Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Oversized Structures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hooper planning staff asks commission to consider raising thresholds for "oversized" accessory buildings
Summary
Planning staff presented data showing most accessory-shop applications cluster well under current limits and asked the commission whether the city should adopt a percentage-based rule or raise the square‑foot threshold before a conditional use permit is required.
Hooper City planning staff asked the Planning Commission on June 12 to consider revising the city code that triggers conditional use permits for oversized accessory structures.
Staff said the city currently requires accessory structures above relatively low absolute square-foot thresholds (for example, around 2,000 square feet in some zones) to obtain a conditional use permit. That approach, staff said, produces frequent permit applications that the commission routinely approves. "We're making anyone over 2,000 come in," the presenter said, and compared Hooper to neighboring cities that use a percentage of the rear yard (commonly 20–25 percent) to cap the size of covered structures.
Staff offered two paths for change: adopt a percentage of rear-yard area (e.g., 25 percent) so allowable accessory building size scales with lot size, or simply raise the flat square-foot thresholds (for example, double them). Staff presented 2023–2024 application data showing a majority of past oversized-building applications would have been exempt if thresholds were doubled.
Commissioners discussed trade-offs. Supporters of a percentage rule said it better reflects lot-by-lot differences in usable rear yard and prevents large houses on small lots from having outsized accessory buildings. Those cautious about a percentage rule warned it could allow very large structures on large parcels unless the ordinance included specific caps or exempted agricultural buildings. Others favored doubling numeric thresholds as a simpler interim step.
Commissioners also raised public-notice implications. One commissioner noted current practice requires notices to go to property owners within 600 feet, so raising thresholds would reduce the number of hearings and associated notice costs but also limit neighbors' chance to comment. Staff said code changes could be drafted to preserve notice for larger proposals while removing routine hearings for the small percentage of cases.
Commissioners asked staff to draft ordinance language for the commission to review, with staff offering to produce model options (percentage-based, doubled thresholds, or hybrid) and to consult with building, fire and legal staff before a formal recommendation to the city council.
No vote or ordinance amendment was taken at the meeting; the item was directed back to staff for drafting.
