Live stream not working in Chrome or Edge? Click Here
No Bookmarks Exist.
Transcript | ||
---|---|---|
All right, Well, good evening. Welcome to the Holiday City Planning Commission on February 20th, 2024. Tonight in attendance we | 00:00:01 | |
have all commissioners except for Commissioner Prince, who gave regrets. She was only going to be able to join via Skype and we do | 00:00:07 | |
not have that set up to do so for her. | 00:00:14 | |
So she'll just have to yell at us later if we didn't get everything she wanted. | 00:00:20 | |
Hashed out. We also have our legal counsel and city staff Kerry Marsh with us. | 00:00:24 | |
And with that we have one item on the agenda, which is a continued public hearing item for the text amendment regarding accessory | 00:00:31 | |
dwelling units. But before we jump into all the fun and games with that, I have asked Commissioner Gong if she will read our | 00:00:37 | |
opening statement for any members of the public. | 00:00:43 | |
The City of Holiday Planning Commission is a volunteer citizen board whose function is to review land use plans and other special | 00:00:54 | |
studies, make recommendations to the City Council on proposed zoning map and ordinance changes, and approve conditional uses and | 00:01:01 | |
subdivisions. The Planning Commission does not initiate land use applications, rather acts on applications as they're submitted. | 00:01:07 | |
Commissioners do not meet with applicants except at publicly noticed meetings. | 00:01:14 | |
Commissioners attempt to visit each property on the agenda where the location. | 00:01:22 | |
The nature of the neighborhood, existing structures and uses related to the proposed change are noted. | 00:01:26 | |
Decisions are based on observations, recommendations from the professional planning staff. | 00:01:32 | |
The cities in our city's general plan, zoning ordinance and other reports. | 00:01:36 | |
By all verbal and written comments and by evidence submitted, all of which are part of the public record. | 00:01:41 | |
Thank you very much, Commissioner. | 00:01:46 | |
All right. And with that. | 00:01:49 | |
Carrie, if you will, just give us a brief overview and maybe a shout out since our last meeting. | 00:01:52 | |
The highlighted changes in the text amendment that we should be aware of, which by my recollection should have addressed three of | 00:01:59 | |
those things I sent out in the e-mail that we hopefully have figured out now. | 00:02:04 | |
Yes. So updated staff report kind of overviewed some of those changes that we discussed last time. And specifically we went over | 00:02:10 | |
ownership requirements. The Planning Commission wanted to see specific definitions for immediate family. So that's included in the | 00:02:16 | |
new language. | 00:02:22 | |
The language currently has a 10,000 square foot lot size and minimum. | 00:02:30 | |
There is an addition on there for corner lots and lots that have double frontage as they have two St. accesses. | 00:02:37 | |
Some of those details may need to be ironed out a little more with setbacks, because corner lots are a little bit more unique on | 00:02:46 | |
setbacks. | 00:02:50 | |
Other changes that were made. | 00:02:55 | |
Let's see. | 00:02:59 | |
Going through my list here. | 00:03:02 | |
Because we haven't gone into the conversion of existing accessory buildings. That's our later discussion. | 00:03:06 | |
Corner lots, double frontage, 10,000. Oh, and then the height is the other thing that we're looking at. The new proposed language | 00:03:13 | |
has graduated height set at six feet high for on the property line and then 45° over. For primary structures this is 8 feet and | 00:03:20 | |
then 45 over, so that does. | 00:03:27 | |
Create a lower profile for. | 00:03:36 | |
For external ad use, we did set the set back to a 10 foot minimum and then required to be larger according to the chart that's in | 00:03:40 | |
our current code for larger properties. | 00:03:46 | |
I believe that there is all of the changes that are on there. You can see the changes in the draft text. It's in the blue | 00:03:54 | |
underlines. | 00:03:59 | |
And the red is crossed out. Forward changes. | 00:04:05 | |
I think there are some changes in the red as well. Oh. | 00:04:11 | |
Oh, we added the dwelling unit occupancy as well into the code. So that's consistent through our code is occupancy is any number | 00:04:16 | |
of persons related by blood, marriage, adoption. So that just addresses the occupancy of units itself. | 00:04:22 | |
But ownership of the. | 00:04:30 | |
Is addressed in #4. | 00:04:33 | |
Lines 20 through 27 in the text. | 00:04:37 | |
Height All of the height was pulled from our existing code on accessory buildings. | 00:04:43 | |
With the graduated height envelope, specifically the change to. | 00:04:50 | |
6 feet is on line 81. | 00:04:56 | |
And then your minimum setbacks are on line 43 or 73 and 74. | 00:05:00 | |
I think that's everything. Are there any questions that the commissioners have for me before? | 00:05:07 | |
Well, I was, since we're working through this kind of a checklist specific type of order, unless any commissioners have any | 00:05:13 | |
objection, I figured maybe we'd start with any public comments so they don't have to sit through the next hour of discussion | 00:05:20 | |
waiting to to offer what they might have from the public. And then maybe we can move into ironing out some of those details later. | 00:05:27 | |
Does anyone have any concerns with doing that format tonight? | 00:05:34 | |
OK. So we'll have you sit down. Thank you very much. And with that, this is a continued public hearing. So we will invite any | 00:05:42 | |
members of the public that wish to come up and give feedback or input on this text amendment. We would ask that you keep that to 3 | 00:05:48 | |
minutes or less. And when you come to the podium, please state your name and address for the record. And with that, if anyone | 00:05:54 | |
would like to come up and make comment, we'll start those now. | 00:06:00 | |
All right. | 00:06:10 | |
Ron Hilton, 2394 Murray Holiday Rd. | 00:06:15 | |
I already sent an e-mail, so hopefully you saw that it was a fairly technical point. | 00:06:21 | |
Regarding. | 00:06:29 | |
The zones in which Adus should be allowed according to the state law. | 00:06:31 | |
I don't need to go into that if you if you saw that. | 00:06:41 | |
I don't think we've seen it. Was this sent at a prior time or did you send this today? I sent it a couple days ago. Was it on | 00:06:45 | |
Friday? | 00:06:49 | |
Actually, I think I sent it Sunday. On Sunday, yeah, so it didn't get added in with the holiday, but if you. | 00:06:54 | |
Want to just address your points on that? Sure, it's very brief. | 00:07:02 | |
OK. | 00:07:25 | |
So the. | 00:07:27 | |
The ordinance, as I implied, isn't entirely compliant with the state law. So reading the state law here, this is. | 00:07:29 | |
Section 10, nine A 5:30. | 00:07:37 | |
Internal accessory dwelling units in any area zoned primarily for residential use. | 00:07:40 | |
Hey, the use of an internal accessory dwelling unit is a permitted use. | 00:07:47 | |
B. Except as provided in subsections 3 and 4, skipping down to subsection 4. | 00:07:53 | |
A municipality may require that an internal accessory dwelling unit be designed in a manner that does not change the appearance of | 00:07:59 | |
the primary dwelling as a single family dwelling. | 00:08:04 | |
And then skipping down to. | 00:08:10 | |
The municipality may prohibit the creation of an internal accessory dwelling unit if the lot containing the primary dwelling unit | 00:08:12 | |
is 6000 square feet or less in size. | 00:08:18 | |
And so the point I want to get from that. | 00:08:24 | |
There is no requirement that the dwelling unit be in a single family zone. | 00:08:29 | |
It's only required that it be part of a single family detached. | 00:08:34 | |
Primary dwelling unit. | 00:08:39 | |
And that the lot be at least 6000 square feet, so the multifamily zones. | 00:08:41 | |
In holiday do allow for single family homes. | 00:08:47 | |
R28R210 RM all have a section that says you could have a single family home. | 00:08:51 | |
And so as long as the lot is at least 6000 square. | 00:08:59 | |
Then you know the according to the state law that should you know an Adu should be allowed an internal Adu. And so the change I | 00:09:03 | |
suggest is just less than one sentence. It's just in the very first paragraph of the. | 00:09:11 | |
Of the statute that we're reviewing tonight where it says. | 00:09:19 | |
Existing or new construction of accessory dwelling units are permitted in all single family residential zones R1 Fr one Fr 2.5 Fr | 00:09:24 | |
20 and then the part I would add is and single family dwellings in multifamily residential zones R2 RM on lots at least 6000 | 00:09:31 | |
square feet in size. | 00:09:38 | |
That's the only thing I would add, but that would bring it into full conformity with the state law. | 00:09:45 | |
So that was really my only comment. | 00:09:50 | |
Thank you. Thank you, Ron. Appreciate that. And before we take another public comment on that, I'll just ask real quick. | 00:09:53 | |
Carrie, is that something that? | 00:10:03 | |
You have any insight on? | 00:10:05 | |
As far as requirement. | 00:10:07 | |
Council I do 13.04040 holiday city code. | 00:10:09 | |
Carrie, can you pull that up? | 00:10:16 | |
13.04 dot 04. | 00:10:26 | |
Detach straight within or detach. | 00:11:00 | |
So the section that Mister Hilton was referring to is internal ad use, which are allowed in every. | 00:11:04 | |
Zone by state code. | 00:11:11 | |
This is more this particular section is focusing on accessory dwelling units which are exterior to the home, not attached. | 00:11:14 | |
And not a part of the main res. | 00:11:23 | |
Primary residence. | 00:11:26 | |
So at least that's the intent. | 00:11:28 | |
Yeah. So I think what Mr. Hilton is saying is on. | 00:11:31 | |
Within our existing code for accessory dwelling units. | 00:11:36 | |
Just cleaning up the language while we are in there to. | 00:11:39 | |
Clarify that it's any single family dwelling. | 00:11:44 | |
Within any residential zone. | 00:11:48 | |
Instead of limiting to the. | 00:11:50 | |
Those specific Z. | 00:11:52 | |
But in the multi family, are we saying that, is that the intent? Do we really want in a multi family but if it's a single family | 00:11:55 | |
home to allow for an accessory dwelling unit? | 00:11:59 | |
If it's a signal I'm asking, I'm not telling. | 00:12:04 | |
But it'd be internal, not external in that language. Internal. Well, you can do internal, right? I mean that's that's kind of a | 00:12:08 | |
given. Yeah. Our code just says spelled out specifically R1, Fr one, Fr, 2.5 and FR20. So if we just clarify, take out those | 00:12:15 | |
zones, it's just a single family dwelling in a residential zone. | 00:12:22 | |
And then that would correct with the. | 00:12:30 | |
Yeah, so then that clears up the doesn't create a conflict. I don't see that that creates a conflict. | 00:12:33 | |
I can note that change good technical call out from the public. Thank you. And with that we'll we'll resume from any other members | 00:12:40 | |
of the public that wish make a comment tonight. | 00:12:44 | |
Well, I'm David Seaman. I'm talking about property, 4996 Mormont Circle. | 00:12:51 | |
I've got some paper for each of you. Can I hand that? | 00:12:56 | |
You. | 00:13:02 | |
Paper to hand out about your property site plan? Yeah. A plot map of what I've proposed to do. I'm this is my wife, Mindy. We we | 00:13:03 | |
hang on just a minute. You're not on the agenda. | 00:13:07 | |
So are you. We, In order for you to present before the Planning Commission, we have to. You know, state code requires you be a | 00:13:12 | |
part of the agenda. Oh, and you're not. So if this is the only thing we're accepting coming on right now, is the public hearing | 00:13:17 | |
related to that accessory dwelling unit, public amendments? | 00:13:22 | |
That's what I'm here to talk about. | 00:13:28 | |
Is an accessory growing. I've talked to her several times and. | 00:13:30 | |
So you're talking about the specific text of the. | 00:13:33 | |
Code here or or a site plan the size of the lot. | 00:13:36 | |
If it's a waste of time to have the paper, I won't, but I, my wife and I, I don't. I don't illegal anything, but we saved up a | 00:13:40 | |
long time and bought 2 properties in the last three to four years in holiday. | 00:13:45 | |
With the intent of putting Adus on them. And during my due diligence period, I came in and talked to the planners and they said, | 00:13:50 | |
yeah, that seems sort of reasonable. And apparently in the last four years that's changed. | 00:13:54 | |
And now we have these properties that I came in to apply and for an Adu on this has a. | 00:13:59 | |
It's called the Double St. Front potentially, and it's a perfectly everything meets code, everything meets the height | 00:14:06 | |
restrictions. The what? Everything else except for the lot requirement of I think it's one now, one acre now. | 00:14:12 | |
Hope to have 8000 square foot lots to be the qualifier or 10,000 square foot quarter acre, whatever that is 10,000. Well quarter | 00:14:49 | |
would technically 11, but yeah, 10,000 would work, yeah, yeah. | 00:14:56 | |
So it already is 10,000 now, right? | 00:15:04 | |
Currently. | 00:15:06 | |
For me to have an external Adu you have to have 1/2 acre. | 00:15:09 | |
So our proposed, yes, our proposed changes brings that down to 10,000. | 00:15:16 | |
Understand. Sorry, what was your name again? David Seaman. David Seaman. Understand we've been working on this now for a little | 00:15:22 | |
over two months, so no worries. There's a little blur in there on some of these things. But yeah, if you wanna just give us a | 00:15:27 | |
quick rundown on your property and how the thoughts you have on the text amendment, we'll be happy to hear those. So hand them out | 00:15:32 | |
or not. | 00:15:38 | |
What's up and about or not anybody Needle. Copy. Sure. I'm a little reluctant to talk about a specific property when we're talking | 00:15:43 | |
about an ordinance. | 00:15:49 | |
I think, I think he has a point to make about the size going down, which is what we're proposing and he. | 00:15:55 | |
Might even support that. I very much support that. I just don't want to get into the weeds about a specific property. | 00:16:02 | |
Especially if it's something you might bring back to us in the future, then we don't have any. | 00:16:10 | |
Somehow we've approved something very much until there's an ordinance. No, she don't have the standard that I e-mail something or | 00:16:15 | |
and I've been super busy the last five weeks with a funeral and a bunch of other stuff going on. So yeah, she said just show up | 00:16:19 | |
and just talk and so I that's, yeah, I I think. | 00:16:23 | |
I would prefer that we not talk about the mixing. Just OK, that makes sense when you put it that way. | 00:16:28 | |
You might just want to stick around. | 00:16:33 | |
Or if there's that being said, you're welcome to go ahead and just make comment on the text amendment. Let's just do let's go with | 00:16:37 | |
that and then if anybody needs supplement, we'll go from there. I just very much support being able to lower the acreage to be | 00:16:42 | |
able to do these projects. | 00:16:46 | |
We own several properties and we buy and sell and I'm a general contractor. This is a part of our retirement is these income | 00:16:52 | |
properties and. | 00:16:55 | |
I love this town. We live in this town up on Wallace Lane and. | 00:16:59 | |
I support being able to utilize this valuable property to have a couple more people live in town and pay taxes. | 00:17:03 | |
OK. All right. Any questions for David from anyone, can I? Yeah and that so you own two properties, do you live on one of them, | 00:17:11 | |
you own three properties on holiday, we live on Wallace Lane. | 00:17:16 | |
But if I build this Adu, I would market it as a potential this thing is going to pay half your mortgage. | 00:17:23 | |
Here's the code. | 00:17:29 | |
This doesn't need to be my primary residence to make this a **** *** property. | 00:17:31 | |
I can market the thing as here's your two car garage, here's this, this is the pathway, here's the fence. | 00:17:35 | |
This could be for your mother-in-law. This could be for your daughter that just got pregnant. This could be for your, you know, | 00:17:40 | |
your widowed whoever, right? But. | 00:17:44 | |
I see that as a valuable huge asset when marketing a property to flip. So just to clarify, your interest in this would be from. | 00:17:49 | |
Financial incentive for yourself to go in and find these older properties and build an additional external Adu and then market it | 00:18:00 | |
as hey, you can get two houses for just a little bit more than the price of one type of scenario or internal. I've built a not | 00:18:07 | |
100. I've built many, many walkout basements. Cut out the window, cut the concrete rear egress, lock outdoor at the bottom of the | 00:18:13 | |
stairs like like that's. People see value in that when you can rent the basement for $1800 and pay half your mortgage. So yeah. | 00:18:20 | |
OK, Yep. | 00:18:28 | |
All right. Well, thank you very much. We appreciate it. Yeah. | 00:18:30 | |
All right. And is there any other public comment at this time? | 00:18:35 | |
OK. With that we will. | 00:18:40 | |
Close the public comments and now we will move into the finer points of let me make sure I got my 4 bullets on here that I'm not | 00:18:42 | |
mistaken on where we've covered. We need to pin down lot size, that's one of them. Currently it's proposed at 10. Ki assume | 00:18:49 | |
there's going to be a little bit of discussion around that And then we also need to talk about the smaller setbacks or | 00:18:55 | |
requirements for corner lots, what to do with the non conforming. | 00:19:02 | |
Existing structures and how this will apply to those and then. | 00:19:10 | |
I think there was just a little bit of clarity that we wanted to or I wanted to touchback on to with the minimum setbacks, but 10 | 00:19:14 | |
foot sounds kind of like it was in line with what we're talking about last time. | 00:19:19 | |
So with that, let's. | 00:19:25 | |
Height. | 00:19:29 | |
Thank you. | 00:19:30 | |
Thank you. Thank you. | 00:19:35 | |
So with that, to kind of start into this discussion. | 00:19:37 | |
There were just a couple points of the text that I wanted to call out. | 00:19:41 | |
One of them was on lines 56 and 57, which specifically says be designed in a manner that is compatible with the neighborhood | 00:19:46 | |
residential vernacular. My concern around that is it's highly subjective and I could make an argument that every EADU should be | 00:19:52 | |
denied because it doesn't match what I think it should match in my neighborhood. So I wasn't sure if that was something other | 00:19:58 | |
people recognized or had concern on with Commissioner Gong. Yeah I that was one of my comments that I wrote last week is we've | 00:20:05 | |
this has come up in other. | 00:20:11 | |
You know applications? Does this match? | 00:20:18 | |
Whatever flavor the. | 00:20:21 | |
Neighborhood has, and I just find it to be not a very meaningful thing because some people say yes it does and other people say no | 00:20:23 | |
it doesn't. | 00:20:26 | |
I don't know. Looks like a house, you know? So I agree that that language to me is not. | 00:20:29 | |
Very median. It just makes a place to argue and say the roof looks different than our neighborhood. I don't like it. | 00:20:35 | |
Your house is square and none of the other houses are square, right. Like, I mean there's just there's there's lots of arguments | 00:20:42 | |
to be made there when you start getting into the vernacular discussion. So Commissioners, one thing I just wanted to check on, do | 00:20:47 | |
we feel like that? | 00:20:51 |
* you need to log in to manage your favorites
* use Ctrl+F (Cmd+F on Mac) to search in document
Loading...
* use Ctrl+F (Cmd+F on Mac) to search in document
Loading...
* use Ctrl+F (Cmd+F on Mac) to search in document
Loading...
Transcript | ||
---|---|---|
All right, Well, good evening. Welcome to the Holiday City Planning Commission on February 20th, 2024. Tonight in attendance we | 00:00:01 | |
have all commissioners except for Commissioner Prince, who gave regrets. She was only going to be able to join via Skype and we do | 00:00:07 | |
not have that set up to do so for her. | 00:00:14 | |
So she'll just have to yell at us later if we didn't get everything she wanted. | 00:00:20 | |
Hashed out. We also have our legal counsel and city staff Kerry Marsh with us. | 00:00:24 | |
And with that we have one item on the agenda, which is a continued public hearing item for the text amendment regarding accessory | 00:00:31 | |
dwelling units. But before we jump into all the fun and games with that, I have asked Commissioner Gong if she will read our | 00:00:37 | |
opening statement for any members of the public. | 00:00:43 | |
The City of Holiday Planning Commission is a volunteer citizen board whose function is to review land use plans and other special | 00:00:54 | |
studies, make recommendations to the City Council on proposed zoning map and ordinance changes, and approve conditional uses and | 00:01:01 | |
subdivisions. The Planning Commission does not initiate land use applications, rather acts on applications as they're submitted. | 00:01:07 | |
Commissioners do not meet with applicants except at publicly noticed meetings. | 00:01:14 | |
Commissioners attempt to visit each property on the agenda where the location. | 00:01:22 | |
The nature of the neighborhood, existing structures and uses related to the proposed change are noted. | 00:01:26 | |
Decisions are based on observations, recommendations from the professional planning staff. | 00:01:32 | |
The cities in our city's general plan, zoning ordinance and other reports. | 00:01:36 | |
By all verbal and written comments and by evidence submitted, all of which are part of the public record. | 00:01:41 | |
Thank you very much, Commissioner. | 00:01:46 | |
All right. And with that. | 00:01:49 | |
Carrie, if you will, just give us a brief overview and maybe a shout out since our last meeting. | 00:01:52 | |
The highlighted changes in the text amendment that we should be aware of, which by my recollection should have addressed three of | 00:01:59 | |
those things I sent out in the e-mail that we hopefully have figured out now. | 00:02:04 | |
Yes. So updated staff report kind of overviewed some of those changes that we discussed last time. And specifically we went over | 00:02:10 | |
ownership requirements. The Planning Commission wanted to see specific definitions for immediate family. So that's included in the | 00:02:16 | |
new language. | 00:02:22 | |
The language currently has a 10,000 square foot lot size and minimum. | 00:02:30 | |
There is an addition on there for corner lots and lots that have double frontage as they have two St. accesses. | 00:02:37 | |
Some of those details may need to be ironed out a little more with setbacks, because corner lots are a little bit more unique on | 00:02:46 | |
setbacks. | 00:02:50 | |
Other changes that were made. | 00:02:55 | |
Let's see. | 00:02:59 | |
Going through my list here. | 00:03:02 | |
Because we haven't gone into the conversion of existing accessory buildings. That's our later discussion. | 00:03:06 | |
Corner lots, double frontage, 10,000. Oh, and then the height is the other thing that we're looking at. The new proposed language | 00:03:13 | |
has graduated height set at six feet high for on the property line and then 45° over. For primary structures this is 8 feet and | 00:03:20 | |
then 45 over, so that does. | 00:03:27 | |
Create a lower profile for. | 00:03:36 | |
For external ad use, we did set the set back to a 10 foot minimum and then required to be larger according to the chart that's in | 00:03:40 | |
our current code for larger properties. | 00:03:46 | |
I believe that there is all of the changes that are on there. You can see the changes in the draft text. It's in the blue | 00:03:54 | |
underlines. | 00:03:59 | |
And the red is crossed out. Forward changes. | 00:04:05 | |
I think there are some changes in the red as well. Oh. | 00:04:11 | |
Oh, we added the dwelling unit occupancy as well into the code. So that's consistent through our code is occupancy is any number | 00:04:16 | |
of persons related by blood, marriage, adoption. So that just addresses the occupancy of units itself. | 00:04:22 | |
But ownership of the. | 00:04:30 | |
Is addressed in #4. | 00:04:33 | |
Lines 20 through 27 in the text. | 00:04:37 | |
Height All of the height was pulled from our existing code on accessory buildings. | 00:04:43 | |
With the graduated height envelope, specifically the change to. | 00:04:50 | |
6 feet is on line 81. | 00:04:56 | |
And then your minimum setbacks are on line 43 or 73 and 74. | 00:05:00 | |
I think that's everything. Are there any questions that the commissioners have for me before? | 00:05:07 | |
Well, I was, since we're working through this kind of a checklist specific type of order, unless any commissioners have any | 00:05:13 | |
objection, I figured maybe we'd start with any public comments so they don't have to sit through the next hour of discussion | 00:05:20 | |
waiting to to offer what they might have from the public. And then maybe we can move into ironing out some of those details later. | 00:05:27 | |
Does anyone have any concerns with doing that format tonight? | 00:05:34 | |
OK. So we'll have you sit down. Thank you very much. And with that, this is a continued public hearing. So we will invite any | 00:05:42 | |
members of the public that wish to come up and give feedback or input on this text amendment. We would ask that you keep that to 3 | 00:05:48 | |
minutes or less. And when you come to the podium, please state your name and address for the record. And with that, if anyone | 00:05:54 | |
would like to come up and make comment, we'll start those now. | 00:06:00 | |
All right. | 00:06:10 | |
Ron Hilton, 2394 Murray Holiday Rd. | 00:06:15 | |
I already sent an e-mail, so hopefully you saw that it was a fairly technical point. | 00:06:21 | |
Regarding. | 00:06:29 | |
The zones in which Adus should be allowed according to the state law. | 00:06:31 | |
I don't need to go into that if you if you saw that. | 00:06:41 | |
I don't think we've seen it. Was this sent at a prior time or did you send this today? I sent it a couple days ago. Was it on | 00:06:45 | |
Friday? | 00:06:49 | |
Actually, I think I sent it Sunday. On Sunday, yeah, so it didn't get added in with the holiday, but if you. | 00:06:54 | |
Want to just address your points on that? Sure, it's very brief. | 00:07:02 | |
OK. | 00:07:25 | |
So the. | 00:07:27 | |
The ordinance, as I implied, isn't entirely compliant with the state law. So reading the state law here, this is. | 00:07:29 | |
Section 10, nine A 5:30. | 00:07:37 | |
Internal accessory dwelling units in any area zoned primarily for residential use. | 00:07:40 | |
Hey, the use of an internal accessory dwelling unit is a permitted use. | 00:07:47 | |
B. Except as provided in subsections 3 and 4, skipping down to subsection 4. | 00:07:53 | |
A municipality may require that an internal accessory dwelling unit be designed in a manner that does not change the appearance of | 00:07:59 | |
the primary dwelling as a single family dwelling. | 00:08:04 | |
And then skipping down to. | 00:08:10 | |
The municipality may prohibit the creation of an internal accessory dwelling unit if the lot containing the primary dwelling unit | 00:08:12 | |
is 6000 square feet or less in size. | 00:08:18 | |
And so the point I want to get from that. | 00:08:24 | |
There is no requirement that the dwelling unit be in a single family zone. | 00:08:29 | |
It's only required that it be part of a single family detached. | 00:08:34 | |
Primary dwelling unit. | 00:08:39 | |
And that the lot be at least 6000 square feet, so the multifamily zones. | 00:08:41 | |
In holiday do allow for single family homes. | 00:08:47 | |
R28R210 RM all have a section that says you could have a single family home. | 00:08:51 | |
And so as long as the lot is at least 6000 square. | 00:08:59 | |
Then you know the according to the state law that should you know an Adu should be allowed an internal Adu. And so the change I | 00:09:03 | |
suggest is just less than one sentence. It's just in the very first paragraph of the. | 00:09:11 | |
Of the statute that we're reviewing tonight where it says. | 00:09:19 | |
Existing or new construction of accessory dwelling units are permitted in all single family residential zones R1 Fr one Fr 2.5 Fr | 00:09:24 | |
20 and then the part I would add is and single family dwellings in multifamily residential zones R2 RM on lots at least 6000 | 00:09:31 | |
square feet in size. | 00:09:38 | |
That's the only thing I would add, but that would bring it into full conformity with the state law. | 00:09:45 | |
So that was really my only comment. | 00:09:50 | |
Thank you. Thank you, Ron. Appreciate that. And before we take another public comment on that, I'll just ask real quick. | 00:09:53 | |
Carrie, is that something that? | 00:10:03 | |
You have any insight on? | 00:10:05 | |
As far as requirement. | 00:10:07 | |
Council I do 13.04040 holiday city code. | 00:10:09 | |
Carrie, can you pull that up? | 00:10:16 | |
13.04 dot 04. | 00:10:26 | |
Detach straight within or detach. | 00:11:00 | |
So the section that Mister Hilton was referring to is internal ad use, which are allowed in every. | 00:11:04 | |
Zone by state code. | 00:11:11 | |
This is more this particular section is focusing on accessory dwelling units which are exterior to the home, not attached. | 00:11:14 | |
And not a part of the main res. | 00:11:23 | |
Primary residence. | 00:11:26 | |
So at least that's the intent. | 00:11:28 | |
Yeah. So I think what Mr. Hilton is saying is on. | 00:11:31 | |
Within our existing code for accessory dwelling units. | 00:11:36 | |
Just cleaning up the language while we are in there to. | 00:11:39 | |
Clarify that it's any single family dwelling. | 00:11:44 | |
Within any residential zone. | 00:11:48 | |
Instead of limiting to the. | 00:11:50 | |
Those specific Z. | 00:11:52 | |
But in the multi family, are we saying that, is that the intent? Do we really want in a multi family but if it's a single family | 00:11:55 | |
home to allow for an accessory dwelling unit? | 00:11:59 | |
If it's a signal I'm asking, I'm not telling. | 00:12:04 | |
But it'd be internal, not external in that language. Internal. Well, you can do internal, right? I mean that's that's kind of a | 00:12:08 | |
given. Yeah. Our code just says spelled out specifically R1, Fr one, Fr, 2.5 and FR20. So if we just clarify, take out those | 00:12:15 | |
zones, it's just a single family dwelling in a residential zone. | 00:12:22 | |
And then that would correct with the. | 00:12:30 | |
Yeah, so then that clears up the doesn't create a conflict. I don't see that that creates a conflict. | 00:12:33 | |
I can note that change good technical call out from the public. Thank you. And with that we'll we'll resume from any other members | 00:12:40 | |
of the public that wish make a comment tonight. | 00:12:44 | |
Well, I'm David Seaman. I'm talking about property, 4996 Mormont Circle. | 00:12:51 | |
I've got some paper for each of you. Can I hand that? | 00:12:56 | |
You. | 00:13:02 | |
Paper to hand out about your property site plan? Yeah. A plot map of what I've proposed to do. I'm this is my wife, Mindy. We we | 00:13:03 | |
hang on just a minute. You're not on the agenda. | 00:13:07 | |
So are you. We, In order for you to present before the Planning Commission, we have to. You know, state code requires you be a | 00:13:12 | |
part of the agenda. Oh, and you're not. So if this is the only thing we're accepting coming on right now, is the public hearing | 00:13:17 | |
related to that accessory dwelling unit, public amendments? | 00:13:22 | |
That's what I'm here to talk about. | 00:13:28 | |
Is an accessory growing. I've talked to her several times and. | 00:13:30 | |
So you're talking about the specific text of the. | 00:13:33 | |
Code here or or a site plan the size of the lot. | 00:13:36 | |
If it's a waste of time to have the paper, I won't, but I, my wife and I, I don't. I don't illegal anything, but we saved up a | 00:13:40 | |
long time and bought 2 properties in the last three to four years in holiday. | 00:13:45 | |
With the intent of putting Adus on them. And during my due diligence period, I came in and talked to the planners and they said, | 00:13:50 | |
yeah, that seems sort of reasonable. And apparently in the last four years that's changed. | 00:13:54 | |
And now we have these properties that I came in to apply and for an Adu on this has a. | 00:13:59 | |
It's called the Double St. Front potentially, and it's a perfectly everything meets code, everything meets the height | 00:14:06 | |
restrictions. The what? Everything else except for the lot requirement of I think it's one now, one acre now. | 00:14:12 | |
Hope to have 8000 square foot lots to be the qualifier or 10,000 square foot quarter acre, whatever that is 10,000. Well quarter | 00:14:49 | |
would technically 11, but yeah, 10,000 would work, yeah, yeah. | 00:14:56 | |
So it already is 10,000 now, right? | 00:15:04 | |
Currently. | 00:15:06 | |
For me to have an external Adu you have to have 1/2 acre. | 00:15:09 | |
So our proposed, yes, our proposed changes brings that down to 10,000. | 00:15:16 | |
Understand. Sorry, what was your name again? David Seaman. David Seaman. Understand we've been working on this now for a little | 00:15:22 | |
over two months, so no worries. There's a little blur in there on some of these things. But yeah, if you wanna just give us a | 00:15:27 | |
quick rundown on your property and how the thoughts you have on the text amendment, we'll be happy to hear those. So hand them out | 00:15:32 | |
or not. | 00:15:38 | |
What's up and about or not anybody Needle. Copy. Sure. I'm a little reluctant to talk about a specific property when we're talking | 00:15:43 | |
about an ordinance. | 00:15:49 | |
I think, I think he has a point to make about the size going down, which is what we're proposing and he. | 00:15:55 | |
Might even support that. I very much support that. I just don't want to get into the weeds about a specific property. | 00:16:02 | |
Especially if it's something you might bring back to us in the future, then we don't have any. | 00:16:10 | |
Somehow we've approved something very much until there's an ordinance. No, she don't have the standard that I e-mail something or | 00:16:15 | |
and I've been super busy the last five weeks with a funeral and a bunch of other stuff going on. So yeah, she said just show up | 00:16:19 | |
and just talk and so I that's, yeah, I I think. | 00:16:23 | |
I would prefer that we not talk about the mixing. Just OK, that makes sense when you put it that way. | 00:16:28 | |
You might just want to stick around. | 00:16:33 | |
Or if there's that being said, you're welcome to go ahead and just make comment on the text amendment. Let's just do let's go with | 00:16:37 | |
that and then if anybody needs supplement, we'll go from there. I just very much support being able to lower the acreage to be | 00:16:42 | |
able to do these projects. | 00:16:46 | |
We own several properties and we buy and sell and I'm a general contractor. This is a part of our retirement is these income | 00:16:52 | |
properties and. | 00:16:55 | |
I love this town. We live in this town up on Wallace Lane and. | 00:16:59 | |
I support being able to utilize this valuable property to have a couple more people live in town and pay taxes. | 00:17:03 | |
OK. All right. Any questions for David from anyone, can I? Yeah and that so you own two properties, do you live on one of them, | 00:17:11 | |
you own three properties on holiday, we live on Wallace Lane. | 00:17:16 | |
But if I build this Adu, I would market it as a potential this thing is going to pay half your mortgage. | 00:17:23 | |
Here's the code. | 00:17:29 | |
This doesn't need to be my primary residence to make this a **** *** property. | 00:17:31 | |
I can market the thing as here's your two car garage, here's this, this is the pathway, here's the fence. | 00:17:35 | |
This could be for your mother-in-law. This could be for your daughter that just got pregnant. This could be for your, you know, | 00:17:40 | |
your widowed whoever, right? But. | 00:17:44 | |
I see that as a valuable huge asset when marketing a property to flip. So just to clarify, your interest in this would be from. | 00:17:49 | |
Financial incentive for yourself to go in and find these older properties and build an additional external Adu and then market it | 00:18:00 | |
as hey, you can get two houses for just a little bit more than the price of one type of scenario or internal. I've built a not | 00:18:07 | |
100. I've built many, many walkout basements. Cut out the window, cut the concrete rear egress, lock outdoor at the bottom of the | 00:18:13 | |
stairs like like that's. People see value in that when you can rent the basement for $1800 and pay half your mortgage. So yeah. | 00:18:20 | |
OK, Yep. | 00:18:28 | |
All right. Well, thank you very much. We appreciate it. Yeah. | 00:18:30 | |
All right. And is there any other public comment at this time? | 00:18:35 | |
OK. With that we will. | 00:18:40 | |
Close the public comments and now we will move into the finer points of let me make sure I got my 4 bullets on here that I'm not | 00:18:42 | |
mistaken on where we've covered. We need to pin down lot size, that's one of them. Currently it's proposed at 10. Ki assume | 00:18:49 | |
there's going to be a little bit of discussion around that And then we also need to talk about the smaller setbacks or | 00:18:55 | |
requirements for corner lots, what to do with the non conforming. | 00:19:02 | |
Existing structures and how this will apply to those and then. | 00:19:10 | |
I think there was just a little bit of clarity that we wanted to or I wanted to touchback on to with the minimum setbacks, but 10 | 00:19:14 | |
foot sounds kind of like it was in line with what we're talking about last time. | 00:19:19 | |
So with that, let's. | 00:19:25 | |
Height. | 00:19:29 | |
Thank you. | 00:19:30 | |
Thank you. Thank you. | 00:19:35 | |
So with that, to kind of start into this discussion. | 00:19:37 | |
There were just a couple points of the text that I wanted to call out. | 00:19:41 | |
One of them was on lines 56 and 57, which specifically says be designed in a manner that is compatible with the neighborhood | 00:19:46 | |
residential vernacular. My concern around that is it's highly subjective and I could make an argument that every EADU should be | 00:19:52 | |
denied because it doesn't match what I think it should match in my neighborhood. So I wasn't sure if that was something other | 00:19:58 | |
people recognized or had concern on with Commissioner Gong. Yeah I that was one of my comments that I wrote last week is we've | 00:20:05 | |
this has come up in other. | 00:20:11 | |
You know applications? Does this match? | 00:20:18 | |
Whatever flavor the. | 00:20:21 | |
Neighborhood has, and I just find it to be not a very meaningful thing because some people say yes it does and other people say no | 00:20:23 | |
it doesn't. | 00:20:26 | |
I don't know. Looks like a house, you know? So I agree that that language to me is not. | 00:20:29 | |
Very median. It just makes a place to argue and say the roof looks different than our neighborhood. I don't like it. | 00:20:35 | |
Your house is square and none of the other houses are square, right. Like, I mean there's just there's there's lots of arguments | 00:20:42 | |
to be made there when you start getting into the vernacular discussion. So Commissioners, one thing I just wanted to check on, do | 00:20:47 | |
we feel like that? | 00:20:51 |