Live stream not working in Chrome or Edge? Click Here
No Bookmarks Exist.
| Irrigation pipes that, yeah, east and West along there. And they've all been busted into at different points too. So like, I have | 00:00:00 | |
| a hike that runs from my backyard into that canal and it's seven houses away, but I've got my hound up that's constantly wagging | 00:00:06 | |
| his tail and sticking his nose down in that pipe because he's waiting for a rat or a squirrel or something. Or. | 00:00:13 | |
| Well, it forced everybody into the time nobody was bringing It is time. All right. Good evening, everyone. It's a good thing to | 00:00:21 | |
| have, OK? | 00:00:25 | |
| We'll get started here. It is April 16, 2024. This is the City Planning Commission work session. We have one item that is a public | 00:00:31 | |
| hearing item and then approval of minutes. So I'm sure we're going to need the whole half hour to talk specifically about this | 00:00:38 | |
| zone map amendment and all the subtle nuances before we get to what I'm sure will be a well attended public hearing. So with that | 00:00:45 | |
| we will ask Carrie to start us off. | 00:00:52 | |
| OK, so. | 00:01:01 | |
| I think the easiest thing on this one is looking at the context here, right? This property is a long deep I. | 00:01:04 | |
| Fronts on 5600 S 2, family zoning on the east side, single family on the West side. Both of these properties on the West side are | 00:01:13 | |
| duplexes, both are on the east side are duplexes. So it's totally surrounded by duplexes. It's just that these two on the West are | 00:01:21 | |
| non conforming to the zone, so they are duplexes. | 00:01:30 | |
| But non conforming. And I just if you'll back up to that map, I just want to clarify to make sure I'm looking at it right on the | 00:01:39 | |
| east side of it, that is a duplex facing 56 and then another duplex that's part of the PUD subdivision facing inside, right. | 00:01:45 | |
| Right. OK, yeah. Thank you. | 00:01:51 | |
| Yeah. | 00:01:58 | |
| And. | 00:02:01 | |
| So the list of kind of all those neighboring properties is included in the staff report. | 00:02:06 | |
| And then an analysis of the general plan, I think the biggest issue on this is that this whole area is identified as on the future | 00:02:13 | |
| land use map as low density residential stable. | 00:02:19 | |
| I was just going to bring up this existing Blandius. So sometimes we have land uses that are not necessarily consistent with what | 00:02:28 | |
| zone or the future land use map is. So here you have that area. This is existing land uses where you can see the sorry super zoom | 00:02:35 | |
| in here. | 00:02:42 | |
| Too much? | 00:02:50 | |
| There it is here. So this is the assisted living. That's multifamily obviously as they have high density there. This is 2 family. | 00:02:55 | |
| These are duplexes. This is the property in question. And then those are both duplexes. | 00:03:03 | |
| So the duplex on the West that's shown in like a shady yellow, but that's not an R2, right? | 00:03:11 | |
| Right, those are both. | 00:03:20 | |
| Our one zoned, but the they are both used as duplexes so they're both legal non conforming. I think that this one that's right on | 00:03:24 | |
| the corner wasn't captured in that existing Gladys, but it is a. | 00:03:30 | |
| Legal non conforming duplex. I can zoom back out and we can go to the future land use map and it's legal nonconforming because it | 00:03:38 | |
| was there before this zoning stuff. Yeah, OK. | 00:03:43 | |
| So we have quite a few properties in Holiday that were zoned as duplexes under Salt Lake County and then when they were | 00:03:49 | |
| incorporated into Holiday, we just did larger kind of area wide zoning instead of property specific zoning. | 00:03:57 | |
| So you'll usually run into pockets where there's two or three duplexes that are all together. I know offhand there's another set | 00:04:04 | |
| of duplexes on 27th East as somewhat by Granados, not Granados Block Party. | 00:04:13 | |
| So kind of across the street on the east side of 27th East. There's a few duplexes there. There's own single family, but they are | 00:04:23 | |
| legal non conforming. So there's things like that all over in the city. Here is the. | 00:04:31 | |
| Future land use. So this is kind of what the general plan refers to on this. Adjusted zones, so. | 00:04:40 | |
| In that specific area that we are looking at before. | 00:04:48 | |
| That whole corner is low density, residential stable. The exception is on the Highland Drive. | 00:04:53 | |
| Where we refer back to the Highland Dr. Master plan for properties along Highland Drive. But this pocket where the. | 00:05:01 | |
| Assisted living is identified as low density residential stable and then this corner where we're kind of looking at is low density | 00:05:10 | |
| residential stable. | 00:05:14 | |
| I may be a little slow is stable, meaning rickery or like horses or just the neighborhood stable. The neighborhood doesn't change | 00:05:20 | |
| ever. Yes, and that's the what that is defined as here intended to support a mix of single family residential development that has | 00:05:28 | |
| been established by historic development patterns. So then it has suggested zones in there, OK. | 00:05:37 | |
| Thank you. Yeah, I like the language. At the end of that, on the LDRS rezone with the suggested zone list may be appropriate where | 00:05:46 | |
| increased density will not destabilize the existing neighborhood. | 00:05:53 | |
| So just to clarify on that, I didn't catch that the first time I looked at it, but the general plan does say the zone suggested in | 00:06:01 | |
| there R18R10 or R110 and R115. And I think that's kind of the challenge with any sort of infill or a built out community. You've | 00:06:09 | |
| got these outliers that are not like everything's not going to perfectly fit and that's where in the staff report there's I | 00:06:16 | |
| discussed a bit about context of the area. | 00:06:23 | |
| I'm also going to pull up the arterial the roadway before you switch to that if you would. I just wanted to see because the R2 is | 00:06:33 | |
| listed as medium, RT, whatever MDRT. Can you show me just back up on the map where most of those MDRT zones exist? Or are there | 00:06:39 | |
| any here? | 00:06:44 | |
| So just here and here, the corridors basically is the. | 00:06:52 | |
| OK. All right. Thank you. Can I ask a question about that also? Well, about the paragraphs you were showing before we move on, | 00:06:59 | |
| there was language in it. I thought it just clarified this where it says new develop in. | 00:07:06 | |
| Low density residential. | 00:07:15 | |
| Protected, it said. | 00:07:19 | |
| Use unclaimed density by subdivision instead of rezones, but this is stable. | 00:07:23 | |
| Umm, so rezoning is more usual, more appropriate. Can you, can you just talk a little bit about what that means? Yeah, it doesn't | 00:07:29 | |
| have that specific designation. And these, when I was talking to John Tierling about these, how these were set up in the general | 00:07:39 | |
| plan, he said it was some of our future land use was really designed with the intent to identify these larger protected areas. | 00:07:49 | |
| Within the estates and surrounding and then everything else kind of outside of that just was like, OK, these are stable areas. It | 00:08:00 | |
| didn't really take into account a lot of corridors beyond Highland Drive and these obvious ones on 23rd, 45th and 39th. | 00:08:10 | |
| As far as those corridors are concerned, is that the first property on the corridor that's included in that or? | 00:08:22 | |
| Is there a depth of how much? | 00:08:30 | |
| It's not, yeah. It doesn't designate specifically on those. | 00:08:32 | |
| But the the line was just created with basic mapping of here's the road and here's this specific area we're going to draw around | 00:08:43 | |
| the road. But it doesn't identify any specific roads or that it has to be fronting onto a major road or any other such thing. This | 00:08:51 | |
| is a major Rd. So that's properties that are in kind of close proximity to that road would be considered. | 00:08:58 | |
| Would be probably a safe assumption two or three lots in, you know is is kind of touching the road and then from there you're | 00:09:08 | |
| really throwing up the question mark of does this fit with that? Yeah and the I am challenged with. | 00:09:14 | |
| I think all of these main corridors are primarily U dot roads. 45th is. Highland Drive is. I don't think 23rd or 39th. Are you not | 00:09:22 | |
| well, 39th maybe? | 00:09:28 | |
| I remember another zone amendment we had before us that did not get a favorable recommendation about a year and a half ago that | 00:09:35 | |
| was on the other side of Highland, right across from that area. | 00:09:40 | |
| Yeah. On the East side where there's that home for sale with the fence around it and someone wanted to put like 4 units in on that | 00:09:47 | |
| property or something like that. | 00:09:51 | |
| Or on Highland Drive that was well it was where what is the road? Pheasant way. Not pheasant circle, but pheasant way connects to | 00:09:58 | |
| Highland. I believe it faces pheasant way but it's right on the corner. | 00:10:05 | |
| Of Highland, yeah. And those are, we were talking a little bit before the meeting about updates of the general plan. Some of those | 00:10:13 | |
| things might be refined in the future as we work through general plan updates as what And that's things that we're thinking about | 00:10:21 | |
| as staff as well. You know what our neighborhoods, what are areas that maybe we want to refine a little bit so that we don't have. | 00:10:29 | |
| Do we want to keep 5600 S as a? That's a collector Rd. | 00:10:38 | |
| As a stable with single family or that an area we want to look at, possibly some other. | 00:10:44 | |
| Zones that would be appropriate, but. | 00:10:51 | |
| I think. | 00:10:55 | |
| Within the and. | 00:10:58 | |
| It's kind of that just that Contextual called it. Yes, these are suggested zones. | 00:11:01 | |
| You could suggest a rezone within those, or there's other points in the general plan that you can base a rezone recommendation off | 00:11:06 | |
| of. So there's multiple kind of angles. Sometimes it doesn't. One application won't fit every checklist, but it may fit some of | 00:11:14 | |
| the checklist, so as the Planning Commission you'll just. | 00:11:21 | |
| That is what you get to decide. Call that logistical ambiguity when I walk by there. | 00:11:29 | |
| It looks like there's a home on the front. | 00:11:37 | |
| And I think somewhere I said two accessory buildings. | 00:11:40 | |
| At the back. | 00:11:43 | |
| But there's clearly a big house back there, another house. It was. I know, the former owner of the property. He did a he had a | 00:11:46 | |
| music studio back. There he was. | 00:11:52 | |
| A piano teacher for many many years and that was his studio where he would have people come and like one of those home occupation | 00:12:00 | |
| type things that he worked out. It was basically a garage converted into studio, which is a rather large one. | 00:12:07 | |
| But you know, I think he had like a baby grand in there, if I'm not mistaken, or big grand. So yeah. | 00:12:14 | |
| And I mean, it looked it looked to me like it was occupied and being used as a house. | 00:12:20 | |
| We don't have as a rental. Any indication of that, Yeah, but I but in any case, so I'm assuming what what is he trying to | 00:12:25 | |
| accomplish that he couldn't accomplish? | 00:12:30 | |
| With the zoning not changed. | 00:12:37 | |
| Does he have a plan? I know he doesn't have to tell us about a plan, but right and I think on a larger scale picture, what R2 does | 00:12:39 | |
| accomplish is provide. | 00:12:45 | |
| Potential ownership opportunities in the future if the current landowner doesn't want to create ownership. | 00:12:51 | |
| They don't have to, but just having that zoning in place then creates the. | 00:12:59 | |
| Ability for that to be subdivided up where you get something like this. I mean any duplex could be subdivided into two separate | 00:13:07 | |
| owners. | 00:13:11 | |
| Umm, so intent could be just converting the accessory building into a unit. | 00:13:15 | |
| Being able to rent out both the houses in the front and the rear unit. | 00:13:22 | |
| Other potentials that you demolish both structures and. | 00:13:28 | |
| And build something new up to 3 units. And Dennis, I didn't get a chance to look at the. | 00:13:34 | |
| Total area, but we can pull that up too of what? So when? | 00:13:41 | |
| When you're doing a. | 00:13:47 | |
| Unit assessment of how many units would be allowed on a property. You have to take out the access Rd. | 00:13:49 | |
| Or the access driveway, so that would be a minimum of 20 feet wide and then whatever the depth of the property is or how far back | 00:13:55 | |
| that. | 00:14:00 | |
| Roadway would go so roughly. | 00:14:05 | |
| And I think you did kind of do just some brief math on it and figured that there could be enough room to make 3. | 00:14:12 | |
| And that would possibly be like 2 that are attached. In this situation, if they wanted to leave the existing structure, they could | 00:14:19 | |
| split the front house into a attached unit, have an Upstairs Downstairs that's rentable and convert the back building into a | 00:14:25 | |
| rental unit. So it's. | 00:14:32 | |
| Depending on the area of land as controls, how many units that they'd be able to put on that. | 00:14:38 | |
| So this property is too small to be subdivided, right? Right. OK. | 00:14:44 | |
| Yeah, because it's only .44, right? | 00:14:49 | |
| And same thing, you'd have to take out the access, which then limits your land area even more for both. | 00:14:53 | |
| And just to clarify, if it was an R18, they could subdivide, yes, and there would be enough area likely to take out a roadway. | 00:15:01 | |
| Have they indicated what they want to do with the property after if it does get approved? I haven't had any conversation with the | 00:15:12 | |
| applicant about their intent I. | 00:15:17 | |
| I mean because a lot of the language suggests that the future development of the site. | 00:15:23 | |
| We're supposed to kind of hope and pray that they're going to do something that's going to create a harmonious development, but. | 00:15:30 | |
| They haven't even told you what's going to happen, so how do we use that as part of our? | 00:15:37 | |
| Decision making. I think on that point, no, there isn't a way to. | 00:15:42 | |
| Say yes, you'll create something that's harmonious, but. | 00:15:51 | |
| Looking at. | 00:15:56 | |
| The properties on either side of it where you have two here, 2 here. | 00:15:59 | |
| In roughly the same size of area and they'd be limited to at Max 3 units if they have enough land area after taking out access. | 00:16:04 | |
| It's pretty similar to what all the neighbouring properties are. | 00:16:15 | |
| Even, less, less dense. | 00:16:20 | |
| Right. It seems like we're giving him the right to have more than the surrounding people on his argument that he's surrounded with | 00:16:27 | |
| lots with two homes on them. So with the size of property, if you look at this one, this has two on it. This has 2 units on it. So | 00:16:34 | |
| same area of land has four units. | 00:16:40 | |
| Same here, nearly the same area of land has four units. His area of land would be limited to 3 units, so he would be even with the | 00:16:48 | |
| R210 zoning, he would not have the same density as. | 00:16:55 | |
| And then having zero setbacks on top of it, right, if it were rezoned. | 00:17:37 | |
| Right. And I think that's one we've talked to them before. This is where we encourage people talk to kind of that neighboring PUD | 00:17:43 | |
| and see if you can be incorporated. And most people don't really want to have additional units, even though it would likely create | 00:17:50 | |
| a more harmonious kind of look to their existing neighborhood. They don't want to have the additional units in there. | 00:17:58 | |
| Yeah. So then you get kind of. | 00:18:07 | |
| Weird. Maybe not matching, maybe it won't be weird there. I mean, there's not any guarantee the PUD has some some controls there, | 00:18:10 | |
| but if you were in that PUD, it would likely be in your best interest to say yes, come join our PUD and then we have some controls | 00:18:16 | |
| over what gets built there. | 00:18:23 | |
| So can we approve the rezone with the condition that only two units will be built on it? That would not. You can't. You can't | 00:18:30 | |
| limit legal land rights, so R2 zoning comes with two units per whatever area of land. | 00:18:39 | |
| And we also couldn't put any future restrictions on an application for a PUD, right? You can't, you can't limit what is within the | 00:18:51 | |
| zoning code specific to an application. So if the fear of what you don't want them to do is overshadowed by, you know, a | 00:18:57 | |
| narrative, that doesn't sound like it's really been given of here's what my plan is and why I'm doing this. And forgive me for | 00:19:04 | |
| being a little bit bold, but it really just seems to me like this is a dollar sign thing, right? Like this is a $650,000 lot that | 00:19:10 | |
| if I subdivide it three ways. | 00:19:16 | |
| I can turn around and sell for $900,000 because it's still marketable to a developer to go in and scrape that clean and do | 00:19:23 | |
| whatever they want on it. So then the possibility exists if we approve the rezone that we could end up with. | 00:19:30 | |
| Two homes and two Adus. | 00:19:37 | |
| I don't know if they'd have enough room for 280 us on it, so our proposed language for Adu text with external Adus would be that | 00:19:41 | |
| you can only do an external Adu if you have a detached structure. So if they were to build 3 detached structures, they could do 3 | 00:19:48 | |
| detached Adus possibly. | 00:19:55 | |
| But they don't have enough land to reason. But they do have enough land. Like there's other factors that control that, Yeah. | 00:20:04 | |
| Like they'd be lucky if they can. Like it would be a challenge to fit 3IN there, but it could legally be done with an R28 zone. | 00:20:10 | |
| You're also going to have some limits with the lot size. So those puds, they have smaller setbacks, other things that were | 00:20:18 | |
| incorporated into their PUD. So R210 zoning would have setbacks that are appropriate for that zone. So that's going to limit | 00:20:26 | |
| building area as well. Even with an R2 zone, they might say, you know, there's not enough land that we want to do small lots. We | 00:20:34 | |
| just want to do 2 units so that there's two bigger structures on there with bigger land size. | 00:20:41 | |
| Can I ask a procedural question? Yes. So on the standards of approval or approval standards? | 00:20:51 | |
| It's the second item down in the staff report. | 00:20:58 | |
| You see that? | 00:21:04 | |
| 1307030 G 2. | 00:21:05 | |
| Move standards of consideration for or against. | 00:21:10 | |
| On the first page. | 00:21:15 | |
| So I'm just wondering, do they have to meet all four of those? | 00:21:17 | |
| In order for us to consider approval. | 00:21:22 | |
| Umm, no. You can make your recommendation to the City Council and note. | 00:21:25 | |
| Those things. So you could do a positive or negative recommendation, noting whatever factors that that you want to include in that | 00:21:31 | |
| recommendation. So there's because. | 00:21:37 | |
| Since City Council is the deciding body, they're looking at those standards. It helps them if you have those standards that you | 00:21:44 | |
| were then including in your recommendation. | 00:21:50 | |
| So those could be the findings I guess at some point, but. | 00:21:56 | |
| So I'm curious why they list it like this and don't tell you how many you have to satisfy in order to. | 00:22:00 | |
| So I guess never mind. | 00:22:07 | |
| And following up on the general plan, the analysis, I think it's the next page. | 00:22:10 | |
| Where it says land use, urban design and neighborhood preservation, Chapter 2 it starts to get into defining points of | 00:22:17 | |
| development, development patterns and that type of thing. | 00:22:23 | |
| Do we use this or do we have to have them satisfy all of these? | 00:22:30 | |
| For us to vote, I'm trying to make it so it loses, it becomes a little more black and white, so if that's OK. | 00:22:35 | |
| I'm not trying to say it's going to be easier to make the decision, but. | 00:22:43 | |
| You know, we're already having some difficulty with the fact that this is surrounded by these type of units, and yet we don't | 00:22:47 | |
| really. | 00:22:51 | |
| It's still a struggle to make that happen, so of these defining. | 00:22:56 | |
| Characteristics or different references, points of consideration, that type of thing. | 00:23:01 | |
| Do we have, do we need to use all of those in our consideration? So yeah, their point. There are points from the General Plan. The | 00:23:08 | |
| General Plan is a guiding document. You can use various points from it in your recommendation where it's not. | 00:23:17 | |
| Coated items that are like these are the specific standards and it has to meet all of these or it has to meet at least X or Y. | 00:23:28 | |
| Your recommendation can be based on kind of. | 00:23:34 | |
| Any of these factors, so you could say positive, right. I think we came to a conclusion even on one application where we did a | 00:23:41 | |
| neutral application based or neutral recommendation based on the vote. | 00:23:46 | |
| Umm, but. | 00:23:53 | |
| Whatever way your recommendation goes, just referencing what points. | 00:23:56 | |
| Would be a positive influence. What would be negative because all of that information will go to the City Council. | 00:24:03 | |
| That help or make any sense? Or did I just muddy up the water? | 00:25:18 | |
| OK. Can I ask one more question? I know we'll switch. | 00:25:24 | |
| I know that several of the letters were concerned about upkeep rats, sort of just the the upkeep of the lot and and a few section | 00:25:29 | |
| of the staff report made it sound like. | 00:25:36 | |
| You know, there's also the canal, so it's hard to it's hard to connect the dots one for one on. | 00:25:44 | |
| On the rest, but do we does that figure into our decision at all? Is this, is that something that the Planning Commission needs to | 00:25:51 | |
| consider even can? Yeah. The condition of the property is not something that is taken into consideration for rezones and you may | 00:25:58 | |
| have a property that is in terrible shape that somebody comes in and purchases and needs to rezone to. I think we ran into | 00:26:06 | |
| something similar with the Old Roots Garden. | 00:26:13 | |
| Nursery area, like the building is abandoned the most applicable. | 00:26:21 | |
| Zone is a higher zone than what it was zoned. So even though the property was in poor repair rundown, that didn't affect the | 00:26:27 | |
| rezone proposal. | 00:26:31 | |
| Thank you. | 00:26:37 | |
| So we got a lot of solid discussion points that are going to be great as we iron out after we hear from the applicant in the | 00:26:38 | |
| official meeting. And then the only other thing on there is approval of minutes. So hopefully we'll had a chance to check on that | 00:26:44 | |
| and we'll call that one when it comes. But with that it is 6:00 PM, So we will go ahead and close the work meeting and. | 00:26:51 | |
| I he's actually going to be excused for this meeting, so I'll call that out when we get started with the official. But does anyone | 00:27:00 | |
| need a break before we roll right into the official meeting? I just don't want to run amok, you know? | 00:27:05 | |
| Keeping us in check. | 00:27:13 | |
| All right, perfect. So just let me know when you're ready, Carrie. | 00:27:17 | |
| OK, let me double check all my recordings, see if we're still doing. | 00:27:22 | |
| All right. Here we go then. So with that, good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Holiday City Planning Commission on April 16, | 00:27:30 | |
| 2024. | 00:27:34 | |
| We have several. Well, we have a couple items on our agenda this evening. | 00:27:39 | |
| Do want to call out that we do not have legal counsel here this evening. | 00:27:44 | |
| So we will be on our best behavior and refer any of those contingent questions up to City Council with the recommendation we make | 00:27:50 | |
| one way or another on any items. And we're also excusing Commissioner Prince, who will not be joining us. All other commissioners | 00:27:58 | |
| are present and we have city staff Carrie Marsh with us. And with that we will start the meeting with the statement we give at the | 00:28:05 | |
| beginning of all public meetings and for Planning Commission. And I've asked Commissioner Font if she will read that now for us. | 00:28:13 | |
| The City of Holiday Planning Commission is a volunteer citizen board whose function is to review land use plans and other special | 00:28:23 | |
| studies, make recommendations to the City Council on proposed zoning map and ordinance changes, and approve conditional uses and | 00:28:30 | |
| subdivisions. The Planning Commission does not initiate land use applications, rather acts on applications as they are submitted. | 00:28:38 | |
| Commissioners do not meet with applicants except at public, publicly noticed meetings. | 00:28:46 | |
| Commissioners attempt to visit each property on the agenda where the location, the nature of the neighborhood, existing structures | 00:28:54 | |
| and uses related to the proposed change are noted. | 00:29:00 | |
| Decisions are based on observations, recommendations from the professional planning staff, the city's general plan, zoning | 00:29:06 | |
| ordinance and other reports, by all verbal and written comments, and by evidence submitted, all of which are part of the public | 00:29:12 | |
| record. | 00:29:18 | |
| Thank you very much, Commissioner Font. | 00:29:24 | |
| All right. And with that, we have a public hearing this evening for item number one, which is a zone amendment, excuse me, zone | 00:29:27 | |
| map amendment rezone from R110 to R210 located at 1932 E 5600 S So I do see we have some members of the public here this evening. | 00:29:35 | |
| We'll start with a staff report from Kerry Marsh and then we'll invite the applicant up and then we will open up the public | 00:29:43 | |
| hearing for comment at that point. And with that, Carrie, whenever you're ready. | 00:29:50 | |
| Thank you, Chairman Roch. | 00:30:09 | |
| So this application is for property located at 1932 E 5600 S Current zone is R110. The requested zone map amendment is to R210 | 00:30:11 | |
| zone. | 00:30:18 | |
| The property is narrow and deep. It fronts on 5600 S. | 00:30:27 | |
| Surrounded by duplexes, both legal duplexes and legal non conforming to a single family zone. Duplexes on the West side across the | 00:30:35 | |
| street is a multi family zone with an assisted living care facility on it. | 00:30:42 | |
| The staff report outlines general plan. | 00:30:53 | |
| With suggested zones as identified on the future land use map. | 00:30:58 | |
| And then an analysis of other factors for rezones. | 00:31:04 | |
| The property if rezoned to R210 potentially could allow up to 3 units based off of the total property size. If a access driveway | 00:31:11 | |
| is then taken out of that total area, that could reduce the total amount of of units to to allowed on the property. | 00:31:21 | |
| And I think that was all the high points on that. I'll have the applicant come up and just talk a little bit more about their | 00:31:33 | |
| application and what they're envisioning. All right, Thank you very much. And with that, we will invite the applicant, Matthew or | 00:31:40 | |
| Amanda Lewis, to come up. | 00:31:46 | |
| Or representative. Thank you. I'm Matthew Lewis. So. | 00:31:53 | |
| Appreciate you taking the time. Just to give you a little bit in considering the application. | 00:31:59 | |
| This is a family home that my parents purchased in 1991 or 19. | 00:32:06 | |
| Two, I think you have the kind of picture up before And so it's a fairly big piece of property and kind of what's unique about | 00:32:11 | |
| it's got this second structure in the back. | 00:32:16 | |
| Before my parents bought it, I think it was a actually like a a lock manufacturing facility and then my dad. | 00:32:24 | |
| Was piano teacher. He converted to a piano studio and used it in that manner for 30 years or so. He passed away in 2019, didn't | 00:32:33 | |
| use it for a few years. My sister went back and approached the city about whether we she could reopen the studio and use it in | 00:32:41 | |
| that way and was told that she couldn't like that because he was. He had been grandfathered in, but because there have been a | 00:32:48 | |
| period of unuse, it was no longer zoned for any kind of, like business activity. So we basically have this structure in the back. | 00:32:56 | |
| That is in a lot of ways unusable because it's big enough. It's bigger than you would kind of use for a home. | 00:33:04 | |
| Office, It's probably 1500 square feet or so with the different. | 00:33:12 | |
| Additions that have been done but. | 00:33:17 | |
| Can't really like, use that building. So anyway, that led us to and inquiring as to whether we could rezone the property. | 00:33:19 | |
| Obviously everything around. | 00:33:24 | |
| Our property, with the exception of the house just to the West. | 00:33:30 | |
| Is either zoned R210 or being used in that manner where it has a duplex. | 00:33:35 | |
| Or two units on there, so and it's not big enough that you could just subdivide it as is. | 00:33:42 | |
| Because it's just under 20,000 square feet, so you couldn't do another R110 lot I. | 00:33:49 | |
| So anyway, in conversations with C, just trying to figure out how to effectively use that space back there. | 00:33:57 | |
| That was the option. We haven't really looked into what we would do with the property, to be honest. We were told that. | 00:34:04 | |
| We asked. You know, we said we'd probably want to subdivide. | 00:34:11 | |
| Could we do this in like 1 process where we came back with proposals as to what would be there, but we're informed that we need to | 00:34:15 | |
| do it step by step, so this zoning rezoning application. | 00:34:21 | |
| Is that first step as we? | 00:34:28 | |
| Understand it so. | 00:34:31 | |
| There, you know, I know there's been some comments about kind of the condition of the product. My parents did have an above ground | 00:34:34 | |
| pool. We have removed that. Now we're in the process of re landscaping that property. | 00:34:42 | |
| To take account of that, the property is an air canal. | 00:34:50 | |
| And so we had addressed these issues with. | 00:34:55 | |
| Code enforcement, they came out, they investigated both, the Radish said. It's very rare that any property is usually the source | 00:34:58 | |
| of rats, and there's been. | 00:35:03 | |
| Rats coming from these canals for years they didn't like notice any smell. They asked us to takedown some bushes and other things | 00:35:08 | |
| that we did I. | 00:35:12 | |
| So we try to, you know, address all those issues, but really the I guess. | 00:35:19 | |
| Thing that's driving us is that we have that back building that's in a lot of ways just unusable because we can't. | 00:35:24 | |
| It was used for 50 years probably as a business that's not being allowed now. So that's the that's what the basis of the request | 00:35:32 | |
| is. We have no plans to change the front home. In fact, we've probably put $50,000 or so into that front home including a new roof | 00:35:38 | |
| that was just completed last week, but trying to figure out. | 00:35:45 | |
| What we could do with the back portion of the property. So that's the basis for our request. | 00:35:52 | |
| Any questions? Or I do have a couple questions for you and then I'll ask my fellow Commissioners. | 00:35:58 | |
| I was just told that I had two options. | 00:36:41 | |
| Initially when I spoke with Mr. Cheerleading, he said your lots not big enough. | 00:36:45 | |
| To so you can leave it as it is not big enough to divide into two R, one 10s and. | 00:36:49 | |
| The other option presented was our 210 so. | 00:36:55 | |
| Appreciate that. Just wanted to clarify that the other this is a kind of a question for you and also a question for city staff if | 00:37:00 | |
| they know? | 00:37:03 | |
| Understanding that the original conditional use permit would have expired when it wasn't renewed. | 00:37:08 | |
| Would this to anything you know of, Carrie? Is there any reason why a conditional use permit to continue teaching piano or using | 00:37:16 | |
| that accessory building in that similar nature not have been approved? | 00:37:22 | |
| Yeah, I don't see any reason why. | 00:37:29 | |
| A conditional use for home occupation wouldn't be approved. | 00:37:33 | |
| With using that accessory building we. | 00:37:38 | |
| Recently amended our Home occupation code to allow for the use of accessory buildings for home occupations. Previously that wasn't | 00:37:42 | |
| allowed and so that's likely where that. | 00:37:48 | |
| The use because it was discontinued wouldn't be allowed because it was in an accessory building but that was recently amended goes | 00:37:55 | |
| into effect on the 21st of April. So that is an option with that new code amendment to use that for business use. I don't know if | 00:38:03 | |
| it would still be applicable based off of the the family's use with your father not running it anymore but I just you brought up | 00:38:10 | |
| that your your sister I if I recall yeah. | 00:38:18 | |
| Applied for it. So I was just trying to figure out 'cause we've had a lot of discussion around conditional uses over the last | 00:38:26 | |
| couple of years and I wasn't sure because I thought even, you know, before the amendments that might still qualify, I. | 00:38:31 | |
| For what City Standard was. So I was just trying to figure out, unless she was trying to like, you know, open up like something | 00:38:38 | |
| extreme back there I guess. But yeah, she was. There's a fair amount of traffic involved with a. | 00:38:44 | |
| Studio like that. Could you have, you know, the way it was constructed, actually there's four or five different classrooms in | 00:38:50 | |
| there. So you it's not just one student showing up at a time. It was group classes and then breakouts into individual classes. So | 00:38:55 | |
| you had, you know, I don't know, 10 to 15 students in there at any one time basically from 3:00 PM when school let out till about | 00:39:01 | |
| 8:00 PM. | 00:39:07 | |
| So anyway, she was told that I wasn't part of those conversations that. | 00:39:14 | |
| The traffic would not be denied on the parking probably. OK, I'm just curious on that. I forgive my inquiry, I just I heard it | 00:39:20 | |
| secondhand from her. So we did try to figure out, you know, we could provide that other commissioners do we have questions for the | 00:39:26 | |
| applicant at this time that he hasn't covered for us. | 00:39:32 | |
| Alright, we'll go ahead and invite you to sit down then. Thank you very much. | 00:39:39 | |
| Right. And with that, we will go ahead and open our public hearing and invite members of the public to come up. When you do come | 00:39:42 | |
| up, we would ask that you state your name and address for the record. And we would also ask that if you follow someone who's just | 00:39:47 | |
| made statements that you don't make similar statements. | 00:39:52 | |
| And if you have a representative for collectively as a group, you can also have that representative come up. But we would ask you | 00:39:58 | |
| to try and be brief to the point and keep it roughly around 3 or 4 minutes for us. And with that, we'll go ahead and invite anyone | 00:40:02 | |
| that wants to come up now. | 00:40:07 | |
| What? Commissioner? My name is Arlene Hassan. | 00:40:18 | |
| I live at 5617 S Doon Tree Hill Lane. | 00:40:21 | |
| Thank you. | 00:40:27 | |
| I am president of the HOA of the property. I took the. | 00:40:29 | |
| Of the townhomes that are on the corner. | 00:40:35 | |
| And we have no objection to. | 00:40:39 | |
| Multiple use whatever our objection in this case. | 00:40:43 | |
| Is that the property has been. | 00:40:48 | |
| Neglected for so long. | 00:40:51 | |
| So they did have an outdoor pool. They had a. | 00:40:53 | |
| I'm sorry. I'm nervous. We won't bite. It's OK. So they had this. They had this above ground pool and it was stagnant for years. | 00:40:57 | |
| The ducks were in it. There was. There was filth. There was. | 00:41:04 | |
| There are one 2-3. There are 4 structures on the property actually. | 00:41:11 | |
| There's one structure. | 00:41:17 | |
| That's right next to the fence on the east side that was filled with chemicals. It was chlorine and fertilizer, which was. | 00:41:19 | |
| Very annoying when they took down the pool last summer when they. | 00:41:31 | |
| To compare the structure that it was sitting on. | 00:41:37 | |
| The rats went crazy because they were nested under there, so several of our. | 00:41:41 | |
| Residents have had an extreme problem with that. | 00:41:49 | |
| Umm, we we've just. | 00:41:56 | |
| We're upset because the property is dealt with rat infestation, chemical storage, a decline in the condition of the structures. | 00:41:58 | |
| The property we feel is has been a health hazard to us. Several of us had to hire exterminators. One woman who directly backs up | 00:42:04 | |
| to it has spent thousands of dollars trying to build something in her backyard. But they can't let their children, grandchildren, | 00:42:11 | |
| in the yards. | 00:42:18 | |
| Dogs or pets because there's a horrible rat infestation. | 00:42:27 | |
| And Mrs. Hansen, if you don't mind, I apologize for interrupting you here. | 00:42:32 | |
| Just so you know, the proposal before us tonight is around the rezone. OK. So if you and other members of the public would just | 00:42:36 | |
| contain your comments around the concern around the Green Zone, I understand there's been a rat problem and that's been handled | 00:42:41 | |
| through code enforcement. Our position is. | 00:42:46 | |
| If if the if the holiday is going to allow the rezone, we would ask that you delay it until they bring the property up to code. | 00:42:52 | |
| Because the property is a mess. | 00:43:05 | |
| Appreciate it. That. And there was there was like, I'm sorry, there was like mattresses left out all winter. There's tools and | 00:43:10 | |
| things all over the place. There's one structure on the east side that appears to be falling apart directly directly next to the. | 00:43:18 | |
| Facility that he wants to use for. | 00:43:27 | |
| The music studio, I would say. | 00:43:31 | |
| And one thing I will say is just in regards to anything that would be a code enforcement matter that would be handled through the | 00:43:34 | |
| code enforcement officer. | 00:43:38 | |
| So as far as what we're considering here tonight, it's just is the property. | 00:43:42 | |
| Reflected correctly with the requirements for a rezone and that's pretty much the basis for anything that we have approval for to | 00:43:49 | |
| make a recommendation for approval or denial. So OK, so we're we're just concerned that with the reason that the that the owners | 00:43:55 | |
| of the property maintain what would be. | 00:44:02 | |
| Holiday. | 00:44:10 | |
| Specifications. OK, that's great. Thank you. | 00:44:12 | |
| Do we have? Yes, Sir. | 00:44:19 | |
| Good evening. My name is Aiden Bradney. We live in the property on the West of. | 00:44:26 | |
| Weather changes to the planning to be scheduled. I'm sorry, what was the address I missed it 1922? | 00:44:32 | |
| Directly West. | 00:44:40 | |
| 1920 two 5600 OK right where the mouse is there, so if you are. | 00:44:42 | |
| Open up that parcel, assessor. It's kind of a little clearer to see. | 00:44:47 | |
| But there's a couple of main concerns. One is that we live in an area of outstanding natural beauty. If the canyons were 100 miles | 00:44:53 | |
| away, there would be national parks without a shadow of a doubt. And the view from our deck is something that is phenomenal is one | 00:45:00 | |
| of the reasons we moved into holiday was to have Mount Olympus on our doorstep. We moved prior to the. | 00:45:08 | |
| That HOA housing R210, that doesn't impact us too much, but our fear is that if they rezone 1932 and then all of a sudden we're | 00:45:17 | |
| going to be putting two floor structures in there, our view will completely disappear. | 00:45:26 | |
| Beyond that and we did e-mail photographs from our deck as soon as this came up. | 00:45:35 | |
| The other thing is, if you can see the width of the driveway leading to the back, that is directly on our RV pad. Now whether we | 00:45:41 | |
| have an RV, there is not a problem. But that driveway on a great day is probably about 7 feet wide and they have one car in and | 00:45:48 | |
| out. The people that live in the front house right now and they're a wonderful young couple with a couple of kids, no problems | 00:45:55 | |
| with them whatsoever. As soon as there are going to be more apartments, houses. | 00:46:01 | |
| Whatever goes in back there, there's going to definitely be a congestion issue. | 00:46:09 | |
| Road parking is kind of out of the question already because of the amount of employees and people that visit the assisted living | 00:46:15 | |
| across the road. | 00:46:18 | |
| And then there is a, to the best of my knowledge, is still there. I'm kind of not around you in the daytime anymore, but that, | 00:46:22 | |
| well, it was kind of like a daycare. | 00:46:27 | |
| In that 278024 house there was a daycare there, so there's a lot of traffic on the road. | 00:46:33 | |
| But as soon as they stop putting apartments in there and you've got to think that each apartments probably got two or three | 00:46:41 | |
| vehicles in today's standards, then there's definitely going to be. | 00:46:45 | |
| An issue with vehicles. | 00:46:50 | |
| To speak to the condition of the front property, we've always loved it. It's kind of. | 00:46:53 | |
| A pretty looking property. They just recently did the roof. No problems with that at all. The back would be wonderful if it was | 00:46:59 | |
| made into a. | 00:47:02 | |
| A real nice yard. We never we live right next door. We never had any problems with the swimming pool. We if the rats are coming | 00:47:06 | |
| from the canal. | 00:47:10 | |
| They never came across our backyard. We've never had any rat issues whatsoever. | 00:47:16 | |
| But you'd occasionally hear a duck in the swimming pool. I thought that was kind of funny, but never an issue with with Joan, | 00:47:20 | |
| anyone at all. But my fear is that this property at the back, if that starts getting construction in there and construction | 00:47:27 | |
| equipment, there's going to be a major knock on effect to us who are directly next door. And then as soon as they put in the | 00:47:34 | |
| permission and all of a sudden you can build 2 Storey houses in that location. | 00:47:41 | |
| The quaintness of holiday all of a sudden I feel starts to tumble. What's to stop me from applying to make my house three stories | 00:47:49 | |
| high and that would get shot down immediately. So it's this kind of ongoing. | 00:47:56 | |
| Yeah, I think it's going to snowball personally and our beautiful view of those mountains is going to be massively impacted. | 00:48:04 | |
| Thank you very much for your comments. I appreciate it. | 00:48:13 | |
| Do we have any other members of the public that wish to make comment at this time? | 00:48:20 | |
| My name is Kurt Larson. I live at 5646 Nations Way. | 00:48:31 | |
| Just W one St. West of the property. | 00:48:36 | |
| Our big concern is a little bit what Hayden was talking about is all the cars on the street with the living assisted living across | 00:48:41 | |
| the street. We constantly have cars parked up and down the street, sometimes even on our street because they have gatherings and | 00:48:48 | |
| whatnot over there and all we need to do is that, you know four or five more cars to that. I know building is only don't really | 00:48:56 | |
| take that into consideration. | 00:49:03 | |
| But somebody ought to. It's just it's crazy. I don't know how that assisted living got by with no, you know not nearly enough | 00:49:11 | |
| parking. It's it's just there's always cars up and down there. We come around the corner and just about plow into them because | 00:49:16 | |
| they they don't park where they should and. | 00:49:22 | |
| It just seems like a real inconvenience for us. | 00:49:28 | |
| Also another concern I had when they put in the HOA. | 00:49:34 | |
| They had to bring the level of the foundations up six feet out of the ground, the existing ground, to make the sewer lines work. | 00:49:38 | |
| I would think they might have the same problem if they built something in the back there and. | 00:49:48 | |
| If they've got to bring that up six feet out of the ground, Taddy Oka lives right behind him. He's going to feel like he's in a | 00:49:53 | |
| hole. | 00:49:56 | |
| It's just so I wanted to. | 00:50:01 | |
| Make sure that if that's the case, I, you know, I don't want another building 6 feet out of the ground right there. So that's | 00:50:05 | |
| that's all the comments I have. | 00:50:10 | |
| Thank you very much. Appreciate it. | 00:50:16 | |
| All right. Did we have any other comments? | 00:50:23 | |
| If you come back up, I'll allow. | 00:50:30 | |
| You get 60 seconds on the clock. | 00:50:33 | |
| But restate your name and address so we know which one it is. Adam Bradney, 1922 E 5600 S. | 00:50:36 | |
| Kurt has brought something up there. | 00:50:43 | |
| Clicked in. My mind is last year we had major plumbing issues that they had to dig up our entire backyard. | 00:50:45 | |
| And the whole structure under there, with the plumbing crew, with the cameras and everything, it's already pretty maxed out, | 00:50:52 | |
| according to the plumbing company that came out in the city that came out that had to say, yes, you know, the new plumbing lines | 00:50:58 | |
| are great. They said that the infrastructure below ground is already starting to look a bit tired. | 00:51:05 | |
| So I'm sure that the house at the front doesn't have a problem. But as soon as you start putting eight more toilets back there and | 00:51:12 | |
| a few more bathtubs, goodness knows what's going to happen as well as what Coat was saying about raising the level of ground. | 00:51:19 | |
| That is all. Thank you. All right. Thank you. | 00:51:27 | |
| Nailed it. 60 seconds. Good job. Just kidding. All right, one more. Go ahead. | 00:51:30 | |
| You gotta come up to the mic and give us. | 00:51:36 | |
| We got to get it for our recorder, just so you know, I know who you are, but we got to get it recorded. Jim Preston 5670 Nations | 00:51:42 | |
| way. So I'm. I'm not even on the map here but. | 00:51:48 | |
| You know, I want to just kind of find out. So, Mr. Lewis, what do you want to do? | 00:51:54 | |
| So my whole thing would be. | 00:52:35 | |
| So how many, how many square feet, how many square? Jim, Jim, Jim, Jim, back-to-back back to the Planning Commission. Please, | 00:52:38 | |
| we're not, we're not talking to the applicant right now. You're talking how many square feet are on the property. | 00:52:44 | |
| The property is. So if you got our 2:10, you can put a duplex on 10,000 feet. | 00:52:50 | |
| How many square feet do you have? | 00:52:56 | |
| Right. | 00:52:59 | |
| So it's 19,166 square feet or .44 acres. | 00:53:00 | |
| OK, well, so. | 00:53:06 | |
| You know, I'm all for improving the property. You know, on the one hand we're here and leave it like it is and and and make it | 00:53:09 | |
| better. But then I don't know if Mr. Lewis wants to make it into a piano teaching facility again. If he gets approval to do it and | 00:53:16 | |
| just and if he don't if he got that, he'd he'd he'd do that again. I I don't know. | 00:53:23 | |
| As far as the the, the property goes if if it's allowed for. | 00:53:32 | |
| R210 duplex per 10,000 feet. | 00:53:40 | |
| Then I'd want to be, you know, listening to what, how many, how many, what? What is the height limitation. We've got Aiden here | 00:53:45 | |
| that he's got a situation with the height, so. | 00:53:51 | |
| That would be. | 00:53:59 | |
| Part of my my question is how are we going to improve the property? How has the property going to be improved? And I guess that's | 00:54:00 | |
| something that isn't going to be determined until it is made to an R210. I'd like to ask Mr. Lewis, is the existing home on 56 | 00:54:06 | |
| going to remain? | 00:54:12 | |
| And we can give the applicant a chance to come up and address any comments made to the public after we close the hearing. So we | 00:54:19 | |
| can definitely table that and see if Mr. Lewis wishes to respond. So thank you for your comments. | 00:54:24 | |
| I think and did we and was there anyone else we haven't heard from that wanted to make comment before I close the public hearing. | 00:54:32 | |
| OK. I think we got just about everybody today. So we'll go ahead and close the public hearing at this time then. And if Mr. Lewis | 00:54:38 | |
| would like to come up and just make any address remarks to the comments that were made by the public, yes, happy to do that and | 00:54:44 | |
| happy to have conversations. | 00:54:49 | |
| So just trying to kind of tick these off. Well, I don't know if I should get into the **** issue that that you know, one thing you | 00:54:57 | |
| have to remember is. | 00:55:01 | |
| My parents had this property and built some of these structures long before the Highland Court. | 00:55:06 | |
| Facility was built so that shed that they're talking about that's close to the property line that was there when Don Wilson had | 00:55:12 | |
| his huge backyard that was all just grass back there to the east and then obviously that was all taken over and these tall twin | 00:55:20 | |
| homes were built and they are tall and they do look down you know into we have a fence back there but they look into the yard you | 00:55:28 | |
| know and they are tall now I would be that's why I said before I on on some of the other. | 00:55:35 | |
| You know, like I said, code enforcement came out about the smell of the chemicals, those things. | 00:55:43 | |
| They didn't see anything. They didn't hear any. You know, they smelled. There's nothing to that, that I know there's never been a | 00:55:49 | |
| mattress out there. I rechecked with the tenants. That's never been the case. So, you know, some of these things I think are | 00:55:56 | |
| overblown. And again, I'm kind of, I feel like some of the other things are just premature. | 00:56:02 | |
| Because like I said, we asked should we just try to do a rezone application with a plan on what we might do with the property? | 00:56:09 | |
| But we're told that we had to take these kind of seriatim steps, So what we're doing is just trying to figure out can we get it? | 00:56:17 | |
| Rezoned R210. | 00:56:20 | |
| We would have plans, we could investigate, you know, whether we could change that existing structure into something. | 00:56:58 | |
| Or you know a different thing. But all of these issues about parking and sewer and all those things would be considered as part of | 00:57:04 | |
| that. That's how I understood it would work. So I'm not maybe it's unsatisfying, but not I don't. I don't have it. We haven't put | 00:57:10 | |
| in the time effort but to figure out exactly what we do. But that would be the plan. If we got the R210 is then we would | 00:57:16 | |
| investigate different options. | 00:57:22 | |
| Discuss those. | 00:57:28 | |
| You obviously have to come back to the city to get approvals for any of those plans and I think we'd have to factor in all of | 00:57:30 | |
| these, you know, issues about parking and access and other things, so. | 00:57:36 | |
| That may not be the most satisfying answer to say we don't know, but we just understand this is the first step. It does. You know, | 00:57:44 | |
| it's not out of line with any of the surrounding properties in our view, so we can address all these other concerns. | 00:57:51 | |
| In the next step. | 00:58:00 | |
| I appreciate to appreciate the additional comments and clarification there. Just real quick before you sit down, Commissioners, | 00:58:02 | |
| any other questions for the applicant that haven't been addressed in either of his addresses? All right, we'll go ahead and have | 00:58:08 | |
| you sit down. Thank you very much. All right. And with that, we will now turn to our discussion and I have asked Commissioner | 00:58:14 | |
| Baron if he would just lead our discussion before any motions are made on this to capture everybody's input on this. | 00:58:21 | |
| I did close the feed. If I didn't already say that, I apologize. The public hearing has been closed. | 00:58:28 | |
| OK. And with that, Commissioner Baron. OK, well, based on all the questions were asked earlier, I'm not sure how we're going to | 00:58:33 | |
| lead this discussion. So one of the things I had to ask is of staff for the R210, you're saying that there's three total single | 00:58:39 | |
| family detached dwellings. | 00:58:45 | |
| Allowed on the property, but that's if they had access. | 00:58:52 | |
| Because it looks like the lots too narrow to have the 20 foot access point right? | 00:58:56 | |
| Yeah. So if they were to take out access, I think the measurement if we've measured 20 feet on here, I that's one of the issues | 00:59:03 | |
| that would be addressed once they apply for adding additional units onto the property is how wide is the access and fire looks at | 00:59:11 | |
| that access requirements there are. | 00:59:20 | |
| Umm, exceptions. Sometimes if there isn't an appropriate access, you could do fire sprinklers. That's all addressed through fire | 00:59:30 | |
| code. So fire code is what regulates the the width of the access Rd. and any exceptions because there are sometimes properties | 00:59:37 | |
| that are further back typically. | 00:59:43 | |
| Properties that can't be or structures that can't be accessed with a fire truck have to have fire sprinklers in it. OK, well part | 00:59:51 | |
| of my question is to try and answer the question that the audience is asking is what's potentially could happen here? Yeah. The | 00:59:58 | |
| second question is, is the height allowed in the R110 and the R210 the same? They are the same. OK, so not to scare you, but they | 01:00:05 | |
| can build the two-story structure now. | 01:00:12 | |
| Yes. Any zoning change? Yeah. So current code is properties. Less than half an acre is 32 feet in height. That's to the top of the | 01:00:19 | |
| Ridge. | 01:00:25 | |
| The additional control on height is graduated height, so that pushes taller areas of a structure further away from our property | 01:00:33 | |
| line. | 01:00:38 | |
| That graduated A height applies to all structures, so primary structures and accessory structures. | 01:00:43 | |
| OK. So if they wanted a second story on the extra structure in the back, it would be more in the middle. They could not do it up | 01:00:50 | |
| against the lot line, right? | 01:00:54 | |
| I'm sorry you take up all the time, but another question. If they were to do the three single family or the attached to whatever | 01:01:01 | |
| the maximum development you thought they could put on the property, if they were to do AD use as part of either one, or they're | 01:01:08 | |
| not subdividing the property or another Adu, does that also have to be fire sprinkled? | 01:01:15 | |
| And that may be a question if you're talking, are you asking about an external Adu or I'm just trying to see just. | 01:01:24 | |
| Again, helping the audience figure out exactly what we could see potentially being built on the property with an R210. | 01:01:33 | |
| So the state requires that accessory dwelling units are allowed in any residential zone. We have recent code amendments that are | 01:01:40 | |
| being heard by City Council currently that would limit external or sorry ADUS to detach structures only. So in a situation like | 01:01:50 | |
| this in an R2 zone where an Adu would be permitted by the state code. | 01:02:00 | |
| If they were to do an attached unit with two units in one single building. | 01:02:10 | |
| Those units couldn't have 80 use because it is an attached structure. If they were to detach and do three separate detached units, | 01:02:16 | |
| each of those could have an internal or an external Edu. External Adu varies based off of what the lot size is. | 01:02:25 | |
| So that you may not see. It's highly unlikely you'd see an external Adu on those properties. All that dependent on what passes | 01:02:36 | |
| with City Council, but. | 01:02:41 | |
| So because you're looking at, OK, what is the potential units plus accessory units? Accessory units would likely be an internal | 01:02:48 | |
| accessory unit and I would say that's pretty common. Most people are adding kind of a second kitchen or area that can be converted | 01:02:55 | |
| to an accessory unit that they want to incorporate into a single family house. So if single family houses were built, each of | 01:03:02 | |
| those single family houses could have an accessory dwelling unit. | 01:03:09 | |
| With fire sprinklers. | 01:03:16 | |
| Right access would all be determined if it If it needs to be fire sprinkled, that's what it would need to be. | 01:03:18 | |
| OK. Just two more questions and I'll be quick. OK. There's a street to the South of this property. I know it's probably a private | 01:03:26 | |
| road, but if they were to get access to that. | 01:03:31 | |
| Does that change the dynamic of? | 01:03:36 | |
| How they could develop the property, right. So you're you're referring to this private subdivision, Yeah. | 01:03:39 | |
| Yeah, that would have to be an agreement or worked out with the with the planned unit development that's there. | 01:03:48 | |
| I mean, I've seen other situations where the property owner has approached the planned unit development. In many cases they don't | 01:03:59 | |
| want to incorporate that area and their subdivision would have to be amended to add property into it. So it would require the the | 01:04:05 | |
| PUD to bring. | 01:04:11 | |
| New units in, but then those units would have to conform to whatever standards are in the PUD. So there's there's benefits that | 01:04:19 | |
| might be there that the that that community may want to consider if they want to have a similar development pattern. | 01:04:26 | |
| That's something that then they are to you, and they could do that even without rezoning. If they wanted to bring an area into | 01:04:35 | |
| their PUD, a rezone wouldn't need to be. | 01:04:41 | |
| Done because they just capture an additional area of land. | 01:04:48 | |
| As long as the front area then would retain the 10,000 square foot minimum so but we would have to get it that would require then | 01:04:53 | |
| the PUD. | 01:04:57 | |
| Approving that that amendment onto their subdivision, so. | 01:05:02 | |
| And maybe this is a question for the applicant. I'm not sure if that's been discussed at all, but a lot of times beauties are not. | 01:05:09 | |
| Super amenable into adding more units into their into their planned unit development, but you sometimes get outlier like | 01:05:19 | |
| properties like this where maybe this property owner didn't want to sell a portion of their property to that developer's. | 01:05:25 | |
| At that point in time and so that's where it kind of ended up. I just wondered if. | 01:05:32 | |
| You know all the planets align and they agreed to do it if that changes the dynamic of. | 01:05:38 | |
| How much access? Obviously it would reduce how much access, but yeah, it would, if it were incorporated into that PUD, it would | 01:05:44 | |
| just meet the standards of the PUD. So their planned unit development would be amended. | 01:05:51 | |
| Similar to these properties that are here, to the east of this property you just have setbacks that are designated on the plat. | 01:05:58 | |
| Essentially it would be 3 properties, but it'd be just the duplex. I'm trying to factor out all the possibilities of what could | 01:06:06 | |
| ultimately be built there to kind of give some of the audience some reassurance that if that does happen, that's all things that | 01:06:13 | |
| would have to be worked out between the land owners in that private development if they wanted to do an access easement and have | 01:06:20 | |
| the property access. I mean, there's there's different approaches there, but it does require all of the. | 01:06:28 | |
| Or does require the approval? | 01:06:36 | |
| And the legal process to be followed with that planned unit development, OK. | 01:06:38 | |
| Finally, I'm just trying to figure out as we look through the general plan criteria. | 01:06:44 | |
| And the approval criteria for rezoning and that type of thing, this appears to meet the intent or the kind of expectation of being | 01:06:49 | |
| in the same character of the adjacent properties. So we take that into consideration. If this were ultimately developed, do you | 01:06:56 | |
| see that the future development would be? | 01:07:03 | |
| Consistent with that character we're trying to preserve. | 01:07:12 | |
| I'm trying to figure out what would happen if right. You're going to have character that is very highly controlled within a | 01:07:17 | |
| beauty, but this area is not within a beauty, so you're not going to have that same architectural kind of similarity. Total number | 01:07:26 | |
| of units if we're reducing it to just what is what is on the land and using that as a indicator of character. | 01:07:34 | |
| Yes, it would be in character with. | 01:07:44 | |
| So is just the 2 units if the density is consistent with properties adjacent to one another. | 01:07:49 | |
| Is that by nature? | 01:07:55 | |
| Meeting the character of the area. | 01:07:58 | |
| Yes, I any residential neighborhood does. What is the character of a of a neighborhood? It's really subjective, but overall | 01:08:02 | |
| character could be summarized as just a. | 01:08:08 | |
| Single family or two family dwelling unit. So character here is to family, yes, yes, because I mean I appreciate the way you just | 01:08:18 | |
| said it because it is very difficult to say. | 01:08:24 | |
| We're trying to figure out exactly how it's supposed to meet up to make kind of that. | 01:08:32 | |
| Yeah. And I think is that in? | 01:08:41 | |
| Is there a specific point on the general plan that references the character? I don't remember exactly where that's at. Oh, it's | 01:08:44 | |
| the third one. Retain and protect the natural environmental character of the city and its neighborhoods? | 01:08:50 | |
| So. | 01:08:59 | |
| So as long as it's a neighborhood, it's a neighborhood character. | 01:09:01 | |
| It's really ambiguous, though it is. Character is always subjective. | 01:09:07 | |
| What do you want to loop into it? What do you not want to I anything is going to vary in the neighborhood. You're going to have | 01:09:12 | |
| some houses that have been remodeled substantially that have very different looks or feels. You could have a neighborhood that has | 01:09:18 | |
| a mix of two stories and single stories all intermingled in it. | 01:09:25 | |
| In this area, and that's where it's just the simplest, most basic is is the neighborhood? Is it a neighborhood? Do you have what | 01:09:33 | |
| is a neighborhood character? Neighborhood character is properties that are used for residential purposes. | 01:09:40 | |
| OK. Well, I've kind of driven the Commission off the Cliff here. Follow up to your. | 01:09:49 | |
| Where you were going I think if one of these prior non conforming duplexes. | 01:09:54 | |
| Change property and the new property owner wanted to build. | 01:10:03 | |
| A new duplex? Would he have to come in and rezone R210 if the property was destroyed by natural means? He can rebuild if. | 01:10:06 | |
| If it is not, if they selectively demolished a duplex, they couldn't rebuild a duplex, and I think that applies to this property. | 01:10:18 | |
| Let me roll down the east. | 01:10:26 | |
| And then the one zone nations, right? Yeah, just prior just this one duplexes that are really single property home and I'm not. | 01:10:33 | |
| When I looked at Google Maps, this had two addresses associated with it, but I'm not sure if that one is E legal non conforming | 01:10:44 | |
| duplex. This one definitely is. | 01:10:48 | |
| And then this duplex is already zoned as R2. | 01:10:54 | |
| I can address some of the other comments if the Planning Commission has more questions about those. I think largely Commissioner | 01:11:02 | |
| Baron has addressed a lot of those questions with access and. | 01:11:09 | |
| What is addressed at a building permit level? That's where we're looking at all the utility connections. Utility connection | 01:11:18 | |
| letters are required for building improvements. Converting an accessory structure into a living space? That's. | 01:11:26 | |
| Building the Building official will be looking at the plans to make sure that they're meeting building code. Utility letters have | 01:11:34 | |
| to be. | 01:11:38 | |
| Provide a letter saying that utility service is available for the additional units. They have their metrics that they're looking | 01:11:45 | |
| at in assessing that if there were substantial redevelopment like a subdivision and. | 01:11:52 | |
| New lots created. A utility provider may require the applicant to upgrade the service line in order to account for those | 01:12:01 | |
| additional units. So that's something that is addressed when they're applying for a building permit or that we'd see if they're | 01:12:07 | |
| doing a subdivision. | 01:12:12 | |
| But as is, if they were just to convert the existing accessory building, they would be required to have that reviewed by the | 01:12:19 | |
| utility providers. | 01:12:23 | |
| All of the upkeep issues, those are addressed just with code enforcement. Same standard for every property and holiday and | 01:12:30 | |
| foundation wise I that's just. | 01:12:37 | |
| Depending on the grade of the property, we don't regulate what size of foundation is, but building height is regulated and it is | 01:12:45 | |
| the same in R1 and R2 zones. | 01:12:50 | |
| Those are all next steps, none of which are applicable to tonight's current proposal or application before us, which tonight is | 01:12:56 | |
| just specifically the Zone. And does the Zone meet all the criteria for a rezone? Is it applicable? Does it make sense? | 01:13:04 | |
| And so with that other commissioners comments, one question. | 01:13:14 | |
| Some of the folks in the audience talked about parking. | 01:13:19 | |
| And. | 01:13:23 | |
| Is it correct that? | 01:13:25 | |
| This application, any anything that's built has to include on site parking. | 01:13:27 | |
| Yes, so residential. | 01:13:34 | |
| Development is to parking spaces required for each residential unit. | 01:13:37 | |
| So they would have to meet those standards. If they're adding an additional unit, they have to have to. | 01:13:44 | |
| Parking spaces for that additional unit. | 01:13:49 | |
| On the comment of street parking, Street parking is a public good that's available to anyone. We don't regulate street parking | 01:13:55 | |
| beyond limiting it to 24 hours at a time. | 01:14:01 | |
| The home occupation daycare that existed that was referenced by one of the comments is no longer in Operation 2. | 01:14:09 | |
| Commissioners, other questions, comments. | 01:14:21 | |
| Everybody says, OK, we're all soaking it in at the moment. All right. Yes, go ahead. | 01:14:26 | |
| The issue of. | 01:14:33 | |
| A structure being in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Is that something that the technical review committee gets | 01:14:36 | |
| involved with or? | 01:14:40 | |
| No, because we don't have character standards for neighborhoods. Neighborhoods are residential, so the character is is it a | 01:14:47 | |
| residential use? | 01:14:51 | |
| Because that is what neighborhoods are. Neighborhoods are residential use. That is the only character that we have to rely on for | 01:14:57 | |
| neighborhoods. And you're going to have neighborhoods with older homes that get replaced with newer homes. Some people buy | 01:15:04 | |
| multiple parcels and build giant homes. Is that out of character with the neighborhood? It's. | 01:15:10 | |
| It's not. It's not a factor beyond is it a residential use. | 01:15:18 | |
| Oh boy, yeah. Well at the end of the day for me, when I look at this, I'm just going to throw my comment out there. When I look at | 01:15:26 | |
| this, I think I I for me it's just why is it? It sounds like based on what the applicant is trying to do with a potential | 01:15:33 | |
| subdivide, it feels like an R18 would satisfy that and also satisfy the general plan of the city, which for this area has been | 01:15:40 | |
| earmarked as low density residential stable. | 01:15:48 | |
| Right. Like I feel like that. | 01:15:55 | |
| Somehow is the path that should have been on and it got skewed and steered off into the R210 and I don't know if it's just | 01:15:59 | |
| because, well the neighbors have it, let's do that. I don't, I'm not I can't speak to that. But the the three home thing and part | 01:16:06 | |
| of it just has me a little bit concerned because I think that's you know, at what point does the domino effect happen And then the | 01:16:12 | |
| neighbors duplex becomes a triplex and then the next neighbors becomes a triplex or you know R2 et cetera. | 01:16:19 | |
| Highland Court, thank you. I think that'd be easy. But Highland Court, I think that one would fall under the exception rule | 01:16:58 | |
| because it falls into that master plan. | 01:17:03 | |
| That's very controlled to City staff's point, right. That's not going to go change. Nobody's going to sell that property and go in | 01:17:39 | |
| and subdivide it. It's already part of a master plan as where this has no control mechanisms on it whatsoever. And you know, build | 01:17:45 | |
| it bigger, better, faster, higher, whatever fits as long as it can fit in there. We've just given it the green light to do so. So | 01:17:51 | |
| that's my only reservation on R2 versus an R18. And with that I will be quiet and see if any other commissioners have thoughts or | 01:17:57 | |
| if we have a motion. | 01:18:03 | |
| I appreciate the Commissioners direction. With that. I do, however, reading in the staff report. | 01:18:09 | |
| It says under guidelines in the general Plan, rezone request should be considered only when increases in density will not | 01:18:17 | |
| negatively impact the established development pander. | 01:18:22 | |
| Patterns in the surrounding neighborhood which this would not, and even with the increased units I think it would still fit. New | 01:18:28 | |
| development will be accommodated through utilizing unclaimed density. I'm not sure what that means anymore. Rezoning may be | 01:18:35 | |
| appropriate when increased density will not destabilize the existing neighborhood. | 01:18:42 | |
| Based on that criteria or those defining points, I think there's merit to this. I think that. | 01:18:50 | |
| In my questions there are some limiting factors to how narrow the property is and the access to that which. | 01:18:59 | |
| May be cost prohibitive to do a number of these things but. | 01:19:07 | |
| To me, I'm seeing that this is kind of meeting the intent. | 01:19:12 | |
| You know whether that. | 01:19:18 | |
| I don't know. | 01:19:21 | |
| That helps though for me. | 01:19:25 | |
| Well, if anyone else has, unless there's no further comments, I've had the same thought about the R18 being a better zoning and I | 01:19:28 | |
| I wonder. | 01:19:34 | |
| I don't know how everyone feels, so I don't know what the vote is going to be, but if this is some food for thought for the | 01:19:40 | |
| applicant. | 01:19:44 | |
| And whether the applicant would have any concern if we tabled this for the next meeting. | 01:19:48 | |
| To let him decide if. | 01:19:55 | |
| These other things have been talked about, which zoning he really wants. I mean, he could get a vote today. He may get it, he may | 01:19:57 | |
| not. He could certainly come back another time and try, you know, on our 1/8. | 01:20:03 | |
| Or maybe we could be efficient and table this for two weeks and? | 01:20:09 | |
| Maybe he changes it or doesn't change it takes a chance, I don't know. | 01:20:14 | |
| Well, and I'll defer to city staff on that. What would be the correct protocol, something like that? | 01:20:19 | |
| Yeah, that would be an option. | 01:20:26 | |
| I think when looking at R18, if I were walking through R18, there's going to be significant challenges if the applicant is trying | 01:20:30 | |
| to use that back. | 01:20:35 | |
| Building. It's rezoning the whole property to R18. | 01:20:42 | |
| You would then need to do a planned unit development or subdivided, but then the. | 01:20:48 | |
| R18 still comes with significant challenges in being able to use that and I think that's possibly where that are too. O 10 | 01:20:55 | |
| recommendation comes in is that it is an easy way to say OK 2 units. | 01:21:02 | |
| The that's there's two structures existing on the property, and it is. | 01:21:11 | |
| A clearer process moving forward for the applicant and using the property or subdividing. | 01:21:17 | |
| R2 subdividing is still going to have some challenges with it as well I. | 01:21:27 | |
| We talked about the access when I pulled out. | 01:21:32 | |
| Kind of a area that would go from the property line back to where that structure is. It's roughly 2200 square feet. So if you're | 01:21:37 | |
| taking 2200 square feet out of their 1900, that's going to be pretty close on even an R18 subdivision if they're. | 01:21:46 | |
| Yeah, because they're nineteen 19166, taking out 2200 square feet of roadway access. | 01:21:56 | |
| 16 and 16 by two is 8 right? Right. | 01:22:07 | |
| So it's it's tough, but it's doable. Doable, yes. | 01:22:10 | |
| Where R2 could avoid some of those those issues. But even with an R2, that existing structure is still legal non conforming | 01:22:15 | |
| because of its placement on the setbacks, right? So either way, that's still going to present a hassle if he says hey, I wanna | 01:22:20 | |
| make this a home now, right? | 01:22:25 | |
| I think my concern just, I mean that's a really interesting thought and I. | 01:22:33 | |
| I think. | 01:22:39 | |
| And the list of considerations just on the very first page of the staff report. | 01:22:42 | |
| Is it consistent with the general plan? I also think so. It seems to be. Is it consistent with the character of adjacent | 01:22:47 | |
| properties? It seems to be. | 01:22:51 | |
| Umm, this 4th one is their adequacy of the whatever it sounds like that's going to be a limiting factor and so to me, I'm not. | 01:22:57 | |
| I mean, certainly it could be built up, absolutely. But it sounds like there's there going to be a lot of pieces to puzzle in | 01:23:08 | |
| about that. | 01:23:13 | |
| But but I think. | 01:23:19 | |
| I'm in favor of the R210 over the considering an R18 or sending them back to consider. That is because it would match the things | 01:23:22 | |
| that are next to it, and so even though it's a PUD and even though it's a sort of a special arrangement having having that whole | 01:23:28 | |
| thing be a matching zone. | 01:23:34 | |
| Makes I think more logistical sense to me than having one property that's sort of different, you know, so in. | 01:23:42 | |
| 20 years as as these buildings may or may not change. 40 years having something that's not maybe gonna have to be rezoned again in | 01:23:51 | |
| some funny way that doesn't match the ones next to it, I'm not sure. I that's my thought about that. | 01:23:58 | |
| Thank you, Commissioner Bill. | 01:24:06 | |
| So it sounds like we have some interesting discussion points. We've covered and gone over this pretty well. But I think what's | 01:24:10 | |
| before us tonight has been prepared well by staff and if someone wants to make a motion on it, we can see where that lands unless | 01:24:16 | |
| anyone has an objection to a motion being made. | 01:24:21 | |
| Or additional comments to consider. | 01:24:28 | |
| With that, is anyone willing to make a motion? | 01:24:31 | |
| This is Commissioner Barrett, a motion to forward recommendation to the City Council to approve an application by Matthew and | 01:24:39 | |
| Amanda Lewis to amend the Holiday Zoning Map for .44 acres of land located on 1932 E 5600 S from R110 to R210, based on the | 01:24:48 | |
| following findings that the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan. | 01:24:58 | |
| The proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of the existing development in the vicinity. | 01:25:08 | |
| The proposed amendment will not will. | 01:25:14 | |
| To the extent of which the proposed amendment may adversely affect abutting properties. | 01:25:18 | |
| And the adjacency of facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, such as roadways, parks, recreational | 01:25:24 | |
| facilities, and so forth. | 01:25:30 | |
| All right, we have a motion as anyone seconding that. | 01:25:37 | |
| I second the motion. | 01:25:43 | |
| Right, Commissioner going to 2nd and therefore we will call for a vote. I will start down here with Commissioner Barron Aye, | 01:25:44 | |
| Commissioner Gong Aye, Commissioner Font aye, Commissioner Wilcinski, Commissioner Cunningham, nay. And Chair Roach votes nay. And | 01:25:52 | |
| with that it will move forward with a four to two recommendation to City Council to approve my math is correct. | 01:26:00 | |
| All right. Thank you very much. | 01:26:09 | |
| And with that, we have just one more item on the agenda this evening, which is just approval of minutes from February 6th meeting | 01:26:13 | |
| and from March 5th meeting. I was here for the February 6th and read through those minutes. I did not find any discrepancies or | 01:26:20 | |
| adjustments that needed to be made. Did anyone else find anything from the February 6th that there was concern? I wasn't here, so | 01:26:28 | |
| I won't vote on this. OK, so all in favor to approve the two 6 minutes? Aye. Aye. All righty, it's unanimous. And then? | 01:26:36 | |
| On the three 5 minutes, I was not here, so I have no idea if those minutes are accurate or not. Any suggested amendments or | 01:26:44 | |
| adjustments to those by anyone that was here? | 01:26:49 | |
| No, they're they were fine to me. All right. And all in favor of approval of those minutes. Aye. Aye. All righty. And that takes | 01:26:55 | |
| us to the top of the hour, 7:00 PM on the dot. Thank you for the discussion this evening. And do we have a motion to adjourn the | 01:27:00 | |
| meeting? | 01:27:04 | |
| So move. All right, Double motioned. All right. With that, all in favor, say aye. Aye. Done and done. Thank you very much, | 01:27:11 | |
| everyone. | 01:27:14 |
* 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...
| Irrigation pipes that, yeah, east and West along there. And they've all been busted into at different points too. So like, I have | 00:00:00 | |
| a hike that runs from my backyard into that canal and it's seven houses away, but I've got my hound up that's constantly wagging | 00:00:06 | |
| his tail and sticking his nose down in that pipe because he's waiting for a rat or a squirrel or something. Or. | 00:00:13 | |
| Well, it forced everybody into the time nobody was bringing It is time. All right. Good evening, everyone. It's a good thing to | 00:00:21 | |
| have, OK? | 00:00:25 | |
| We'll get started here. It is April 16, 2024. This is the City Planning Commission work session. We have one item that is a public | 00:00:31 | |
| hearing item and then approval of minutes. So I'm sure we're going to need the whole half hour to talk specifically about this | 00:00:38 | |
| zone map amendment and all the subtle nuances before we get to what I'm sure will be a well attended public hearing. So with that | 00:00:45 | |
| we will ask Carrie to start us off. | 00:00:52 | |
| OK, so. | 00:01:01 | |
| I think the easiest thing on this one is looking at the context here, right? This property is a long deep I. | 00:01:04 | |
| Fronts on 5600 S 2, family zoning on the east side, single family on the West side. Both of these properties on the West side are | 00:01:13 | |
| duplexes, both are on the east side are duplexes. So it's totally surrounded by duplexes. It's just that these two on the West are | 00:01:21 | |
| non conforming to the zone, so they are duplexes. | 00:01:30 | |
| But non conforming. And I just if you'll back up to that map, I just want to clarify to make sure I'm looking at it right on the | 00:01:39 | |
| east side of it, that is a duplex facing 56 and then another duplex that's part of the PUD subdivision facing inside, right. | 00:01:45 | |
| Right. OK, yeah. Thank you. | 00:01:51 | |
| Yeah. | 00:01:58 | |
| And. | 00:02:01 | |
| So the list of kind of all those neighboring properties is included in the staff report. | 00:02:06 | |
| And then an analysis of the general plan, I think the biggest issue on this is that this whole area is identified as on the future | 00:02:13 | |
| land use map as low density residential stable. | 00:02:19 | |
| I was just going to bring up this existing Blandius. So sometimes we have land uses that are not necessarily consistent with what | 00:02:28 | |
| zone or the future land use map is. So here you have that area. This is existing land uses where you can see the sorry super zoom | 00:02:35 | |
| in here. | 00:02:42 | |
| Too much? | 00:02:50 | |
| There it is here. So this is the assisted living. That's multifamily obviously as they have high density there. This is 2 family. | 00:02:55 | |
| These are duplexes. This is the property in question. And then those are both duplexes. | 00:03:03 | |
| So the duplex on the West that's shown in like a shady yellow, but that's not an R2, right? | 00:03:11 | |
| Right, those are both. | 00:03:20 | |
| Our one zoned, but the they are both used as duplexes so they're both legal non conforming. I think that this one that's right on | 00:03:24 | |
| the corner wasn't captured in that existing Gladys, but it is a. | 00:03:30 | |
| Legal non conforming duplex. I can zoom back out and we can go to the future land use map and it's legal nonconforming because it | 00:03:38 | |
| was there before this zoning stuff. Yeah, OK. | 00:03:43 | |
| So we have quite a few properties in Holiday that were zoned as duplexes under Salt Lake County and then when they were | 00:03:49 | |
| incorporated into Holiday, we just did larger kind of area wide zoning instead of property specific zoning. | 00:03:57 | |
| So you'll usually run into pockets where there's two or three duplexes that are all together. I know offhand there's another set | 00:04:04 | |
| of duplexes on 27th East as somewhat by Granados, not Granados Block Party. | 00:04:13 | |
| So kind of across the street on the east side of 27th East. There's a few duplexes there. There's own single family, but they are | 00:04:23 | |
| legal non conforming. So there's things like that all over in the city. Here is the. | 00:04:31 | |
| Future land use. So this is kind of what the general plan refers to on this. Adjusted zones, so. | 00:04:40 | |
| In that specific area that we are looking at before. | 00:04:48 | |
| That whole corner is low density, residential stable. The exception is on the Highland Drive. | 00:04:53 | |
| Where we refer back to the Highland Dr. Master plan for properties along Highland Drive. But this pocket where the. | 00:05:01 | |
| Assisted living is identified as low density residential stable and then this corner where we're kind of looking at is low density | 00:05:10 | |
| residential stable. | 00:05:14 | |
| I may be a little slow is stable, meaning rickery or like horses or just the neighborhood stable. The neighborhood doesn't change | 00:05:20 | |
| ever. Yes, and that's the what that is defined as here intended to support a mix of single family residential development that has | 00:05:28 | |
| been established by historic development patterns. So then it has suggested zones in there, OK. | 00:05:37 | |
| Thank you. Yeah, I like the language. At the end of that, on the LDRS rezone with the suggested zone list may be appropriate where | 00:05:46 | |
| increased density will not destabilize the existing neighborhood. | 00:05:53 | |
| So just to clarify on that, I didn't catch that the first time I looked at it, but the general plan does say the zone suggested in | 00:06:01 | |
| there R18R10 or R110 and R115. And I think that's kind of the challenge with any sort of infill or a built out community. You've | 00:06:09 | |
| got these outliers that are not like everything's not going to perfectly fit and that's where in the staff report there's I | 00:06:16 | |
| discussed a bit about context of the area. | 00:06:23 | |
| I'm also going to pull up the arterial the roadway before you switch to that if you would. I just wanted to see because the R2 is | 00:06:33 | |
| listed as medium, RT, whatever MDRT. Can you show me just back up on the map where most of those MDRT zones exist? Or are there | 00:06:39 | |
| any here? | 00:06:44 | |
| So just here and here, the corridors basically is the. | 00:06:52 | |
| OK. All right. Thank you. Can I ask a question about that also? Well, about the paragraphs you were showing before we move on, | 00:06:59 | |
| there was language in it. I thought it just clarified this where it says new develop in. | 00:07:06 | |
| Low density residential. | 00:07:15 | |
| Protected, it said. | 00:07:19 | |
| Use unclaimed density by subdivision instead of rezones, but this is stable. | 00:07:23 | |
| Umm, so rezoning is more usual, more appropriate. Can you, can you just talk a little bit about what that means? Yeah, it doesn't | 00:07:29 | |
| have that specific designation. And these, when I was talking to John Tierling about these, how these were set up in the general | 00:07:39 | |
| plan, he said it was some of our future land use was really designed with the intent to identify these larger protected areas. | 00:07:49 | |
| Within the estates and surrounding and then everything else kind of outside of that just was like, OK, these are stable areas. It | 00:08:00 | |
| didn't really take into account a lot of corridors beyond Highland Drive and these obvious ones on 23rd, 45th and 39th. | 00:08:10 | |
| As far as those corridors are concerned, is that the first property on the corridor that's included in that or? | 00:08:22 | |
| Is there a depth of how much? | 00:08:30 | |
| It's not, yeah. It doesn't designate specifically on those. | 00:08:32 | |
| But the the line was just created with basic mapping of here's the road and here's this specific area we're going to draw around | 00:08:43 | |
| the road. But it doesn't identify any specific roads or that it has to be fronting onto a major road or any other such thing. This | 00:08:51 | |
| is a major Rd. So that's properties that are in kind of close proximity to that road would be considered. | 00:08:58 | |
| Would be probably a safe assumption two or three lots in, you know is is kind of touching the road and then from there you're | 00:09:08 | |
| really throwing up the question mark of does this fit with that? Yeah and the I am challenged with. | 00:09:14 | |
| I think all of these main corridors are primarily U dot roads. 45th is. Highland Drive is. I don't think 23rd or 39th. Are you not | 00:09:22 | |
| well, 39th maybe? | 00:09:28 | |
| I remember another zone amendment we had before us that did not get a favorable recommendation about a year and a half ago that | 00:09:35 | |
| was on the other side of Highland, right across from that area. | 00:09:40 | |
| Yeah. On the East side where there's that home for sale with the fence around it and someone wanted to put like 4 units in on that | 00:09:47 | |
| property or something like that. | 00:09:51 | |
| Or on Highland Drive that was well it was where what is the road? Pheasant way. Not pheasant circle, but pheasant way connects to | 00:09:58 | |
| Highland. I believe it faces pheasant way but it's right on the corner. | 00:10:05 | |
| Of Highland, yeah. And those are, we were talking a little bit before the meeting about updates of the general plan. Some of those | 00:10:13 | |
| things might be refined in the future as we work through general plan updates as what And that's things that we're thinking about | 00:10:21 | |
| as staff as well. You know what our neighborhoods, what are areas that maybe we want to refine a little bit so that we don't have. | 00:10:29 | |
| Do we want to keep 5600 S as a? That's a collector Rd. | 00:10:38 | |
| As a stable with single family or that an area we want to look at, possibly some other. | 00:10:44 | |
| Zones that would be appropriate, but. | 00:10:51 | |
| I think. | 00:10:55 | |
| Within the and. | 00:10:58 | |
| It's kind of that just that Contextual called it. Yes, these are suggested zones. | 00:11:01 | |
| You could suggest a rezone within those, or there's other points in the general plan that you can base a rezone recommendation off | 00:11:06 | |
| of. So there's multiple kind of angles. Sometimes it doesn't. One application won't fit every checklist, but it may fit some of | 00:11:14 | |
| the checklist, so as the Planning Commission you'll just. | 00:11:21 | |
| That is what you get to decide. Call that logistical ambiguity when I walk by there. | 00:11:29 | |
| It looks like there's a home on the front. | 00:11:37 | |
| And I think somewhere I said two accessory buildings. | 00:11:40 | |
| At the back. | 00:11:43 | |
| But there's clearly a big house back there, another house. It was. I know, the former owner of the property. He did a he had a | 00:11:46 | |
| music studio back. There he was. | 00:11:52 | |
| A piano teacher for many many years and that was his studio where he would have people come and like one of those home occupation | 00:12:00 | |
| type things that he worked out. It was basically a garage converted into studio, which is a rather large one. | 00:12:07 | |
| But you know, I think he had like a baby grand in there, if I'm not mistaken, or big grand. So yeah. | 00:12:14 | |
| And I mean, it looked it looked to me like it was occupied and being used as a house. | 00:12:20 | |
| We don't have as a rental. Any indication of that, Yeah, but I but in any case, so I'm assuming what what is he trying to | 00:12:25 | |
| accomplish that he couldn't accomplish? | 00:12:30 | |
| With the zoning not changed. | 00:12:37 | |
| Does he have a plan? I know he doesn't have to tell us about a plan, but right and I think on a larger scale picture, what R2 does | 00:12:39 | |
| accomplish is provide. | 00:12:45 | |
| Potential ownership opportunities in the future if the current landowner doesn't want to create ownership. | 00:12:51 | |
| They don't have to, but just having that zoning in place then creates the. | 00:12:59 | |
| Ability for that to be subdivided up where you get something like this. I mean any duplex could be subdivided into two separate | 00:13:07 | |
| owners. | 00:13:11 | |
| Umm, so intent could be just converting the accessory building into a unit. | 00:13:15 | |
| Being able to rent out both the houses in the front and the rear unit. | 00:13:22 | |
| Other potentials that you demolish both structures and. | 00:13:28 | |
| And build something new up to 3 units. And Dennis, I didn't get a chance to look at the. | 00:13:34 | |
| Total area, but we can pull that up too of what? So when? | 00:13:41 | |
| When you're doing a. | 00:13:47 | |
| Unit assessment of how many units would be allowed on a property. You have to take out the access Rd. | 00:13:49 | |
| Or the access driveway, so that would be a minimum of 20 feet wide and then whatever the depth of the property is or how far back | 00:13:55 | |
| that. | 00:14:00 | |
| Roadway would go so roughly. | 00:14:05 | |
| And I think you did kind of do just some brief math on it and figured that there could be enough room to make 3. | 00:14:12 | |
| And that would possibly be like 2 that are attached. In this situation, if they wanted to leave the existing structure, they could | 00:14:19 | |
| split the front house into a attached unit, have an Upstairs Downstairs that's rentable and convert the back building into a | 00:14:25 | |
| rental unit. So it's. | 00:14:32 | |
| Depending on the area of land as controls, how many units that they'd be able to put on that. | 00:14:38 | |
| So this property is too small to be subdivided, right? Right. OK. | 00:14:44 | |
| Yeah, because it's only .44, right? | 00:14:49 | |
| And same thing, you'd have to take out the access, which then limits your land area even more for both. | 00:14:53 | |
| And just to clarify, if it was an R18, they could subdivide, yes, and there would be enough area likely to take out a roadway. | 00:15:01 | |
| Have they indicated what they want to do with the property after if it does get approved? I haven't had any conversation with the | 00:15:12 | |
| applicant about their intent I. | 00:15:17 | |
| I mean because a lot of the language suggests that the future development of the site. | 00:15:23 | |
| We're supposed to kind of hope and pray that they're going to do something that's going to create a harmonious development, but. | 00:15:30 | |
| They haven't even told you what's going to happen, so how do we use that as part of our? | 00:15:37 | |
| Decision making. I think on that point, no, there isn't a way to. | 00:15:42 | |
| Say yes, you'll create something that's harmonious, but. | 00:15:51 | |
| Looking at. | 00:15:56 | |
| The properties on either side of it where you have two here, 2 here. | 00:15:59 | |
| In roughly the same size of area and they'd be limited to at Max 3 units if they have enough land area after taking out access. | 00:16:04 | |
| It's pretty similar to what all the neighbouring properties are. | 00:16:15 | |
| Even, less, less dense. | 00:16:20 | |
| Right. It seems like we're giving him the right to have more than the surrounding people on his argument that he's surrounded with | 00:16:27 | |
| lots with two homes on them. So with the size of property, if you look at this one, this has two on it. This has 2 units on it. So | 00:16:34 | |
| same area of land has four units. | 00:16:40 | |
| Same here, nearly the same area of land has four units. His area of land would be limited to 3 units, so he would be even with the | 00:16:48 | |
| R210 zoning, he would not have the same density as. | 00:16:55 | |
| And then having zero setbacks on top of it, right, if it were rezoned. | 00:17:37 | |
| Right. And I think that's one we've talked to them before. This is where we encourage people talk to kind of that neighboring PUD | 00:17:43 | |
| and see if you can be incorporated. And most people don't really want to have additional units, even though it would likely create | 00:17:50 | |
| a more harmonious kind of look to their existing neighborhood. They don't want to have the additional units in there. | 00:17:58 | |
| Yeah. So then you get kind of. | 00:18:07 | |
| Weird. Maybe not matching, maybe it won't be weird there. I mean, there's not any guarantee the PUD has some some controls there, | 00:18:10 | |
| but if you were in that PUD, it would likely be in your best interest to say yes, come join our PUD and then we have some controls | 00:18:16 | |
| over what gets built there. | 00:18:23 | |
| So can we approve the rezone with the condition that only two units will be built on it? That would not. You can't. You can't | 00:18:30 | |
| limit legal land rights, so R2 zoning comes with two units per whatever area of land. | 00:18:39 | |
| And we also couldn't put any future restrictions on an application for a PUD, right? You can't, you can't limit what is within the | 00:18:51 | |
| zoning code specific to an application. So if the fear of what you don't want them to do is overshadowed by, you know, a | 00:18:57 | |
| narrative, that doesn't sound like it's really been given of here's what my plan is and why I'm doing this. And forgive me for | 00:19:04 | |
| being a little bit bold, but it really just seems to me like this is a dollar sign thing, right? Like this is a $650,000 lot that | 00:19:10 | |
| if I subdivide it three ways. | 00:19:16 | |
| I can turn around and sell for $900,000 because it's still marketable to a developer to go in and scrape that clean and do | 00:19:23 | |
| whatever they want on it. So then the possibility exists if we approve the rezone that we could end up with. | 00:19:30 | |
| Two homes and two Adus. | 00:19:37 | |
| I don't know if they'd have enough room for 280 us on it, so our proposed language for Adu text with external Adus would be that | 00:19:41 | |
| you can only do an external Adu if you have a detached structure. So if they were to build 3 detached structures, they could do 3 | 00:19:48 | |
| detached Adus possibly. | 00:19:55 | |
| But they don't have enough land to reason. But they do have enough land. Like there's other factors that control that, Yeah. | 00:20:04 | |
| Like they'd be lucky if they can. Like it would be a challenge to fit 3IN there, but it could legally be done with an R28 zone. | 00:20:10 | |
| You're also going to have some limits with the lot size. So those puds, they have smaller setbacks, other things that were | 00:20:18 | |
| incorporated into their PUD. So R210 zoning would have setbacks that are appropriate for that zone. So that's going to limit | 00:20:26 | |
| building area as well. Even with an R2 zone, they might say, you know, there's not enough land that we want to do small lots. We | 00:20:34 | |
| just want to do 2 units so that there's two bigger structures on there with bigger land size. | 00:20:41 | |
| Can I ask a procedural question? Yes. So on the standards of approval or approval standards? | 00:20:51 | |
| It's the second item down in the staff report. | 00:20:58 | |
| You see that? | 00:21:04 | |
| 1307030 G 2. | 00:21:05 | |
| Move standards of consideration for or against. | 00:21:10 | |
| On the first page. | 00:21:15 | |
| So I'm just wondering, do they have to meet all four of those? | 00:21:17 | |
| In order for us to consider approval. | 00:21:22 | |
| Umm, no. You can make your recommendation to the City Council and note. | 00:21:25 | |
| Those things. So you could do a positive or negative recommendation, noting whatever factors that that you want to include in that | 00:21:31 | |
| recommendation. So there's because. | 00:21:37 | |
| Since City Council is the deciding body, they're looking at those standards. It helps them if you have those standards that you | 00:21:44 | |
| were then including in your recommendation. | 00:21:50 | |
| So those could be the findings I guess at some point, but. | 00:21:56 | |
| So I'm curious why they list it like this and don't tell you how many you have to satisfy in order to. | 00:22:00 | |
| So I guess never mind. | 00:22:07 | |
| And following up on the general plan, the analysis, I think it's the next page. | 00:22:10 | |
| Where it says land use, urban design and neighborhood preservation, Chapter 2 it starts to get into defining points of | 00:22:17 | |
| development, development patterns and that type of thing. | 00:22:23 | |
| Do we use this or do we have to have them satisfy all of these? | 00:22:30 | |
| For us to vote, I'm trying to make it so it loses, it becomes a little more black and white, so if that's OK. | 00:22:35 | |
| I'm not trying to say it's going to be easier to make the decision, but. | 00:22:43 | |
| You know, we're already having some difficulty with the fact that this is surrounded by these type of units, and yet we don't | 00:22:47 | |
| really. | 00:22:51 | |
| It's still a struggle to make that happen, so of these defining. | 00:22:56 | |
| Characteristics or different references, points of consideration, that type of thing. | 00:23:01 | |
| Do we have, do we need to use all of those in our consideration? So yeah, their point. There are points from the General Plan. The | 00:23:08 | |
| General Plan is a guiding document. You can use various points from it in your recommendation where it's not. | 00:23:17 | |
| Coated items that are like these are the specific standards and it has to meet all of these or it has to meet at least X or Y. | 00:23:28 | |
| Your recommendation can be based on kind of. | 00:23:34 | |
| Any of these factors, so you could say positive, right. I think we came to a conclusion even on one application where we did a | 00:23:41 | |
| neutral application based or neutral recommendation based on the vote. | 00:23:46 | |
| Umm, but. | 00:23:53 | |
| Whatever way your recommendation goes, just referencing what points. | 00:23:56 | |
| Would be a positive influence. What would be negative because all of that information will go to the City Council. | 00:24:03 | |
| That help or make any sense? Or did I just muddy up the water? | 00:25:18 | |
| OK. Can I ask one more question? I know we'll switch. | 00:25:24 | |
| I know that several of the letters were concerned about upkeep rats, sort of just the the upkeep of the lot and and a few section | 00:25:29 | |
| of the staff report made it sound like. | 00:25:36 | |
| You know, there's also the canal, so it's hard to it's hard to connect the dots one for one on. | 00:25:44 | |
| On the rest, but do we does that figure into our decision at all? Is this, is that something that the Planning Commission needs to | 00:25:51 | |
| consider even can? Yeah. The condition of the property is not something that is taken into consideration for rezones and you may | 00:25:58 | |
| have a property that is in terrible shape that somebody comes in and purchases and needs to rezone to. I think we ran into | 00:26:06 | |
| something similar with the Old Roots Garden. | 00:26:13 | |
| Nursery area, like the building is abandoned the most applicable. | 00:26:21 | |
| Zone is a higher zone than what it was zoned. So even though the property was in poor repair rundown, that didn't affect the | 00:26:27 | |
| rezone proposal. | 00:26:31 | |
| Thank you. | 00:26:37 | |
| So we got a lot of solid discussion points that are going to be great as we iron out after we hear from the applicant in the | 00:26:38 | |
| official meeting. And then the only other thing on there is approval of minutes. So hopefully we'll had a chance to check on that | 00:26:44 | |
| and we'll call that one when it comes. But with that it is 6:00 PM, So we will go ahead and close the work meeting and. | 00:26:51 | |
| I he's actually going to be excused for this meeting, so I'll call that out when we get started with the official. But does anyone | 00:27:00 | |
| need a break before we roll right into the official meeting? I just don't want to run amok, you know? | 00:27:05 | |
| Keeping us in check. | 00:27:13 | |
| All right, perfect. So just let me know when you're ready, Carrie. | 00:27:17 | |
| OK, let me double check all my recordings, see if we're still doing. | 00:27:22 | |
| All right. Here we go then. So with that, good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Holiday City Planning Commission on April 16, | 00:27:30 | |
| 2024. | 00:27:34 | |
| We have several. Well, we have a couple items on our agenda this evening. | 00:27:39 | |
| Do want to call out that we do not have legal counsel here this evening. | 00:27:44 | |
| So we will be on our best behavior and refer any of those contingent questions up to City Council with the recommendation we make | 00:27:50 | |
| one way or another on any items. And we're also excusing Commissioner Prince, who will not be joining us. All other commissioners | 00:27:58 | |
| are present and we have city staff Carrie Marsh with us. And with that we will start the meeting with the statement we give at the | 00:28:05 | |
| beginning of all public meetings and for Planning Commission. And I've asked Commissioner Font if she will read that now for us. | 00:28:13 | |
| The City of Holiday Planning Commission is a volunteer citizen board whose function is to review land use plans and other special | 00:28:23 | |
| studies, make recommendations to the City Council on proposed zoning map and ordinance changes, and approve conditional uses and | 00:28:30 | |
| subdivisions. The Planning Commission does not initiate land use applications, rather acts on applications as they are submitted. | 00:28:38 | |
| Commissioners do not meet with applicants except at public, publicly noticed meetings. | 00:28:46 | |
| Commissioners attempt to visit each property on the agenda where the location, the nature of the neighborhood, existing structures | 00:28:54 | |
| and uses related to the proposed change are noted. | 00:29:00 | |
| Decisions are based on observations, recommendations from the professional planning staff, the city's general plan, zoning | 00:29:06 | |
| ordinance and other reports, by all verbal and written comments, and by evidence submitted, all of which are part of the public | 00:29:12 | |
| record. | 00:29:18 | |
| Thank you very much, Commissioner Font. | 00:29:24 | |
| All right. And with that, we have a public hearing this evening for item number one, which is a zone amendment, excuse me, zone | 00:29:27 | |
| map amendment rezone from R110 to R210 located at 1932 E 5600 S So I do see we have some members of the public here this evening. | 00:29:35 | |
| We'll start with a staff report from Kerry Marsh and then we'll invite the applicant up and then we will open up the public | 00:29:43 | |
| hearing for comment at that point. And with that, Carrie, whenever you're ready. | 00:29:50 | |
| Thank you, Chairman Roch. | 00:30:09 | |
| So this application is for property located at 1932 E 5600 S Current zone is R110. The requested zone map amendment is to R210 | 00:30:11 | |
| zone. | 00:30:18 | |
| The property is narrow and deep. It fronts on 5600 S. | 00:30:27 | |
| Surrounded by duplexes, both legal duplexes and legal non conforming to a single family zone. Duplexes on the West side across the | 00:30:35 | |
| street is a multi family zone with an assisted living care facility on it. | 00:30:42 | |
| The staff report outlines general plan. | 00:30:53 | |
| With suggested zones as identified on the future land use map. | 00:30:58 | |
| And then an analysis of other factors for rezones. | 00:31:04 | |
| The property if rezoned to R210 potentially could allow up to 3 units based off of the total property size. If a access driveway | 00:31:11 | |
| is then taken out of that total area, that could reduce the total amount of of units to to allowed on the property. | 00:31:21 | |
| And I think that was all the high points on that. I'll have the applicant come up and just talk a little bit more about their | 00:31:33 | |
| application and what they're envisioning. All right, Thank you very much. And with that, we will invite the applicant, Matthew or | 00:31:40 | |
| Amanda Lewis, to come up. | 00:31:46 | |
| Or representative. Thank you. I'm Matthew Lewis. So. | 00:31:53 | |
| Appreciate you taking the time. Just to give you a little bit in considering the application. | 00:31:59 | |
| This is a family home that my parents purchased in 1991 or 19. | 00:32:06 | |
| Two, I think you have the kind of picture up before And so it's a fairly big piece of property and kind of what's unique about | 00:32:11 | |
| it's got this second structure in the back. | 00:32:16 | |
| Before my parents bought it, I think it was a actually like a a lock manufacturing facility and then my dad. | 00:32:24 | |
| Was piano teacher. He converted to a piano studio and used it in that manner for 30 years or so. He passed away in 2019, didn't | 00:32:33 | |
| use it for a few years. My sister went back and approached the city about whether we she could reopen the studio and use it in | 00:32:41 | |
| that way and was told that she couldn't like that because he was. He had been grandfathered in, but because there have been a | 00:32:48 | |
| period of unuse, it was no longer zoned for any kind of, like business activity. So we basically have this structure in the back. | 00:32:56 | |
| That is in a lot of ways unusable because it's big enough. It's bigger than you would kind of use for a home. | 00:33:04 | |
| Office, It's probably 1500 square feet or so with the different. | 00:33:12 | |
| Additions that have been done but. | 00:33:17 | |
| Can't really like, use that building. So anyway, that led us to and inquiring as to whether we could rezone the property. | 00:33:19 | |
| Obviously everything around. | 00:33:24 | |
| Our property, with the exception of the house just to the West. | 00:33:30 | |
| Is either zoned R210 or being used in that manner where it has a duplex. | 00:33:35 | |
| Or two units on there, so and it's not big enough that you could just subdivide it as is. | 00:33:42 | |
| Because it's just under 20,000 square feet, so you couldn't do another R110 lot I. | 00:33:49 | |
| So anyway, in conversations with C, just trying to figure out how to effectively use that space back there. | 00:33:57 | |
| That was the option. We haven't really looked into what we would do with the property, to be honest. We were told that. | 00:34:04 | |
| We asked. You know, we said we'd probably want to subdivide. | 00:34:11 | |
| Could we do this in like 1 process where we came back with proposals as to what would be there, but we're informed that we need to | 00:34:15 | |
| do it step by step, so this zoning rezoning application. | 00:34:21 | |
| Is that first step as we? | 00:34:28 | |
| Understand it so. | 00:34:31 | |
| There, you know, I know there's been some comments about kind of the condition of the product. My parents did have an above ground | 00:34:34 | |
| pool. We have removed that. Now we're in the process of re landscaping that property. | 00:34:42 | |
| To take account of that, the property is an air canal. | 00:34:50 | |
| And so we had addressed these issues with. | 00:34:55 | |
| Code enforcement, they came out, they investigated both, the Radish said. It's very rare that any property is usually the source | 00:34:58 | |
| of rats, and there's been. | 00:35:03 | |
| Rats coming from these canals for years they didn't like notice any smell. They asked us to takedown some bushes and other things | 00:35:08 | |
| that we did I. | 00:35:12 | |
| So we try to, you know, address all those issues, but really the I guess. | 00:35:19 | |
| Thing that's driving us is that we have that back building that's in a lot of ways just unusable because we can't. | 00:35:24 | |
| It was used for 50 years probably as a business that's not being allowed now. So that's the that's what the basis of the request | 00:35:32 | |
| is. We have no plans to change the front home. In fact, we've probably put $50,000 or so into that front home including a new roof | 00:35:38 | |
| that was just completed last week, but trying to figure out. | 00:35:45 | |
| What we could do with the back portion of the property. So that's the basis for our request. | 00:35:52 | |
| Any questions? Or I do have a couple questions for you and then I'll ask my fellow Commissioners. | 00:35:58 | |
| I was just told that I had two options. | 00:36:41 | |
| Initially when I spoke with Mr. Cheerleading, he said your lots not big enough. | 00:36:45 | |
| To so you can leave it as it is not big enough to divide into two R, one 10s and. | 00:36:49 | |
| The other option presented was our 210 so. | 00:36:55 | |
| Appreciate that. Just wanted to clarify that the other this is a kind of a question for you and also a question for city staff if | 00:37:00 | |
| they know? | 00:37:03 | |
| Understanding that the original conditional use permit would have expired when it wasn't renewed. | 00:37:08 | |
| Would this to anything you know of, Carrie? Is there any reason why a conditional use permit to continue teaching piano or using | 00:37:16 | |
| that accessory building in that similar nature not have been approved? | 00:37:22 | |
| Yeah, I don't see any reason why. | 00:37:29 | |
| A conditional use for home occupation wouldn't be approved. | 00:37:33 | |
| With using that accessory building we. | 00:37:38 | |
| Recently amended our Home occupation code to allow for the use of accessory buildings for home occupations. Previously that wasn't | 00:37:42 | |
| allowed and so that's likely where that. | 00:37:48 | |
| The use because it was discontinued wouldn't be allowed because it was in an accessory building but that was recently amended goes | 00:37:55 | |
| into effect on the 21st of April. So that is an option with that new code amendment to use that for business use. I don't know if | 00:38:03 | |
| it would still be applicable based off of the the family's use with your father not running it anymore but I just you brought up | 00:38:10 | |
| that your your sister I if I recall yeah. | 00:38:18 | |
| Applied for it. So I was just trying to figure out 'cause we've had a lot of discussion around conditional uses over the last | 00:38:26 | |
| couple of years and I wasn't sure because I thought even, you know, before the amendments that might still qualify, I. | 00:38:31 | |
| For what City Standard was. So I was just trying to figure out, unless she was trying to like, you know, open up like something | 00:38:38 | |
| extreme back there I guess. But yeah, she was. There's a fair amount of traffic involved with a. | 00:38:44 | |
| Studio like that. Could you have, you know, the way it was constructed, actually there's four or five different classrooms in | 00:38:50 | |
| there. So you it's not just one student showing up at a time. It was group classes and then breakouts into individual classes. So | 00:38:55 | |
| you had, you know, I don't know, 10 to 15 students in there at any one time basically from 3:00 PM when school let out till about | 00:39:01 | |
| 8:00 PM. | 00:39:07 | |
| So anyway, she was told that I wasn't part of those conversations that. | 00:39:14 | |
| The traffic would not be denied on the parking probably. OK, I'm just curious on that. I forgive my inquiry, I just I heard it | 00:39:20 | |
| secondhand from her. So we did try to figure out, you know, we could provide that other commissioners do we have questions for the | 00:39:26 | |
| applicant at this time that he hasn't covered for us. | 00:39:32 | |
| Alright, we'll go ahead and invite you to sit down then. Thank you very much. | 00:39:39 | |
| Right. And with that, we will go ahead and open our public hearing and invite members of the public to come up. When you do come | 00:39:42 | |
| up, we would ask that you state your name and address for the record. And we would also ask that if you follow someone who's just | 00:39:47 | |
| made statements that you don't make similar statements. | 00:39:52 | |
| And if you have a representative for collectively as a group, you can also have that representative come up. But we would ask you | 00:39:58 | |
| to try and be brief to the point and keep it roughly around 3 or 4 minutes for us. And with that, we'll go ahead and invite anyone | 00:40:02 | |
| that wants to come up now. | 00:40:07 | |
| What? Commissioner? My name is Arlene Hassan. | 00:40:18 | |
| I live at 5617 S Doon Tree Hill Lane. | 00:40:21 | |
| Thank you. | 00:40:27 | |
| I am president of the HOA of the property. I took the. | 00:40:29 | |
| Of the townhomes that are on the corner. | 00:40:35 | |
| And we have no objection to. | 00:40:39 | |
| Multiple use whatever our objection in this case. | 00:40:43 | |
| Is that the property has been. | 00:40:48 | |
| Neglected for so long. | 00:40:51 | |
| So they did have an outdoor pool. They had a. | 00:40:53 | |
| I'm sorry. I'm nervous. We won't bite. It's OK. So they had this. They had this above ground pool and it was stagnant for years. | 00:40:57 | |
| The ducks were in it. There was. There was filth. There was. | 00:41:04 | |
| There are one 2-3. There are 4 structures on the property actually. | 00:41:11 | |
| There's one structure. | 00:41:17 | |
| That's right next to the fence on the east side that was filled with chemicals. It was chlorine and fertilizer, which was. | 00:41:19 | |
| Very annoying when they took down the pool last summer when they. | 00:41:31 | |
| To compare the structure that it was sitting on. | 00:41:37 | |
| The rats went crazy because they were nested under there, so several of our. | 00:41:41 | |
| Residents have had an extreme problem with that. | 00:41:49 | |
| Umm, we we've just. | 00:41:56 | |
| We're upset because the property is dealt with rat infestation, chemical storage, a decline in the condition of the structures. | 00:41:58 | |
| The property we feel is has been a health hazard to us. Several of us had to hire exterminators. One woman who directly backs up | 00:42:04 | |
| to it has spent thousands of dollars trying to build something in her backyard. But they can't let their children, grandchildren, | 00:42:11 | |
| in the yards. | 00:42:18 | |
| Dogs or pets because there's a horrible rat infestation. | 00:42:27 | |
| And Mrs. Hansen, if you don't mind, I apologize for interrupting you here. | 00:42:32 | |
| Just so you know, the proposal before us tonight is around the rezone. OK. So if you and other members of the public would just | 00:42:36 | |
| contain your comments around the concern around the Green Zone, I understand there's been a rat problem and that's been handled | 00:42:41 | |
| through code enforcement. Our position is. | 00:42:46 | |
| If if the if the holiday is going to allow the rezone, we would ask that you delay it until they bring the property up to code. | 00:42:52 | |
| Because the property is a mess. | 00:43:05 | |
| Appreciate it. That. And there was there was like, I'm sorry, there was like mattresses left out all winter. There's tools and | 00:43:10 | |
| things all over the place. There's one structure on the east side that appears to be falling apart directly directly next to the. | 00:43:18 | |
| Facility that he wants to use for. | 00:43:27 | |
| The music studio, I would say. | 00:43:31 | |
| And one thing I will say is just in regards to anything that would be a code enforcement matter that would be handled through the | 00:43:34 | |
| code enforcement officer. | 00:43:38 | |
| So as far as what we're considering here tonight, it's just is the property. | 00:43:42 | |
| Reflected correctly with the requirements for a rezone and that's pretty much the basis for anything that we have approval for to | 00:43:49 | |
| make a recommendation for approval or denial. So OK, so we're we're just concerned that with the reason that the that the owners | 00:43:55 | |
| of the property maintain what would be. | 00:44:02 | |
| Holiday. | 00:44:10 | |
| Specifications. OK, that's great. Thank you. | 00:44:12 | |
| Do we have? Yes, Sir. | 00:44:19 | |
| Good evening. My name is Aiden Bradney. We live in the property on the West of. | 00:44:26 | |
| Weather changes to the planning to be scheduled. I'm sorry, what was the address I missed it 1922? | 00:44:32 | |
| Directly West. | 00:44:40 | |
| 1920 two 5600 OK right where the mouse is there, so if you are. | 00:44:42 | |
| Open up that parcel, assessor. It's kind of a little clearer to see. | 00:44:47 | |
| But there's a couple of main concerns. One is that we live in an area of outstanding natural beauty. If the canyons were 100 miles | 00:44:53 | |
| away, there would be national parks without a shadow of a doubt. And the view from our deck is something that is phenomenal is one | 00:45:00 | |
| of the reasons we moved into holiday was to have Mount Olympus on our doorstep. We moved prior to the. | 00:45:08 | |
| That HOA housing R210, that doesn't impact us too much, but our fear is that if they rezone 1932 and then all of a sudden we're | 00:45:17 | |
| going to be putting two floor structures in there, our view will completely disappear. | 00:45:26 | |
| Beyond that and we did e-mail photographs from our deck as soon as this came up. | 00:45:35 | |
| The other thing is, if you can see the width of the driveway leading to the back, that is directly on our RV pad. Now whether we | 00:45:41 | |
| have an RV, there is not a problem. But that driveway on a great day is probably about 7 feet wide and they have one car in and | 00:45:48 | |
| out. The people that live in the front house right now and they're a wonderful young couple with a couple of kids, no problems | 00:45:55 | |
| with them whatsoever. As soon as there are going to be more apartments, houses. | 00:46:01 | |
| Whatever goes in back there, there's going to definitely be a congestion issue. | 00:46:09 | |
| Road parking is kind of out of the question already because of the amount of employees and people that visit the assisted living | 00:46:15 | |
| across the road. | 00:46:18 | |
| And then there is a, to the best of my knowledge, is still there. I'm kind of not around you in the daytime anymore, but that, | 00:46:22 | |
| well, it was kind of like a daycare. | 00:46:27 | |
| In that 278024 house there was a daycare there, so there's a lot of traffic on the road. | 00:46:33 | |
| But as soon as they stop putting apartments in there and you've got to think that each apartments probably got two or three | 00:46:41 | |
| vehicles in today's standards, then there's definitely going to be. | 00:46:45 | |
| An issue with vehicles. | 00:46:50 | |
| To speak to the condition of the front property, we've always loved it. It's kind of. | 00:46:53 | |
| A pretty looking property. They just recently did the roof. No problems with that at all. The back would be wonderful if it was | 00:46:59 | |
| made into a. | 00:47:02 | |
| A real nice yard. We never we live right next door. We never had any problems with the swimming pool. We if the rats are coming | 00:47:06 | |
| from the canal. | 00:47:10 | |
| They never came across our backyard. We've never had any rat issues whatsoever. | 00:47:16 | |
| But you'd occasionally hear a duck in the swimming pool. I thought that was kind of funny, but never an issue with with Joan, | 00:47:20 | |
| anyone at all. But my fear is that this property at the back, if that starts getting construction in there and construction | 00:47:27 | |
| equipment, there's going to be a major knock on effect to us who are directly next door. And then as soon as they put in the | 00:47:34 | |
| permission and all of a sudden you can build 2 Storey houses in that location. | 00:47:41 | |
| The quaintness of holiday all of a sudden I feel starts to tumble. What's to stop me from applying to make my house three stories | 00:47:49 | |
| high and that would get shot down immediately. So it's this kind of ongoing. | 00:47:56 | |
| Yeah, I think it's going to snowball personally and our beautiful view of those mountains is going to be massively impacted. | 00:48:04 | |
| Thank you very much for your comments. I appreciate it. | 00:48:13 | |
| Do we have any other members of the public that wish to make comment at this time? | 00:48:20 | |
| My name is Kurt Larson. I live at 5646 Nations Way. | 00:48:31 | |
| Just W one St. West of the property. | 00:48:36 | |
| Our big concern is a little bit what Hayden was talking about is all the cars on the street with the living assisted living across | 00:48:41 | |
| the street. We constantly have cars parked up and down the street, sometimes even on our street because they have gatherings and | 00:48:48 | |
| whatnot over there and all we need to do is that, you know four or five more cars to that. I know building is only don't really | 00:48:56 | |
| take that into consideration. | 00:49:03 | |
| But somebody ought to. It's just it's crazy. I don't know how that assisted living got by with no, you know not nearly enough | 00:49:11 | |
| parking. It's it's just there's always cars up and down there. We come around the corner and just about plow into them because | 00:49:16 | |
| they they don't park where they should and. | 00:49:22 | |
| It just seems like a real inconvenience for us. | 00:49:28 | |
| Also another concern I had when they put in the HOA. | 00:49:34 | |
| They had to bring the level of the foundations up six feet out of the ground, the existing ground, to make the sewer lines work. | 00:49:38 | |
| I would think they might have the same problem if they built something in the back there and. | 00:49:48 | |
| If they've got to bring that up six feet out of the ground, Taddy Oka lives right behind him. He's going to feel like he's in a | 00:49:53 | |
| hole. | 00:49:56 | |
| It's just so I wanted to. | 00:50:01 | |
| Make sure that if that's the case, I, you know, I don't want another building 6 feet out of the ground right there. So that's | 00:50:05 | |
| that's all the comments I have. | 00:50:10 | |
| Thank you very much. Appreciate it. | 00:50:16 | |
| All right. Did we have any other comments? | 00:50:23 | |
| If you come back up, I'll allow. | 00:50:30 | |
| You get 60 seconds on the clock. | 00:50:33 | |
| But restate your name and address so we know which one it is. Adam Bradney, 1922 E 5600 S. | 00:50:36 | |
| Kurt has brought something up there. | 00:50:43 | |
| Clicked in. My mind is last year we had major plumbing issues that they had to dig up our entire backyard. | 00:50:45 | |
| And the whole structure under there, with the plumbing crew, with the cameras and everything, it's already pretty maxed out, | 00:50:52 | |
| according to the plumbing company that came out in the city that came out that had to say, yes, you know, the new plumbing lines | 00:50:58 | |
| are great. They said that the infrastructure below ground is already starting to look a bit tired. | 00:51:05 | |
| So I'm sure that the house at the front doesn't have a problem. But as soon as you start putting eight more toilets back there and | 00:51:12 | |
| a few more bathtubs, goodness knows what's going to happen as well as what Coat was saying about raising the level of ground. | 00:51:19 | |
| That is all. Thank you. All right. Thank you. | 00:51:27 | |
| Nailed it. 60 seconds. Good job. Just kidding. All right, one more. Go ahead. | 00:51:30 | |
| You gotta come up to the mic and give us. | 00:51:36 | |
| We got to get it for our recorder, just so you know, I know who you are, but we got to get it recorded. Jim Preston 5670 Nations | 00:51:42 | |
| way. So I'm. I'm not even on the map here but. | 00:51:48 | |
| You know, I want to just kind of find out. So, Mr. Lewis, what do you want to do? | 00:51:54 | |
| So my whole thing would be. | 00:52:35 | |
| So how many, how many square feet, how many square? Jim, Jim, Jim, Jim, back-to-back back to the Planning Commission. Please, | 00:52:38 | |
| we're not, we're not talking to the applicant right now. You're talking how many square feet are on the property. | 00:52:44 | |
| The property is. So if you got our 2:10, you can put a duplex on 10,000 feet. | 00:52:50 | |
| How many square feet do you have? | 00:52:56 | |
| Right. | 00:52:59 | |
| So it's 19,166 square feet or .44 acres. | 00:53:00 | |
| OK, well, so. | 00:53:06 | |
| You know, I'm all for improving the property. You know, on the one hand we're here and leave it like it is and and and make it | 00:53:09 | |
| better. But then I don't know if Mr. Lewis wants to make it into a piano teaching facility again. If he gets approval to do it and | 00:53:16 | |
| just and if he don't if he got that, he'd he'd he'd do that again. I I don't know. | 00:53:23 | |
| As far as the the, the property goes if if it's allowed for. | 00:53:32 | |
| R210 duplex per 10,000 feet. | 00:53:40 | |
| Then I'd want to be, you know, listening to what, how many, how many, what? What is the height limitation. We've got Aiden here | 00:53:45 | |
| that he's got a situation with the height, so. | 00:53:51 | |
| That would be. | 00:53:59 | |
| Part of my my question is how are we going to improve the property? How has the property going to be improved? And I guess that's | 00:54:00 | |
| something that isn't going to be determined until it is made to an R210. I'd like to ask Mr. Lewis, is the existing home on 56 | 00:54:06 | |
| going to remain? | 00:54:12 | |
| And we can give the applicant a chance to come up and address any comments made to the public after we close the hearing. So we | 00:54:19 | |
| can definitely table that and see if Mr. Lewis wishes to respond. So thank you for your comments. | 00:54:24 | |
| I think and did we and was there anyone else we haven't heard from that wanted to make comment before I close the public hearing. | 00:54:32 | |
| OK. I think we got just about everybody today. So we'll go ahead and close the public hearing at this time then. And if Mr. Lewis | 00:54:38 | |
| would like to come up and just make any address remarks to the comments that were made by the public, yes, happy to do that and | 00:54:44 | |
| happy to have conversations. | 00:54:49 | |
| So just trying to kind of tick these off. Well, I don't know if I should get into the **** issue that that you know, one thing you | 00:54:57 | |
| have to remember is. | 00:55:01 | |
| My parents had this property and built some of these structures long before the Highland Court. | 00:55:06 | |
| Facility was built so that shed that they're talking about that's close to the property line that was there when Don Wilson had | 00:55:12 | |
| his huge backyard that was all just grass back there to the east and then obviously that was all taken over and these tall twin | 00:55:20 | |
| homes were built and they are tall and they do look down you know into we have a fence back there but they look into the yard you | 00:55:28 | |
| know and they are tall now I would be that's why I said before I on on some of the other. | 00:55:35 | |
| You know, like I said, code enforcement came out about the smell of the chemicals, those things. | 00:55:43 | |
| They didn't see anything. They didn't hear any. You know, they smelled. There's nothing to that, that I know there's never been a | 00:55:49 | |
| mattress out there. I rechecked with the tenants. That's never been the case. So, you know, some of these things I think are | 00:55:56 | |
| overblown. And again, I'm kind of, I feel like some of the other things are just premature. | 00:56:02 | |
| Because like I said, we asked should we just try to do a rezone application with a plan on what we might do with the property? | 00:56:09 | |
| But we're told that we had to take these kind of seriatim steps, So what we're doing is just trying to figure out can we get it? | 00:56:17 | |
| Rezoned R210. | 00:56:20 | |
| We would have plans, we could investigate, you know, whether we could change that existing structure into something. | 00:56:58 | |
| Or you know a different thing. But all of these issues about parking and sewer and all those things would be considered as part of | 00:57:04 | |
| that. That's how I understood it would work. So I'm not maybe it's unsatisfying, but not I don't. I don't have it. We haven't put | 00:57:10 | |
| in the time effort but to figure out exactly what we do. But that would be the plan. If we got the R210 is then we would | 00:57:16 | |
| investigate different options. | 00:57:22 | |
| Discuss those. | 00:57:28 | |
| You obviously have to come back to the city to get approvals for any of those plans and I think we'd have to factor in all of | 00:57:30 | |
| these, you know, issues about parking and access and other things, so. | 00:57:36 | |
| That may not be the most satisfying answer to say we don't know, but we just understand this is the first step. It does. You know, | 00:57:44 | |
| it's not out of line with any of the surrounding properties in our view, so we can address all these other concerns. | 00:57:51 | |
| In the next step. | 00:58:00 | |
| I appreciate to appreciate the additional comments and clarification there. Just real quick before you sit down, Commissioners, | 00:58:02 | |
| any other questions for the applicant that haven't been addressed in either of his addresses? All right, we'll go ahead and have | 00:58:08 | |
| you sit down. Thank you very much. All right. And with that, we will now turn to our discussion and I have asked Commissioner | 00:58:14 | |
| Baron if he would just lead our discussion before any motions are made on this to capture everybody's input on this. | 00:58:21 | |
| I did close the feed. If I didn't already say that, I apologize. The public hearing has been closed. | 00:58:28 | |
| OK. And with that, Commissioner Baron. OK, well, based on all the questions were asked earlier, I'm not sure how we're going to | 00:58:33 | |
| lead this discussion. So one of the things I had to ask is of staff for the R210, you're saying that there's three total single | 00:58:39 | |
| family detached dwellings. | 00:58:45 | |
| Allowed on the property, but that's if they had access. | 00:58:52 | |
| Because it looks like the lots too narrow to have the 20 foot access point right? | 00:58:56 | |
| Yeah. So if they were to take out access, I think the measurement if we've measured 20 feet on here, I that's one of the issues | 00:59:03 | |
| that would be addressed once they apply for adding additional units onto the property is how wide is the access and fire looks at | 00:59:11 | |
| that access requirements there are. | 00:59:20 | |
| Umm, exceptions. Sometimes if there isn't an appropriate access, you could do fire sprinklers. That's all addressed through fire | 00:59:30 | |
| code. So fire code is what regulates the the width of the access Rd. and any exceptions because there are sometimes properties | 00:59:37 | |
| that are further back typically. | 00:59:43 | |
| Properties that can't be or structures that can't be accessed with a fire truck have to have fire sprinklers in it. OK, well part | 00:59:51 | |
| of my question is to try and answer the question that the audience is asking is what's potentially could happen here? Yeah. The | 00:59:58 | |
| second question is, is the height allowed in the R110 and the R210 the same? They are the same. OK, so not to scare you, but they | 01:00:05 | |
| can build the two-story structure now. | 01:00:12 | |
| Yes. Any zoning change? Yeah. So current code is properties. Less than half an acre is 32 feet in height. That's to the top of the | 01:00:19 | |
| Ridge. | 01:00:25 | |
| The additional control on height is graduated height, so that pushes taller areas of a structure further away from our property | 01:00:33 | |
| line. | 01:00:38 | |
| That graduated A height applies to all structures, so primary structures and accessory structures. | 01:00:43 | |
| OK. So if they wanted a second story on the extra structure in the back, it would be more in the middle. They could not do it up | 01:00:50 | |
| against the lot line, right? | 01:00:54 | |
| I'm sorry you take up all the time, but another question. If they were to do the three single family or the attached to whatever | 01:01:01 | |
| the maximum development you thought they could put on the property, if they were to do AD use as part of either one, or they're | 01:01:08 | |
| not subdividing the property or another Adu, does that also have to be fire sprinkled? | 01:01:15 | |
| And that may be a question if you're talking, are you asking about an external Adu or I'm just trying to see just. | 01:01:24 | |
| Again, helping the audience figure out exactly what we could see potentially being built on the property with an R210. | 01:01:33 | |
| So the state requires that accessory dwelling units are allowed in any residential zone. We have recent code amendments that are | 01:01:40 | |
| being heard by City Council currently that would limit external or sorry ADUS to detach structures only. So in a situation like | 01:01:50 | |
| this in an R2 zone where an Adu would be permitted by the state code. | 01:02:00 | |
| If they were to do an attached unit with two units in one single building. | 01:02:10 | |
| Those units couldn't have 80 use because it is an attached structure. If they were to detach and do three separate detached units, | 01:02:16 | |
| each of those could have an internal or an external Edu. External Adu varies based off of what the lot size is. | 01:02:25 | |
| So that you may not see. It's highly unlikely you'd see an external Adu on those properties. All that dependent on what passes | 01:02:36 | |
| with City Council, but. | 01:02:41 | |
| So because you're looking at, OK, what is the potential units plus accessory units? Accessory units would likely be an internal | 01:02:48 | |
| accessory unit and I would say that's pretty common. Most people are adding kind of a second kitchen or area that can be converted | 01:02:55 | |
| to an accessory unit that they want to incorporate into a single family house. So if single family houses were built, each of | 01:03:02 | |
| those single family houses could have an accessory dwelling unit. | 01:03:09 | |
| With fire sprinklers. | 01:03:16 | |
| Right access would all be determined if it If it needs to be fire sprinkled, that's what it would need to be. | 01:03:18 | |
| OK. Just two more questions and I'll be quick. OK. There's a street to the South of this property. I know it's probably a private | 01:03:26 | |
| road, but if they were to get access to that. | 01:03:31 | |
| Does that change the dynamic of? | 01:03:36 | |
| How they could develop the property, right. So you're you're referring to this private subdivision, Yeah. | 01:03:39 | |
| Yeah, that would have to be an agreement or worked out with the with the planned unit development that's there. | 01:03:48 | |
| I mean, I've seen other situations where the property owner has approached the planned unit development. In many cases they don't | 01:03:59 | |
| want to incorporate that area and their subdivision would have to be amended to add property into it. So it would require the the | 01:04:05 | |
| PUD to bring. | 01:04:11 | |
| New units in, but then those units would have to conform to whatever standards are in the PUD. So there's there's benefits that | 01:04:19 | |
| might be there that the that that community may want to consider if they want to have a similar development pattern. | 01:04:26 | |
| That's something that then they are to you, and they could do that even without rezoning. If they wanted to bring an area into | 01:04:35 | |
| their PUD, a rezone wouldn't need to be. | 01:04:41 | |
| Done because they just capture an additional area of land. | 01:04:48 | |
| As long as the front area then would retain the 10,000 square foot minimum so but we would have to get it that would require then | 01:04:53 | |
| the PUD. | 01:04:57 | |
| Approving that that amendment onto their subdivision, so. | 01:05:02 | |
| And maybe this is a question for the applicant. I'm not sure if that's been discussed at all, but a lot of times beauties are not. | 01:05:09 | |
| Super amenable into adding more units into their into their planned unit development, but you sometimes get outlier like | 01:05:19 | |
| properties like this where maybe this property owner didn't want to sell a portion of their property to that developer's. | 01:05:25 | |
| At that point in time and so that's where it kind of ended up. I just wondered if. | 01:05:32 | |
| You know all the planets align and they agreed to do it if that changes the dynamic of. | 01:05:38 | |
| How much access? Obviously it would reduce how much access, but yeah, it would, if it were incorporated into that PUD, it would | 01:05:44 | |
| just meet the standards of the PUD. So their planned unit development would be amended. | 01:05:51 | |
| Similar to these properties that are here, to the east of this property you just have setbacks that are designated on the plat. | 01:05:58 | |
| Essentially it would be 3 properties, but it'd be just the duplex. I'm trying to factor out all the possibilities of what could | 01:06:06 | |
| ultimately be built there to kind of give some of the audience some reassurance that if that does happen, that's all things that | 01:06:13 | |
| would have to be worked out between the land owners in that private development if they wanted to do an access easement and have | 01:06:20 | |
| the property access. I mean, there's there's different approaches there, but it does require all of the. | 01:06:28 | |
| Or does require the approval? | 01:06:36 | |
| And the legal process to be followed with that planned unit development, OK. | 01:06:38 | |
| Finally, I'm just trying to figure out as we look through the general plan criteria. | 01:06:44 | |
| And the approval criteria for rezoning and that type of thing, this appears to meet the intent or the kind of expectation of being | 01:06:49 | |
| in the same character of the adjacent properties. So we take that into consideration. If this were ultimately developed, do you | 01:06:56 | |
| see that the future development would be? | 01:07:03 | |
| Consistent with that character we're trying to preserve. | 01:07:12 | |
| I'm trying to figure out what would happen if right. You're going to have character that is very highly controlled within a | 01:07:17 | |
| beauty, but this area is not within a beauty, so you're not going to have that same architectural kind of similarity. Total number | 01:07:26 | |
| of units if we're reducing it to just what is what is on the land and using that as a indicator of character. | 01:07:34 | |
| Yes, it would be in character with. | 01:07:44 | |
| So is just the 2 units if the density is consistent with properties adjacent to one another. | 01:07:49 | |
| Is that by nature? | 01:07:55 | |
| Meeting the character of the area. | 01:07:58 | |
| Yes, I any residential neighborhood does. What is the character of a of a neighborhood? It's really subjective, but overall | 01:08:02 | |
| character could be summarized as just a. | 01:08:08 | |
| Single family or two family dwelling unit. So character here is to family, yes, yes, because I mean I appreciate the way you just | 01:08:18 | |
| said it because it is very difficult to say. | 01:08:24 | |
| We're trying to figure out exactly how it's supposed to meet up to make kind of that. | 01:08:32 | |
| Yeah. And I think is that in? | 01:08:41 | |
| Is there a specific point on the general plan that references the character? I don't remember exactly where that's at. Oh, it's | 01:08:44 | |
| the third one. Retain and protect the natural environmental character of the city and its neighborhoods? | 01:08:50 | |
| So. | 01:08:59 | |
| So as long as it's a neighborhood, it's a neighborhood character. | 01:09:01 | |
| It's really ambiguous, though it is. Character is always subjective. | 01:09:07 | |
| What do you want to loop into it? What do you not want to I anything is going to vary in the neighborhood. You're going to have | 01:09:12 | |
| some houses that have been remodeled substantially that have very different looks or feels. You could have a neighborhood that has | 01:09:18 | |
| a mix of two stories and single stories all intermingled in it. | 01:09:25 | |
| In this area, and that's where it's just the simplest, most basic is is the neighborhood? Is it a neighborhood? Do you have what | 01:09:33 | |
| is a neighborhood character? Neighborhood character is properties that are used for residential purposes. | 01:09:40 | |
| OK. Well, I've kind of driven the Commission off the Cliff here. Follow up to your. | 01:09:49 | |
| Where you were going I think if one of these prior non conforming duplexes. | 01:09:54 | |
| Change property and the new property owner wanted to build. | 01:10:03 | |
| A new duplex? Would he have to come in and rezone R210 if the property was destroyed by natural means? He can rebuild if. | 01:10:06 | |
| If it is not, if they selectively demolished a duplex, they couldn't rebuild a duplex, and I think that applies to this property. | 01:10:18 | |
| Let me roll down the east. | 01:10:26 | |
| And then the one zone nations, right? Yeah, just prior just this one duplexes that are really single property home and I'm not. | 01:10:33 | |
| When I looked at Google Maps, this had two addresses associated with it, but I'm not sure if that one is E legal non conforming | 01:10:44 | |
| duplex. This one definitely is. | 01:10:48 | |
| And then this duplex is already zoned as R2. | 01:10:54 | |
| I can address some of the other comments if the Planning Commission has more questions about those. I think largely Commissioner | 01:11:02 | |
| Baron has addressed a lot of those questions with access and. | 01:11:09 | |
| What is addressed at a building permit level? That's where we're looking at all the utility connections. Utility connection | 01:11:18 | |
| letters are required for building improvements. Converting an accessory structure into a living space? That's. | 01:11:26 | |
| Building the Building official will be looking at the plans to make sure that they're meeting building code. Utility letters have | 01:11:34 | |
| to be. | 01:11:38 | |
| Provide a letter saying that utility service is available for the additional units. They have their metrics that they're looking | 01:11:45 | |
| at in assessing that if there were substantial redevelopment like a subdivision and. | 01:11:52 | |
| New lots created. A utility provider may require the applicant to upgrade the service line in order to account for those | 01:12:01 | |
| additional units. So that's something that is addressed when they're applying for a building permit or that we'd see if they're | 01:12:07 | |
| doing a subdivision. | 01:12:12 | |
| But as is, if they were just to convert the existing accessory building, they would be required to have that reviewed by the | 01:12:19 | |
| utility providers. | 01:12:23 | |
| All of the upkeep issues, those are addressed just with code enforcement. Same standard for every property and holiday and | 01:12:30 | |
| foundation wise I that's just. | 01:12:37 | |
| Depending on the grade of the property, we don't regulate what size of foundation is, but building height is regulated and it is | 01:12:45 | |
| the same in R1 and R2 zones. | 01:12:50 | |
| Those are all next steps, none of which are applicable to tonight's current proposal or application before us, which tonight is | 01:12:56 | |
| just specifically the Zone. And does the Zone meet all the criteria for a rezone? Is it applicable? Does it make sense? | 01:13:04 | |
| And so with that other commissioners comments, one question. | 01:13:14 | |
| Some of the folks in the audience talked about parking. | 01:13:19 | |
| And. | 01:13:23 | |
| Is it correct that? | 01:13:25 | |
| This application, any anything that's built has to include on site parking. | 01:13:27 | |
| Yes, so residential. | 01:13:34 | |
| Development is to parking spaces required for each residential unit. | 01:13:37 | |
| So they would have to meet those standards. If they're adding an additional unit, they have to have to. | 01:13:44 | |
| Parking spaces for that additional unit. | 01:13:49 | |
| On the comment of street parking, Street parking is a public good that's available to anyone. We don't regulate street parking | 01:13:55 | |
| beyond limiting it to 24 hours at a time. | 01:14:01 | |
| The home occupation daycare that existed that was referenced by one of the comments is no longer in Operation 2. | 01:14:09 | |
| Commissioners, other questions, comments. | 01:14:21 | |
| Everybody says, OK, we're all soaking it in at the moment. All right. Yes, go ahead. | 01:14:26 | |
| The issue of. | 01:14:33 | |
| A structure being in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Is that something that the technical review committee gets | 01:14:36 | |
| involved with or? | 01:14:40 | |
| No, because we don't have character standards for neighborhoods. Neighborhoods are residential, so the character is is it a | 01:14:47 | |
| residential use? | 01:14:51 | |
| Because that is what neighborhoods are. Neighborhoods are residential use. That is the only character that we have to rely on for | 01:14:57 | |
| neighborhoods. And you're going to have neighborhoods with older homes that get replaced with newer homes. Some people buy | 01:15:04 | |
| multiple parcels and build giant homes. Is that out of character with the neighborhood? It's. | 01:15:10 | |
| It's not. It's not a factor beyond is it a residential use. | 01:15:18 | |
| Oh boy, yeah. Well at the end of the day for me, when I look at this, I'm just going to throw my comment out there. When I look at | 01:15:26 | |
| this, I think I I for me it's just why is it? It sounds like based on what the applicant is trying to do with a potential | 01:15:33 | |
| subdivide, it feels like an R18 would satisfy that and also satisfy the general plan of the city, which for this area has been | 01:15:40 | |
| earmarked as low density residential stable. | 01:15:48 | |
| Right. Like I feel like that. | 01:15:55 | |
| Somehow is the path that should have been on and it got skewed and steered off into the R210 and I don't know if it's just | 01:15:59 | |
| because, well the neighbors have it, let's do that. I don't, I'm not I can't speak to that. But the the three home thing and part | 01:16:06 | |
| of it just has me a little bit concerned because I think that's you know, at what point does the domino effect happen And then the | 01:16:12 | |
| neighbors duplex becomes a triplex and then the next neighbors becomes a triplex or you know R2 et cetera. | 01:16:19 | |
| Highland Court, thank you. I think that'd be easy. But Highland Court, I think that one would fall under the exception rule | 01:16:58 | |
| because it falls into that master plan. | 01:17:03 | |
| That's very controlled to City staff's point, right. That's not going to go change. Nobody's going to sell that property and go in | 01:17:39 | |
| and subdivide it. It's already part of a master plan as where this has no control mechanisms on it whatsoever. And you know, build | 01:17:45 | |
| it bigger, better, faster, higher, whatever fits as long as it can fit in there. We've just given it the green light to do so. So | 01:17:51 | |
| that's my only reservation on R2 versus an R18. And with that I will be quiet and see if any other commissioners have thoughts or | 01:17:57 | |
| if we have a motion. | 01:18:03 | |
| I appreciate the Commissioners direction. With that. I do, however, reading in the staff report. | 01:18:09 | |
| It says under guidelines in the general Plan, rezone request should be considered only when increases in density will not | 01:18:17 | |
| negatively impact the established development pander. | 01:18:22 | |
| Patterns in the surrounding neighborhood which this would not, and even with the increased units I think it would still fit. New | 01:18:28 | |
| development will be accommodated through utilizing unclaimed density. I'm not sure what that means anymore. Rezoning may be | 01:18:35 | |
| appropriate when increased density will not destabilize the existing neighborhood. | 01:18:42 | |
| Based on that criteria or those defining points, I think there's merit to this. I think that. | 01:18:50 | |
| In my questions there are some limiting factors to how narrow the property is and the access to that which. | 01:18:59 | |
| May be cost prohibitive to do a number of these things but. | 01:19:07 | |
| To me, I'm seeing that this is kind of meeting the intent. | 01:19:12 | |
| You know whether that. | 01:19:18 | |
| I don't know. | 01:19:21 | |
| That helps though for me. | 01:19:25 | |
| Well, if anyone else has, unless there's no further comments, I've had the same thought about the R18 being a better zoning and I | 01:19:28 | |
| I wonder. | 01:19:34 | |
| I don't know how everyone feels, so I don't know what the vote is going to be, but if this is some food for thought for the | 01:19:40 | |
| applicant. | 01:19:44 | |
| And whether the applicant would have any concern if we tabled this for the next meeting. | 01:19:48 | |
| To let him decide if. | 01:19:55 | |
| These other things have been talked about, which zoning he really wants. I mean, he could get a vote today. He may get it, he may | 01:19:57 | |
| not. He could certainly come back another time and try, you know, on our 1/8. | 01:20:03 | |
| Or maybe we could be efficient and table this for two weeks and? | 01:20:09 | |
| Maybe he changes it or doesn't change it takes a chance, I don't know. | 01:20:14 | |
| Well, and I'll defer to city staff on that. What would be the correct protocol, something like that? | 01:20:19 | |
| Yeah, that would be an option. | 01:20:26 | |
| I think when looking at R18, if I were walking through R18, there's going to be significant challenges if the applicant is trying | 01:20:30 | |
| to use that back. | 01:20:35 | |
| Building. It's rezoning the whole property to R18. | 01:20:42 | |
| You would then need to do a planned unit development or subdivided, but then the. | 01:20:48 | |
| R18 still comes with significant challenges in being able to use that and I think that's possibly where that are too. O 10 | 01:20:55 | |
| recommendation comes in is that it is an easy way to say OK 2 units. | 01:21:02 | |
| The that's there's two structures existing on the property, and it is. | 01:21:11 | |
| A clearer process moving forward for the applicant and using the property or subdividing. | 01:21:17 | |
| R2 subdividing is still going to have some challenges with it as well I. | 01:21:27 | |
| We talked about the access when I pulled out. | 01:21:32 | |
| Kind of a area that would go from the property line back to where that structure is. It's roughly 2200 square feet. So if you're | 01:21:37 | |
| taking 2200 square feet out of their 1900, that's going to be pretty close on even an R18 subdivision if they're. | 01:21:46 | |
| Yeah, because they're nineteen 19166, taking out 2200 square feet of roadway access. | 01:21:56 | |
| 16 and 16 by two is 8 right? Right. | 01:22:07 | |
| So it's it's tough, but it's doable. Doable, yes. | 01:22:10 | |
| Where R2 could avoid some of those those issues. But even with an R2, that existing structure is still legal non conforming | 01:22:15 | |
| because of its placement on the setbacks, right? So either way, that's still going to present a hassle if he says hey, I wanna | 01:22:20 | |
| make this a home now, right? | 01:22:25 | |
| I think my concern just, I mean that's a really interesting thought and I. | 01:22:33 | |
| I think. | 01:22:39 | |
| And the list of considerations just on the very first page of the staff report. | 01:22:42 | |
| Is it consistent with the general plan? I also think so. It seems to be. Is it consistent with the character of adjacent | 01:22:47 | |
| properties? It seems to be. | 01:22:51 |