Herriman council reviews draft to allow detached accessory dwelling units, flags parking and utility concerns

Herriman — The Herriman City Council spent the work meeting reviewing a preliminary draft amendment to Title 10 of the city code that would permit detached accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in single-family zones, with staff and council members focusing on lot-size thresholds, parking, utility meters and enforcement.

Michael (presenting staff draft) told the council the proposal has not been presented to the planning commission and is intended as a preliminary document to gather council direction. He said the draft would allow smaller detached ADUs on lots that can meet existing bulk, setback and building-code standards, emphasizing units must be on fixed foundations and operate as complete, standalone dwelling units.

Council members raised several substantive concerns. Speaker 6 and others pointed out an inconsistency in the draft between references to a 5,000-square-foot and a 6,000-square-foot minimum lot size; staff explained the intent was to allow smaller lots (5,000) where all standards — including setbacks and parking — can be satisfied. Speaker 2 and others pressed for stringent off-street parking requirements, saying applications should be denied if additional off-street parking cannot be provided. On utilities, staff said some jurisdictions allow sharing existing services while others require separate meters; the council directed staff to research utility-metering practices and how impact fees have been handled elsewhere.

Speakers also discussed height and conversion standards. Staff recommended a typical 20-foot maximum height for detached ADUs but said a unit could be allowed up to the height of the main dwelling; the council asked for a distinct legalization process for converting existing accessory buildings that predate the ordinance.

The council reiterated that the policy intent must preserve owner-occupancy and not permit short-term rentals for detached ADUs. Staff was directed to tighten language on size caps, addressing and emergency dispatch implications, parking standards (by bedrooms or square footage), and to present a refined draft to the planning commission and schedule public hearings, aiming for a February review cycle.

The council did not take a formal vote on the ordinance at the meeting and requested additional research on impact fees, separate utility meters, and enforcement mechanisms before moving the draft forward.