Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - 07/08/201511111 "1111114&I
i! I ZIN "ArIkOR I I ki 1ex •
mugnil
Karen Gagnd, Planning Administrator
Loren Shapiro, Planner III
Christopher Guess, Planner 11
Matthew Prouty, Planner 11
1i r
III=-
gam
7"7
srt TfUT-Cm
Karla Metty
Justin Jones
Daniel Leslie
n
Members
City Staff
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Wingo at 2:00 p.m. He then proceeded to make thlz
following announcements:
a. This meeting is being broadcast live • Channel 11. It will be replayed at 2:00 p.m. daily
including Saturday and Sunday until the next live meeting is aired which will be the second Wednesday of
next month at 2:00 p.m.
b. Motions made by the Commission members include all staff recommendations and
developmental requirements listed in the staff report. Any deviations will be discussed on a case-by-case
basis and voted on accordingly.
c. Applicants and citizens who wish to address the Commission or answer questions from ti
Commission members are asked to please speak into the microphone at the podium. This meeting
seing taped and there is no microphone to record statements made from the audience.
d. Please silence all cell on ringers during the meeting. If it is necessary for you to have a cell
phone conversation during the meeting, please use the hallway outside this room.
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS
P & Z COMMISSION
Ill® APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Jeff Browning made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 10, 2015 meeting. Anthony Inman
seconded the motion. The minutes were approved with a unanimous vote,
Chairman Wingo asked if there were any items to be pulled from the consent agenda. Mr. Shapiro
said there were no items to be brought down to the regular agenda. Mr. Inman made a motion to
approve the consent agenda. Mr. Browning seconded. The consent agenda was approved
unanimously as submitted.
I I Ir 11111 1 P111
Note: Approval of a plat does not imply approval of development of property in violation of the
Zoning Ordinance.
1. Case C 15.14
Request for a conditional use to allow a duplex in the Single-Farnily-2 (SF-2) zoning district.
3200 Birch Street
fflr. Christopher Guess presented the case. Staff notified 24 surrounding property owners and
received 3 responses in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 with no opinion/undecided. There were no
responses received from outside the notification area. Mr. Guess indicated that the applicant
proposed a 720 square feet per unit, 2-story duplex. Staff considered the character of the
iurrounding neighborhood when evaluating the proposal.
ITTI11111
Mr. Graham asked why the screening was required. Mr. Guess responded that it would screen the
residential uses from the duplex. Mr. Graham asked if the existing residential privacy fence was
sufficient. Mr. Guess said it may be satisfactory if the fence contained no openings • breaks and
meets the intent of the city's screening ordinances.
Mr. Wingo asked about clarification of condition number 3 — the site shall utilize garages, carports,
• other off-street parking facilities compatible with residential uses in the neighborhood. Mr. Guess
i�xplained the preference was to match the conditions of the other homes in the area, as described
in the conditions and in the subdivision and development regulations.
Johnny Combs asked and clarified whether the long front driveway to the open parking lot at the
back would satisfy the requirement, without the carports or garages. Mr. Guess responded that the
rear parking did not meet the intent of the regulations and was out of character.
Shannon Rutledge-Hopkins said the proposal seemed to meet the off-street parking facility
requirements. Ms. Rutledge-Hopkins said she did not see how else the applicant could configure
the parking. Mr. Wingo added he would extend the driveway back to a garage, where it could
P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 4 JULY 8, 2015
Mr. Wingo asked if there could be a second access to the alley and would there be a setback
requirement. Mr. Guess said there was no setback for driveways.
Mr. Inman asked if the driveway could be built on the other side (west of the street) and the second
drive on the alley. Mr. Guess responded that primary access is from the street. Mr. Wingo asked
whether a secondary access would be allowed from the alley. Mr. Guess said the alley has an 8-
foot lane that was too narrow and did not think Public Works would support the utilization of the
alley.
2. Case C 15-15
Request for a conditional use to allow retail trade in the Residential Mixed Use (RMU) zoninv-
ig,
j!istrict.
1909 & 1913 Windthorst Road
Mr. Shapiro stated a single point of access will be provided from Windthorst and a screening fence
would be provided along the perimeter adjacent to residential properties. The property consisted of
two lots, which would need replatting for the placement of the building and parking. Mr. Shapiro
P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 5 JULY 8, 2015
concluded that the previous conditional use stipulations would be included, as conditions of
approval.
0
Mr. Inman asked about the distance from the proposed building to the church. Mr. Shapirq
responded that the new building would be within 300 feet of the church.
Mr. Wingo asked the applicant if he was in agreement with the staff recommendations and
conditions. Mr. Wingo asked that the lighting not impact neighboring properties. Mr. Raulston
responded, the lighting would be designed not to impact surrounding properties and that he was in
agreement with staffs recommendations.
® Case C 15-16
Request for a conditional use to allow a carport in the required front setback in the Single —
Farnily-2 (SF-2) district.
1402 Larchmont Place
Mr. Shapiro stated the applicant requested a 25 ft. x 28 ft. carport, 8 feet from the front property line
and 7 feet from the interior side. Staff sent 27 property owner notices, 4 responded in favor, zero in
opposition and with no opinion. There were 3 properties with carports within the required front
setback. Staff recommended approval as submitted.
-T.MT17-T-TT 1 • 0 # #a - 0 - 0 a - - #
III EEEMEM,
P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 6 JULY 8, 2015
4. Case C 15-17
Request for a conditional use to allow a manufactured home in the Single-Family-2
district. th
1208 North 6 Street
Mr. Shapiro stated the applicant was requesting a manufactured home to replace their SF ho
which had burned down in May 2015. The manufactured home will be placed next to an existi
carport. Mr. Shapiro continued that the property was 70 feet wide and the manufactured ho
would need to meet the minimum interior side setback of 5 feet. Mr. Shapiro concluded that t
proposed manufactured home would be new and 28 x 52 feet in size. I
Staff recommended approval of a conditional use for a manufactured home with the following
conditions.
1. The manufactured home meets the requirements of Section 5600 of the zoning ordinance for
manufactured housing.
2. The manufactured home be placed on the property meeting minimum setbacks.
0=1 Wit
The applicant, Mike Edgen, 105 Cutter Cove, Lakeside City, presented additional information. Mr.
Edgen said he was the son-in-law of the owner Mr. Chavez. The family has resided on the property
for 50 years. The manufactured home will line up with the location of the former home and would
almost resemble the former single-family home.
Mr. Graham asked about the type of brick skirting to be placed on the manufactured home. Mr.
Edgen responded saying that the new home is brown, but will use white to match the homes in the
t-rea.
5. Case C 15-18
Request for a conditional use to allow a carport in the required front setback in the
Single-Family-2 (SF-2) zoning district.
5024 Lakefront Drive
Mr. Shapiro stated the applicant requested a 12 ft. x 20 ft. carport 16.5 ft. from the front property line
and 5 ft. from the interior side property line. There were 3 properties within the 200 ft. notification
area that had a carport within the front setback.
There was 32 property owner notices sent, with 4 owners responding in favor, none opposed or
undecided. Staff recommended approval of the carport request.
•
Mr. Wingo asked staff if there was other business to discuss. Mr. Shapiro said there was no new
business, but introduced Mr. Matthew Prouty, the new Planner 11, who began employment in late
June. Mr. Wingo welcomed Mr. Prouty to the commission and noted he looked forward to working
with him.
OMM