Holiday council holds public hearing on text amendment to narrow section of Murray Holiday Road; vote set for March 6

The Holiday City Council opened a public hearing Feb. 6 on a proposed text amendment to Title 13.02.003 (roadway classifications) that would permit a narrower cross-section and phased sidewalk work on the east end of Murray Holiday Road.

The applicant, Ron Hilton of 2394 East Murray Holiday Road, told the council the proposal is intended to “slow down the traffic on this east end of Murray Holiday Road, where it becomes a single-family residential area,” and outlined a three-phase approach that starts with restriping and could later add curb, gutter and sidewalks. He said phase 1 (restriping) would cost about $25,000, phase 2 (a short sidewalk segment the developer has bonded) about $5,000 (already bonded), and phase 3 (full curb, gutter and sidewalk extension) about $120,000.

Jonathan Turling, the city’s community and economic development staff presenter, described the application as a legislative text amendment that the planning commission reviewed on Jan. 7. Turling said the planning commission conducted its own public hearing and had forwarded material to council; the packet includes the staff report, technical reviews and planning commission minutes. The planning commission voted 7–0 to deny the application and the packet includes a traffic consultant memo from the applicant.

Hilton told the council that neighborhood petitioning began in 2023 after residents raised safety concerns and questions about a power pole placed near a new curb. He said the petition and testimony were ruled inadmissible in an earlier mayoral appeal hearing, which prompted the applicant to pursue the text amendment so the issue would receive a full public hearing.

Public commenters were split. Clark Larson, a longtime resident who identified himself as having law-enforcement experience, urged the city to collect baseline data and said enforcement could be used if the counts supported it: “If in fact, a little bit of a survey is done by the police to see if it is a real issue, they can then start enforcing the law more strictly on that street.” Owen Smoot of 2544 East Murray Holiday Road said he supports “anything that we can do to increase safety on that road.” Marjorie McDermott, who lives at 2534 East Murray Holiday Road, said she appreciates the concern but opposed narrowing the road: “I do not support narrowing the road.” Frank Moffett and Rob Ethington also spoke in favor of additional safety measures and sidewalks while expressing doubts about lane narrowing.

Chief Hoyle and city transportation staff noted the council already has access to speed and volume data. During the work session that followed, staff said 85th‑percentile speeds on the street are about 30 mph (the posted limit is 25 mph) and that isolated higher speeds exist as they do on many local streets. Staff flagged that restriping and other non‑infrastructure traffic calming options are alternatives that can be implemented without changing the municipal code.

Hilton described three design phases: phase 1 (restripe to narrower travel lanes and remove the centerline to promote lower speeds), phase 2 (install the short sidewalk segment already bonded as part of Holton Park), and phase 3 (extend curb, gutter and sidewalk to the eastern terminus of Murray Holiday Road when funding allows). He said the developer is able to cover part of the restriping for the short segment but would not be able to pay for full implementation of phase 3 at this time.

The council did not take a final vote on the amendment at the meeting. Mayor and council members asked for additional technical information, including a staff review of traffic-calming effectiveness for the proposed lane-width change and updated traffic-count comparisons. The council president said the item is scheduled for a decision at the March 6 council meeting.

Why it matters: the amendment would change how the city classifies an existing right-of-way, potentially allowing a narrower cross-section and prompting future striping and sidewalk work that would alter parking and pedestrian space along a residential section. The planning commission recommended denial (7–0); the council is considering the same record after a public hearing.

What’s next: the council will take the item up for decision on March 6. Staff agreed to provide the council with traffic-count data, the applicant’s traffic-engineer memo, and a written clarification about which elements (striping vs. permanent curb and sidewalk) could be implemented administratively versus by ordinance.