Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02182025 Planning & Zoning Work Session NotesWORK SESSION NOTES PLANNING & ZONING Called by: Chair Carol Griswold Time: 5:30 PM Date: 2/18//2025 Purpose: Code Changes to Efficiency Apartments, Building Height Overlay Discussion Present: Daniel Meuninck, Courtney Bringhurst, Clara Brown Stephanie Milaine., June Temperton, Jenna Peterson, Samantha Allen Council Members Present: Carol Griswold, Sean Ulman, Clare Sullivan, Rhonda Hubbard, Nathaniel Charbonneau, Brenan Hornseth Absent: Vanessa Verhey The work session was called to order on February 18th at 5:30 p.m. We will proceed directly to staff comments and move into the work session packet. The first item for discussion is the draft ordinance regarding changes to efficiency apartments. This draft is largely the same as the one presented to the city council during our joint work session. However, in response to feedback from previous sessions concerning utility issues, we consulted with the public works director and made some modifications. Specifically, we have adjusted the definition of a detached accessory dwelling unit to stipulate that it must have its own water, sewer, and electric lines. Additionally, I will distribute some proposed language based on further discussions with the public works director, who noted that requiring owners to connect to separate water and sewer lines can be complex and challenging in certain situations. The utilities are always associated with a specific address, which is why he provided an example of an individual he knows who has two sewer lines but believes they are only being billed for one due to a lack of proper tracking. This situation can lead to complications. He expressed that he has no issues with a detached accessory dwelling unit being connected to the main house's water and sewer lines. However, he noted that if the lot were to be subdivided, it would raise more significant concerns. Consequently, I have drafted two alternative proposals. The first proposal specifies that lots larger than 6,000 square feet located south of Phoenix Road must have their own water, sewer, and electric lines. Additionally, lots exceeding 12,000 square feet north of Phoenix Road are required to have their own utility lines. This requirement is based on the fact that smaller lots cannot be subdivided, thus eliminating any concerns in those cases. The second proposal may address further considerations. The proposal allows for a degree of flexibility, recognizing that it is not feasible to address every possible scenario. It is specified that a detached accessory dwelling unit must be linked to its own utility lines, particularly if there is any potential for the property to be subdivided. These two options are presented for the commission's consideration. I will pause here to allow for discussion on what might be the most suitable approach. Following this, we can review the remaining sections of the draft ordinance. Would the commission prefer a brief moment to reflect on this? Regarding the Phoenix Road, my understanding is that it runs north and south, intersecting with the Southeast Highway, located directly across from Port Avenue. Yes, it appears to run east -west before transitioning to a north -south orientation. Let us take a few moments to contemplate these options. There are indeed two distinct options available, and if desired, a third option could be included that encompasses all detached units as outlined in the packet. All detached accessory dwelling units must have their own separate water and sewer lines, which can be quite challenging and costly. I would like to take a moment of silence to reflect on this matter. Thank you. Now, what are the commission's thoughts regarding this proposal? If there are two dwellings on a large lot sharing the same water and sewer lines, and we proceed with subdivision, we may not have accurate information about their shared usage. However, it is important to note that if they decide to subdivide for sale, financial institutions will require separate lines for each unit. I am considering whether it falls within our jurisdiction to enforce regulations that encourage property owners to plan for future sales, or if we should simply provide this information and require compliance to ensure a smooth subdivision process. Should we take action on this matter, or is it sufficient to expect property owners to consider these factors themselves? I would recommend that if individuals opt to manage the process independently, we should permit them to do so with the understanding that a specific condition must be included. When they introduce the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), it should be made clear that if they decide to proceed with subdivision, they will need to separate the utilities. This stipulation will provide them with the opportunity to evaluate their future intentions, whether they plan to sell the subdivided property or maintain it as is. By offering this information rather than imposing a requirement, we may facilitate a more informed decision -making process. This could be articulated in the form of a note on the plat, which is a legal necessity, indicating that if the property is subdivided, the utilities must be independently managed. This approach seems reasonable. The highway includes parcels that exceed dimensions of 30 by 100, which have been platted larger than those measurements. It is important to note that although a significant portion of this area was originally platted with dimensions of 30 by 100, this does not necessarily reflect the current situation. I believe that the initial proposal aligns perfectly with the intentions of the Public Works Director, as it is straightforward and uncomplicated. This approach eliminates the need to navigate complex plat notes regarding financial arrangements or geographical distinctions. Furthermore, if one is considering the addition of another dwelling unit, it would be prudent to ensure that it is a standalone structure for clarity and simplicity. However, does the current wording permit the maintenance of a shared Water and Sewer system for both buildings? If they are separate, do we not want to provide the option to keep them on the same Water and Sewer system? The Public Works Director indicated that this was the language we developed following our discussions. During the last meeting of the committee, we discussed potential complications regarding the proposed regulations. The Public Works director expressed concerns that the language in the packet might be overly stringent, potentially leading to unnecessary financial burdens for individuals. He suggested a more flexible approach, allowing us to evaluate each situation on a case -by -case basis. For instance, if the location and size of a detached structure indicate the possibility of future subdivision, then it would be necessary for it to be on a separate lot. Conversely, if the structure is situated behind the main house and there is no feasible way to subdivide the lot, then it would be acceptable to connect it to the primary residence. I concur with his perspective, especially in light of our ongoing discussions about accessory dwelling units, often referred to as mother-in-law suites, and the implications for potential subdivision plans. Chair Griswold adjourned the work session at 6:50 PM