Hurricane planning commission tables proposed code change on accessory buildings in front yards

The Hurricane Planning Commission on Aug. 28 voted to table a proposed land-use-code amendment that would change rules for accessory buildings and accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in front yards.

The item, LUCA 25-06, would amend Title 10, Chapters 3, 7 and 37 of the city code to add conditional-use standards for accessory buildings and ADUs placed in front yards and to clarify definitions. Planning staff asked the commission to table the proposal after legal review recommended removing an extra ‘‘guest house/casita’’ definition and making broader edits before sending the proposal on to the City Council.

Why it matters: the changes would affect how and where single-family homeowners — especially owners of flag lots and other infill lots — may place detached ADUs or accessory buildings in front-yard areas. Several residents have raised questions about setbacks, driveway access and whether the code’s current variance process provides relief for unusual lot configurations.

Resident Amy Heaton, who said she lives on a flag lot at 1049 South 180 West and wants to build an ADU for her son, told the commission the existing 25-foot setback requirement effectively eliminates her buildable area. “We live on a flag lot where we have an 80-foot driveway... we want to build an ADU for my son and his family,” Heaton said, asking the city to consider a waiver or different setback treatment for flag lots.

Planning staff explained the flag-lot ordinance measures front-yard setback from the portion of the lot that faces the public right-of-way and that, under current rules, an accessory structure typically must meet the same setback as a primary dwelling. Staff also told the commission the property owner previously requested a variance that the appeals board denied. As staff summarized, “The commenter did request a variance, but that was denied. There are pretty strict rules regarding variances.”

City attorney and staff review: Planning staff said attorney Dayton advised removing a separate guest-house/casita definition and revising the ADU definition more broadly. Staff recommended tabling the amendment so they can renotice the ordinance with cleaner language and to ensure the flag-lot setback rules don’t conflict with the new ADU language.

Commission concerns and clarifications: commissioners pressed staff to confirm several technical points now embedded in the draft code: that standard setbacks (25 feet) would still apply unless the flag-lot ordinance is specifically amended; that ADUs on lots of 0.5 acres or less must be architecturally consistent with the primary residence; and that the conditional-use pathway for additional ADUs relied on chapter 7 standards, including an 0.8-acre threshold for qualifying conditional uses. Staff agreed these provisions remain in effect in the latest draft and said the packet contained some earlier, inconsistent language that will be corrected.

Motion and next steps: a motion to table LUCA 25-06 so staff and legal counsel can redraft and re-notice the amendment passed by voice vote. Staff said the item will return to the commission for a new public hearing after the revisions; staff suggested the next meeting is a likely earliest return date but did not give a firm schedule.

What was not decided: the commission did not adopt any new setback exceptions or make changes to the flag-lot ordinance during the meeting. Staff said issues specific to individual denied variances — such as Heaton’s — will need to be addressed through their own application processes and that tabling the citywide amendment does not automatically reopen or change prior appeal decisions.

The commission closed discussion on the item and moved on to other agenda business.