MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FOR MAY 3, 1999

 

PRESENT: Commissioners Andrew Lacey, Jerry Gentry, Suzanne Jepsen, Howard Gilliam, Tom Sly, Cyde Estes; City Manager Gerald Breazeale

ABSENT: Commissioner Deborah Kendrick; City Attorney Bill Kuhn

(Unless otherwise noted, "MOTION CARRIED" indicates all in favor.)

  1. General Business
    1. Call to order Chairman Jepsen called the meeting to order at 7:03 PM
    2. Introductions - Chairman Jepsen asked for introductions of those present. Those present introduced themselves; Ben Jarman, Linda Jarman, Chandra Arbogast, Al Riney, Ken Roberts, Jean Strange, Sally Walker.
    3. Announcements - City Manager stated that Ken Roberts was present at the meeting representing the Morrow County Health District and that Mr. Roberts had been working with the committee on Strategic Planning and on the Technical Advisory Committee for the Transportation System Plan.
    4. Approval of the Minutes of the April 5, 1999 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion by Cyde Estes, seconded by Andrew Lacey to approve the minutes. MOTION CARRIED.
  2. Public Hearings - Chairman Jepsen stated that there were three public hearings to come before the Planning Commission. They would be held in the order listed in the agenda. Chairman Jepsen stated the conditions under which testimony would be heard and the criteria for granting or denying a variance request. The public hearing was then opened.
    1. Variance request for relief from setback requirements at 130 East Quaid Street, Map #2S 26 26CC, Tax Lot #4700. Applicant Jean Strange. It was pointed out that the application indicated the variance would be for an attached carport but in reality it would not be attached to a building. There was no testimony given either in favor or opposed to the variance request. Councilor Estes asked if the carport would be constructed by a contractor. Ms. Strange stated that this would be a prefabricated unit and would not require a contractor to install. Commissioner Estes stated that these type of carports were being erected in various communities, and there has been opposition to them. There is the perception that the metal carports do not blend in with the character of site built homes. Cyde Estes stated however, that none of Ms. Strange’s neighbors were in apparent opposition to the variance and must not believe that the construction would detract from their neighborhood. Commissioner Gilliam stated that there was one of these types of carports in town already. Commissioner Gilliam made a motion to grant the variance. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lacey. Chairman Jepsen asked if there was any discussion desired on the motion. Commissioner Gentry expressed concern whether access to the rest of the property could be accessed if the carport were constructed. Ms. Strange stated that she chose the 20 ft. by 20 ft. carport to allow access to the back of the property. Chairman Jepsen called for the vote on the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
    2. Variance request for relief from setback requirements at 220 Baltimore Street, Map #2S 26 34AA, Tax Lot #900. Applicant: Madalyn Bibby/Allstott & Gentry Construction. Chairman Jepsen read the title of the application for an extension to an existing carport. Commissioner Gentry stated that he would be representing the owner and would not be voting on the application. Jerry Gentry stated that the application was for a flat roofed carport matching the existing carport and extending from it. The carport would allow for the parking of another car under cover. The construction would extend into the 20 ft. front setback and into the 10 ft. side setback. He stated that there is no access to the rear of the property. The construction would be done under permit and would be to current building code. Chairman Jepsen asked if there was any other testimony in favor of the application. Hearing none, she then asked for any testimony in opposition. Commissioner Estes asked whether there were any letters of opposition to the variance. City Manager Breazeale stated that there were none. Commissioner Lacey stated that the carport would be within 5 ft. of the front property line as shown on the drawing. Commissioner Lacey stated that he did not believe that a carport extending so far in front of a house would be in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. Mr. Gentry stated that currently a car is parked in that location and the carport would merely cover the existing use. The adjacent building is built on the property line. Commissioner Tom Sly stated that the parking situation on Baltimore Street would not be affected by the construction of a carport. The issue was whether to place a roof over the existing parking space on the property. He questioned what would be the public benefit of allowing the construction. Commissioner Estes stated that she did not believe that the public interest needed to be met but was a question of the property right of an owner to exercise the right to enjoy their property so long as they do not hinder the rights of surrounding property owners. Commissioner Estes stated that no surrounding property owners were opposed to the variance and the applicant was merely exercising her property right to cover her car. Commissioner Sly stated that he was not challenging her property rights but was looking for the case for providing for the public need. Commissioner Gillian stated that the public interest was in removing the vehicle from the street. Jerry Gentry stated that she could not build the carport in the rear of the property since there was no access. There was no other way to provide for the two cars to be covered. Commissioner Gilliam made a motion to approve the variance. The second was made Commissioner Lacey. A question was made from the audience about whether opposition from surrounding property owners would be considered as determining that it was not in the public interest. Commissioner Gilliam stated that it would depend on what the issue was. Commissioner Gentry stated that if it would decrease the property value of adjoining property owners it would not be in the public interest. MOTION CARRIED. Abstained: Commissioner Jerry Gentry.
    3. Variance request for relief limitation requirements for a utility outbuilding located at 345 Skyline Drive, Map #2S 26 35CB, Tax Lot #3608/3607. Applicant: Al Riney. The request was for construction of an open carport 15 ft. by 30 ft. in a Limited Residential R1 Zone. Chairman Jepsen called for testimony from those in favor of granting the variance. Commissioner Estes asked for clarification on the definition of utility outbuilding and asked City Manager Breazeale if he had researched the issue. Breazeale stated that he believed that the construction, as proposed, would be a use allowed outright in the zone. The ordinance defines a utility outbuilding as being under 12 ft. by 12 ft. in size. The use proposed would not be a utility outbuilding but rather would be an accessory use building. Commissioner Estes read from the Zoning Ordinance the definition of accessory use building and the definition of a utility outbuilding. In her opinion, the use described by Mr. Riney would meet the definition for an accessory use and would be allowed outright since it did not violate setback requirements. Commissioner Gilliam asked for clarification. He stated that two definitions were given and that Mr. Riney had made application for a utility outbuilding. Commissioner Estes stated that the application should never have been submitted since what was proposed was an accessory use building. Sally Walker asked whether there were any restrictions on an accessory use building. Commissioner Estes stated that the restrictions applied to any building in the zone. There were maximum size and height requirements to remain under. The maximum height requirement is 35 ft. in the R1 zone. The building proposed is 17 ft. in height. Discussion ensued regarding definitions and the application to the variance request. A question was raised from the audience as to why the public hearing was being held if the use was allowed in the zone. Breazeale stated that when the application was taken in, the assumption was that the use was for a utility outbuilding which exceeded the size allowed. This is how prior applications had been handled. The question before the Commission is to make a decision as to whether this use should be defined as an accessory structure. If the Commission were to rule that the use is a utility outbuilding, then the public hearing would be necessary. Breazeale stated that he believed that the use should be defined as an accessory use and be permitted outright. Commissioner Estes made a motion that Mr. Riney’s use of a 15 x 30 ft. carport is an outright use in the R1 zone and that the Commission recommends to the City Manager that Mr. Riney’s fees be refunded. Second by Commissioner Gilliam. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Sly voted against the motion.

 

  1. New Business - None
  2. Old Business - Chairman Jepsen stated that the TAC Meeting for the Transportation System Plan is scheduled for May 11th . City Manager Breazeale explained that the meeting date was set at the request of the consultants, Kittelson & Associates, as they are coming down to the last stages of the process. They will be meeting with the four cities that they are doing plans for and seeking final comments to include in the plan. The joint City Council/Planning Commission is scheduled for June where the final draft document will be submitted. Commissioner Sly asked if there were any more documents from Kittelson since the last meeting. Breazeale replied that there have not been any more documents received as of this date. There have been additional information supplied to the consultants to be included in the document which should be reflected in the final draft.

Commissioner Lacey stated that he had additional old business to discuss. He asked about the expansion of the Sheriff’s office and whether it went through the Planning Commission. He was informed that it had while he was absent.

  1. Information Items
  2. Correspondence - None
  3. Communication from the Commissioners
    1. Tom Sly reported on the City Council Meeting.
    2. Other - The Commissioners discussed the need to define accessory use in the zoning ordinance. It was suggested that City Manager Breazeale obtain ordinances from surrounding cities that may already have working definitions that can be used.

ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 PM