, window placement and administrative committee checks that are already part of the ADU process.

Staff told the council they could draft the bifurcated language and compare measurement conventions used by neighboring cities. The council did not adopt the ordinance on July 8; the motion to adopt failed for lack of a second and the item will return for further drafting and review.

The council also heard one public comment specifically supporting the change from an applicant who said the change would allow a more attractive, livable ADU rather than a flat‑roof “box.”