Clinton council continues public hearing on ADU zoning; leaders seek more technical fixes before final vote

The Clinton City Council on March 11 continued a public hearing on proposed changes to the Clinton City Zoning Ordinance that would set rules for internal, attached and detached accessory dwelling units (ADUs), giving staff directions on setbacks, maximum unit sizes, lot-coverage and parking and scheduling a continued hearing for March 25.

The proposal under review is Ordinance 25-01Z. Council members said they want clearer definitions and framework so the ordinance will be ready for a final vote after additional edits and public input. “We want to hear from the citizens on what their concerns are,” the council’s presiding official said when opening the hearing.

Why it matters: ADU rules determine how homeowners can create small rental or family units on existing lots. Supporters say ADUs add housing options and keep families nearby; opponents and some council members raised concerns about privacy, drainage, animal setbacks, and on‑street parking impacts.

What happened: About a half dozen residents spoke during the public hearing. Laurie Miller, a Clinton homeowner, said she planned to build a detached ADU and called the draft ordinance “great” and compatible with her lot. Kenneth Cleavy, a resident and ADU supporter, urged changes to side setbacks to avoid conflicts with backyard chicken coops and to guard against exploitative rental practices; he recommended increasing a proposed 5-foot side setback to 10 feet to reduce privacy and coop‑location conflicts. “So that is one thing that I'm just kinda concerned about,” Cleavy said of the 5‑foot side setback.

Planning Commissioner David Jones and other speakers asked the council to clarify how unit size would be calculated — whether basements count toward the primary dwelling’s square footage for the ordinance’s 50% ADU-size cap. Jones said basement area should not count toward the living‑area calculation used to set ADU size limits, using the appraisal term “gross living area” to argue for counting only above‑grade space. “Basement is basement,” Jones said.

Council and staff discussion focused on several technical points brought up by speakers and commissioners: - Square‑footage maximums and measurement basis: The draft includes a 50% rule tied to the primary dwelling and a separate maximum (the draft referenced figures such as 1,200 and 1,500 square feet). Staff and commissioners debated whether to define the base as above‑grade living area or total finished area (including basements) and whether to keep or raise the absolute square‑foot cap used for detached ADUs. - Lot coverage and rear‑yard limits: Council members suggested using rear‑yard structure coverage (a percent of the rear‑yard area) rather than counting all hard surfaces, so existing patios or driveways do not unnecessarily block ADU construction. Staff noted the city’s existing rear‑yard hard‑surface maximum (25%) can be limiting and discussed exempting certain hard surfaces when determining structure lot coverage for ADUs. - Setbacks and windows: The council debated the draft’s staggered setbacks — smaller setbacks for single‑story ADUs (5 feet side, 10 feet rear) and larger setbacks for two‑story units (10 feet side, 20 feet rear). Several members opposed a requirement in the draft that windows within certain setback zones be obscured glass; the majority indicated they did not want to force obscured windows on single‑story units and preferred limiting window restrictions to specific two‑story situations. - Parking: Draft language would require no fewer than three off‑street parking stalls for properties with an ADU. Council members discussed practicality, tandem parking, enforcement and thresholds for additional parking when an ADU is large enough to function like a small home. The council favored keeping a minimum of three off‑street spaces while recognizing enforcement and neighborhood parking impacts. - Existing accessory structures and “barndominiums”: The council discussed whether existing detached shops or pole barns could be converted to ADUs and under what conditions; members signaled that retrofits might be permitted if they meet building and safety codes, but new ADUs would have to meet the ordinance’s setback and coverage rules. - Owner‑occupancy and permitting: Staff said the draft requires an owner‑occupancy affidavit and annual registration because state ADU reporting asks cities to track active ADUs. Council members asked staff to re‑check whether an annual administrative re‑registration inspection could be simplified to a checkbox or less frequent reporting to reduce ongoing burden on homeowners.

Planning staff (Peter, planning staff) and City Attorney/managerial staff agreed to draft clarifying edits that would: (a) specify how square footage is calculated (above‑grade vs. total), (b) spell out whether rear‑yard structure coverage excludes driveways and patios, (c) adjust the window/obscure‑glass language to reduce constraints on single‑story ADUs, and (d) clarify parking and permitting language (including the owner‑occupancy affidavit). Staff also said they would research how other Utah cities handle rear‑yard coverage and ADU design requirements.

Outcome and next steps: Council member Marie Doherty moved to continue the public hearing on Ordinance 25-01Z to March 25; the motion passed by roll call. The council asked staff to return a revised draft that incorporates the technical clarifications discussed and to publish it for additional public input before final action.

Community context: Several speakers emphasized ADUs as a means for family caregiving, lower‑cost housing for younger relatives, and incremental housing supply. Opponents or cautious speakers raised concerns about neighborhood character, privacy, and the effects on residents who keep backyard animals.

What’s next: The council will reconvene the public hearing on Ordinance 25-01Z on March 25 and may vote on the ordinance then after staff returns a revised draft.

Speakers quoted in this article are drawn from the public hearing and subsequent council discussion and were present in the March 11 meeting record.