Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Oversized Accessory Structures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission considers changing rules for oversized accessory structures; staff offers data and options
Summary
Planning staff presented data on recent oversized accessory structure applications and proposed two policy approaches — a percentage limit on rear‑yard coverage (commonly 25% in neighboring cities) or raising the square‑foot threshold (doubling current limits) — for the planning commission to consider drafting an ordinance amendment.
Hooper City planning staff returned to a recurring topic: whether to change the city’s standards for oversized accessory structures (large backyard shops/garages). Staff presented 2023–2024 application sizes and offered two policy approaches for consideration: adopt a rear‑yard percentage limit (for example, 25% of the rear yard, as other nearby cities use) or raise the square‑foot threshold that triggers a conditional‑use permit (for example, doubling the current thresholds).
Malcolm, a city planning staff member, summarized application data showing most oversized structures in recent years fell under roughly 3,000–4,000 square feet, with a single large outlier. Staff explained that neighboring cities use a rear‑yard percentage (commonly 25%) so the allowed accessory area scales with lot size; other cities set a flat square‑foot threshold. Staff offered doubling the existing square‑foot thresholds as an administratively simple step that would reduce the number of small applications coming before the commission while retaining the conditional‑use review for very large proposals.
Commissioners discussed tradeoffs. Some supported a percentage‑based rule to ensure accessory coverage scales with lot depth and avoids allowing very large structures on small lots; others expressed concern that moving to a 25% rule would surprise neighbors who are used to the current public‑notice and hearing process. Commissioners also noted related constraints such as the city’s 65% impervious‑surface maximum and the existing 25‑foot height cap for accessory buildings.
Staff and commissioners said denial of oversized structure applications is rare; staff reported that the commission has not historically denied these applications and that adjustments have tended to be handled by minor plan changes (for example, reducing a building’s height by one foot). Several commissioners favored a stepwise approach: draft an amendment (for example, doubling current square‑foot thresholds) and monitor the results before moving to a percentage‑based code.
No ordinance change was adopted at the meeting. Staff proposed drafting sample code language and bringing a proposal back to the commission, and commissioners asked staff to compile examples from neighboring jurisdictions for a future recommendation to the city council.
