Planning & Zoning - Regular Meeting

Parish having municipal address of 1615 North Florida Street in Cington. The petitioner is a St. Tammy Parish School Board and owner is the same. Uh the petitioner to speak. Please state your name and address for the record, please.

Good evening. Jeff Shane of the Jon Cell Law Firm, PO Box 1810 in Cington. have the pleasure of serving as special counsel for the St. Tammy Parish School Board and uh appreciate you hearing our request for resub this evening. Um the case is sort of unique in that uh it's a little bit about nothing. Um this property, the Line Elementary School campus uh was actually part of a subdivision track many eons ago. Uh and uh long before the property got annexed into the city, which was in 97, the parish police jury uh revoked some street right ofways within the campus. The streets had never been constructed. Um so when the property came into the city, uh it was annexed, if you look at the plat as one parcel. It did not denote the old lot lines and the old street rightway lines. Um, and technically those old lot lines were never reubdivided into one legal lot of record. Needless to say, the campus was built as is across lot lines, etc. Why does this come up now? Well, that school continues to grow and the school board continues to have interest in making good capital investment there. Um and we realize that uh having some of these legal lot lines are going to create problems as it relates to buffers, setbacks, building buildings. So, we appreciate staff and legal working with us determining that this was in many respects much akin to an administrative reubdivision in that it's a combination uh consolidation

of legal lots and revoke rightways into one parcel. But I think it was because of the number of parcels we needed to do it through a public hearing process and appear before you as opposed to making that request administrative. So the netn net of the request is that we would appreciate you approving uh this resub request which will consolidate uh all of the fragments of formal lots, rightways, a little park, etc. into one legal lot of record. that of course is in your city. If any of you have any questions, I'll be glad to address them at the appropriate time. You have any questions?

No questions. Uh Mr. Shane's accurately stated the history of the property. This is the third uh school that we have uh requested that they the city's requested that they consolidate all the lots into one lot. It it simply uh years ago no one paid attention to the lot lines when they built these schools and as they've come forward with building permits. Uh we've asked them to consolidate their properties so that there any future constructions not across lot lines. That's all this is. And he's correct. If it wouldn't have been for the number of lots involved in the old subdivision, it would have been done administratively.

Commissioners, any questions? If not, I'll entertain a motion and no one else to uh to speak from the audience. I'll entertain a motion. Motion to approve. One second. And a second. Roll call, please. Mr. Boone. Yes. Mr. Davidson. Yes. Mr. Duick. Yes, Mr. Bullock. Yes, Mr. Hudson. Yes. Okay. One other thing, Mr. Boon. How many years for you? A lot. No, but I was sitting there listening to 19 for Mr. Cston. I'm just curious. Yeah, but it's over 20.

Over 20. Okay. Well, thank you. Thank you for your public. Thank all of you for your public. Thank you. Uh okay, let's move on to uh the second case. Uh let me also acknowledge uh for the record that Mr. Davidson is here. So he will now be present for the rest for the record. Thank you.

Uh next case is case number 26-02-06. Uh it's an administrative subdivision referred to the planning commission by the planning department. It's an application to subdivide lot 7- A square 2313 into two 50x150 lots. Note the subdivision request was pending the approval of the meeting prior to us for the uh board of adjustments. It was case number 260205. Uh the petition is Jennifer Adams. Owner is Ross Paul. Bless you. Um the city makes any comment please? Well, I want to apologize to the board because I told uh Miss Adams that she could go. That's why she's not here to speak again. But I think most of y'all were present during the uh BOA review of this matter. Basically, one person bought two lots, adjoining lots from two different people. The lots were 50 foot lots. The 50ft lot size matches every lot in the square. However, the zoning classification requires 60 foot lots, but the the square and other squares in that part of New Covington are all 50 foot lots. So, he decided to build a house on two lots. So, he the city made him combine 250 foot lots into a 100 foot lot. So, he didn't build across lot lines. Well, he has changed his mind and now after 18 months of applying for the administrative reubdivision into one lot, he's now requesting that he go back to what he had when he bought it, which is 250 foot lots. He's putting it back the way it was.

Correct. Commissioners, you have any comments. And and just for the record run, I think you mentioned that in the BOA meeting that um going back to how it was reverting back to how it was. There's there's nothing in our ordinance that keeps that prohibits that from taking place, right? And that that area we have throughout the city and historically we've approved these over and over and over again. Yes. Every lot in that square is was 50 feet wide when the square was laid out. Nothing has been changed in the square. Right. Thank you.

Uh okay. Um do I have a speaker? Ron said she couldn't leave. That's her. That's her. That's her. Said she Okay, it's not going to happen. Okay. Good job, Rod. All right. Thank Thank you. All right. So, okay. With that being said, I'll entertain a motion. Commissioners, make a motion to accept case number 26-026, administrative resub. Second. And we have a second. Roll, please. Mr. Boone. Yes. Mr. Davidson. Yes. Mr. Duvik. Yes. Mr. Bullock. Yes. Mr. Hudson. Yes.

Okay. Um, other business. We have ethics training reminder. Please complete your ethics training if you haven't already because we're we'll start getting emails from HR shortly. I'm sure everybody's already done that, right? I would think. I don't think you're the worry group. No, if you haven't. Just check. Can you send me the link again? You want to do it twice? I did it already. He He flunked it the first time. He flunked. I did I did it twice last year. So,

no. And we're you're going to do the one for board members. So, make sure you pay attention that it's the one for board members. I'm happy to send the link. I'll send it to everybody again. Just did I do mine already? You did yours. I did mine. I thought I did mine. Okay. Did you get mine? You did yours. Mr. Bullock needs to do his. And Mr. Hudson.

Okay. I see the group here. Okay. Um, with that being said, we'll uh adjourn the uh planning commission meeting and we will open the Coington zoning meeting. Let's see. Let's do the uh roll call, please. Mr. Boone here. Mr. Davidson, here. Miss Swords absent. Mr. Duvik here. Mr. Bullock here. Mr. Hudson

here. Uh we have the approval of the minutes from the last meeting. Commissioners, any comments, amendments, changes that need to be noted? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Second roll. Mr. Boone. Yes. Mr. Davidson. Yes. Mr. Dubic. Yes. Mr. Bullock. Yes. Mr. Hudson.

Yes. Uh the first case is case number 26-02-01. It is a uh a major pud amendment request. It's requesting a major amendment to the plan residential district PRD adopted by the city of Cington Council on May 2nd, 2017. Uh the applicant is requesting to amend the adopted plan as follows. Change the number of units from 38 to 40 and parking spaces approved from 38 to 40. This also will increase the square footage 31,261 to 33,320. The subdy property has the municipal address on 1312 West 29th Avenue, Covington, Louisiana. The petitioner, MSH Architects, Shalam Moes, and the owner, Renaissance Neighborhood Development Corporation, Vanessa Line. Uh, city

I have no major comments just to uh advise you. You know, a pud is a specific design for the property. The pud specifically authorized 38 units u and any change in density is considered a major putt amendment because they're requesting to add two units. That's why they're before you. Okay. Commissioners, you have any comments for the city before we hear from the petitioner? petitioner, please come state your name and address of the record, please.

Um, hi, I'm Shil Moes. I am with MSH Architects and we are across the street here at 229 East Kirkland Street. Um, I am here representing Renaissance Neighborhood Development Corporation um, regarding the proposed senior housing development at 1312 West 29th Avenue. Um so um we our team that's going to if we get this project funded is is all here in Coington. Um I would be the architect. We have a local builder CM Combmes. Um R&DC was formed in New Orleans. Uh they're the developer in the wake of Hurricane Katrina to serve as the local housing arm for Volunteers of America Southeast Louisiana. and BOA sila already operates in 16 parishes and has a lot of programs already here in St. Tamony Parish. Um they um own and manage all of the 1500 units in their portfolio. 182 of those units that they own are here in Covington already. Um there are 94 at the Groves and there's 88 at St. John Village which is near the corner of Highway 25 and 190. Um so this is the last piece of this development that we started in um 2010 and was completed in 2012. So the groves at Mile Branch as you know is there and um has 94 multif family units and 10 single family homes. The last pieces envisioned that we've been trying to fund since 2016 is this threestory all new construction courtyard building for seniors. Um, it was approved, as y'all mentioned, in 2017 with, uh, 38 units. Um, the building would be for seniors 62 and older. It's an elevator building. And, um, the original master plan for this

site had 38, but tonight we are just requesting to have two more. And the reason is the Louisiana Housing Corporation has amended their qualified allocation plan which is um their yearly funding round. It's a competitive funding round for low-income housing tax credits and their minimum threshold for unit numbers is 40. So the developer cannot even compete for the funding to make this senior housing affordable unless we add two more units. So, um I think I had submitted I mean this is all conceptual at this point but I had submitted um before we had the three-story building and this is very conceptual and it was like this with no unit here and basically we put a little unit there. So, our plan would be to make it look like a two-story building like all the other buildings that are multif family on that 12 acre site. And this is an additional 1 acre that is currently undeveloped um right behind the sheriff's office uh building that they had there that's up for sale on the corner of PERS in West 29th. So, basically, the building wouldn't really look that much different. We be adding two very small senior units there on the third floor as part of the dormer and that is it. That is all we are asking for.

Thank you. Commissioners, do you have any comments for the uh petitioner?

So within that same space, you will still be able to add the two additional parking spaces that you need. Um I had actually modified I don't it's really hard to read on this little plan but um we so this is the one acre site um and the building is in this portion here and we had 38 pardon me spaces here. Um all of this is like a set aside for like green space. Um and I was able to modify the way this is laid out a little bit and get two more parking spaces back there. So yes, we have 40 and we had previously discussed that way back in 2017 that most of the seniors don't have cars and the ones who do just have one car and so they don't even think they're going to use all 40 spaces. A lot of the seniors do utilize star transit and stuff. So we would have one space for each unit which are all single bedroom units anyway. questions.

So, I I have a question just out of curiosity. Um, this commission approved this PUD nine years ago. I know. And nothing's happened. And, um, we've gone through three or four funding rounds. We've tried to get this funded several different ways. um RDC is going to try again, you know. So, so if if this is granted and it's really not that much of a of a grant, what's to say we just sit around for another 10 years and we still have nothing?

Well, we have actually um and the owner's not here to really speak to that. They really want this senior housing piece, so they're going to go a couple more funding rounds for it. Um they're definitely going to try to do the next QAP that they're eligible for. I don't think it's going to I don't know if it's going to make it into this round. Um it might be it might be 2020 the fall of this year for the next round which would be the 2026 QAP. Right now they're doing the 2025 and I don't think that they put it into this round yet. So it might be another year before you see anything happen anyway. Um, we have put in proposals for more single family on the slot before and if if they have to go back to that, they might they might choose to go back to that if they can't get this funded, but the ideal thing would have a senior set aside. I mean, that's their goal. They think that's I mean, they have lots of young families here and they have some turnover and, you know, they they want to have this piece because they think that's what's needed here. So,

well, I think that was one of the reasons that the commission had approved of it to start with was the fact that it was going to accommodate seniors, right? Versus the rest of the group that's can fight for other things. I'm just looking at the fact that it's just reminding me of another thing that I won't mention the name of property-wise. It just sat and sat and sat and sat. And I'm looking at this saying it's no big deal in my opinion to grant this slight adjustment to the bud, but not to just sit for another 10 years. It's like where when are we going to get going? No, I understand.

And I don't expect a timeline of a specific date. I just would just be nice like within the next couple years, but you can't answer it because it's a funding issue.

It is a funding issue. And I mean, VA's VA's goal is to keep housing affordable for people and the only way they can keep it affordable is to get the tax credits because the market rate cost to build this is extremely high. I mean, it's a $17 million project if it's a penny. So, it's just to be able to offset that cost to build quality housing because the the LHC standards are also very high. We build very energy efficient, very tight, everything's fortified, the hurricane standards and the whole deal. So, in order to do that and and still be able to rent it for, you know, not sell it for $700,000 like a condominium downtown, you know, we really have to have that extra funding. So,

do you think there's a better chance of this going back to single family and just scaling it way back? Um, versus this project? I mean, they might I I can't speak to that because the owner's not here. I mean, I just know that prior to this that that was something they considered doing. So if they fail to fund this then that that was a project that we brought through here and I think it has been approved for a certain number of duplexes even at one point. So do you do you believe in that? Thank you. And to u Mr. Boon's point, do you do you feel that our approval tonight would be the catalyst to to help them get that financing under the new guidelines? That's correct. And um

that's why they feel so strongly about presenting this. They do. Um, well, no, they they want to do the senior piece. None of none of the units that they have right now are set aside for seniors. There are a lot of seniors that live in St. John Village, but they don't have something that's particularly set aside, and that's a that's a population that they feel really needs to be served here. Um, they could submit it, I guess, with the 38, but they don't really meet the threshold. So, they won't win because there's a lot of competition out there for this money. So in order it's best to go in with something that actually qualifies for the application. So that's why we're asking for it. Right. So shoot that.

Yeah. And it's a minimum. So I get it. All right. Commissioners, any any other comments or questions? If not, I will entertain a motion. I make a motion to approve. Madam approval. Seconded. Roll. Mr. Boone. Yes. Mr. Davidson. Yes, Mr. D. Mr. Duvik. Yes, Mr. Bullock. Yes, Mr. Hudson. Yes.

Okay. Um, that takes care of that one. Last case is case number 26-02-01. Text review. Text review to amend the city of Coington code of ordinances. Chapter 86, article 2, parades, festivals, and other special events. and chapter 110 of the land development code is for discussion and deliberation only tonight. There's no voting uh for these commissioners. Um there'll be a public meeting uh tomorrow. It's to be consistent with industry standards and existing city practices and to provide for related uh matters. The petitioner is the city of Covington. Uh would the city make any comments first or we go right into it?

Thank you. Just giving you all the slides screen. We're going to keep it pretty short. Don't worry.

Have a timer. So, I also have some copies of the code packet here. If anyone needs a printed copy, it's pretty big. All right, y'all. Evelyn Campo with Desire Line Consultant for the city. Thanks so much for having us join you tonight and thank you for promoting the public meeting tomorrow. I really appreciate that. I hope that I know there's not a ton of us in here tonight, but I hope that we all talk to our friends and neighbors and get everybody to come out because that's going to be really good. So, what I'm here to tell you guys about is packet two of our LDC effort. Um, now I know this is not new information for any of you guys. as y'all have, you know, been watching this effort and it's actually, this is not even the end of it, right? We're kind of still in the middle of the process. Um, so like I said, I do have these code packets here with me. Um, it's a pretty lengthy document. It's 36 pages now, but this is just one of three packets that you're going to end up getting. This is also online, totally available for the public. Um, and we're going to have it printed and available tomorrow, too. And y'all know, I'm just recapping in this second slide that says project approach. Um, y'all know that this is part of an effort to kind of clarify, streamline, and make our code just a little bit more user friendly so that people don't have to feel like they like have a PhD to read the code pretty much. So that's what we're here to do.

So these slides go along with the code packet and so we're hoping that you guys will take maybe the next couple months to just browse the code packet, ask questions about it. We also have a version that shows you like through red line and through blue text what's new and what's old. But to be honest, it's a little confusing to read that at first. So that's why I gave you guys the clean copy. But if you are wondering like what's new and old, we can definitely show you. Um, so like I said, this is only a piece of the code, but our next packet is going to build on this. So I would just ask that you take a look through if there's any parts of this. This covers like procedures in the residential districts. So this is not the most exciting reading, right? Procedures like process stuff. We get it. It's kind of boring. But if you're reading it and you're like, "This doesn't quite make sense to me," or like, "I don't think this is how we should be doing things," now is the time to bring that up to staff and the consultant team, and we can either explain what it is and just talk through any questions or we can also make edits because this is not up for adoption really until we get all the way through the code packets. So, you still have time, but please bring any questions or edits to us.

Y'all good so far with that?

Mhm. Okay. So, on these slides, um, we wanted to just give you like a little overview of what you're looking at. So, on the LDC guided tour slide, it just says what the articles are in this packet. On the procedure slide, it just has a little screenshot of a table that's on page nine. And that tells you kind of all the different things that someone might come through the planning office to ask for, right? So they might be asking for zoning map change, um, conditional use, a variance, right? So this is not just things that come to planning commission or zoning commission, but things that could end up going to council or BOA. And then in that table, it shows you kind of everybody's role in those processes. Right. And so you don't have to, you know, shout out edits right now, but please do if you want to, but just think on that and think if you have any questions or concerns about that. The next slide just says procedures, what's new? Um, and so I just wanted to go over a couple things that are going to look different. Um, this LDC, if you do choose to um, recommend its adoption, if the city council adopts it, it would be a new chapter to the code. Um, and it consolidates some of the things that are currently in chapter 82, appendix A, and appendix B. We did want to clarify some of the public comment process and introduction of materials at a meeting just to make sure that just like we did today when we're handing out things, we want to make sure that that stays in the record, that the public has access to them. That's already a process that takes place, but we want to be very specific about it in the code. Um, and then we also added details to what kinds of

conditions can be added to a conditional use. This question comes up all the time because there's always going to be something we didn't imagine, right, coming through. Um, but you don't want to be put on the spot to say, well, I don't know if I can ask for this or not in a meeting. You want to know ahead of time like what what your parameters are. Um, we also added some specificity to when an application is considered complete because I know one thing that you know, everybody who comes through planning and zoning, they're not necessarily like an expert developer. sometimes they don't know what they need to have and you don't want someone to think that they've applied for something and they're like I'm sitting here waiting but really they haven't given the information to the city that it needs to conduct the process. So we want to clarify that. Um and then add some specificity to when variances can be granted just so that the city isn't similarly on the hook for okay I I'm not sure if this person can even ask for this. I don't know whether it needs to go to a meeting or not. We want to be as clear as possible at the outset. So then if you look at slide six, which is permitted uses in residential districts, this just gives you, you know, how in our current code there's like a list in each district that says what you can and can't do. A lot of the lists like refer to other ones. It's kind of confusing. So, um, the the typical kind of best practice in planning is to put that all in a table so that if someone knows their zoning district, they can just find their column and find the use they want to do. And it's really not more complicated than that. Or if someone is considering reszoning, you want them to know how to figure out what the other districts would allow without them having to like look through all different chapters. So, that's what that table is for. Um, we did clarify some

things. For example, um, daycarees and preschools. Um, we are recommending that those be permitted under 5,000 square feet in all the residential districts because those are typically um, when they're small scale, they can look just like a house and serve the residents. Um, and then we also heard, you'll see over here I have some boards. We heard from some of our prior public meetings that there's a lot of demand in the community for accessory dwelling units and so I just brought those as a sample of you know what we're hearing from people and we'll have more tomorrow so we can continue to refine this issue but we have added that to the table as permitted in the residential districts to um address that concern from the community. Um, and cell towers and group homes would be proposed to stay the same as they are now. So, that's not a change. They're just in the table. The slide that says dimensional standards, that refers you to page 31 in the code. Um, you'll see that each district has its own table. Um, and I think we already had the tables, if I'm remembering right. We just made edits to these. We didn't like make new tables. Um, but it does kind of consolidate some things. When we looked at your districts doing the code audit, we did notice that there were like slight differences between like lot area and setbacks that were in the same district. And so what that can do is it can make your streetscape actually not look uniform, right? And it can be confusing because if someone's subdividing that lot, they may not know what they want to build, but now they're like, I'm not sure even how big this lot should be because I don't because it it's different for each use. So, we are recommending that we

consolidate some of those. Um, and we did remove the density column because we have other controls for density. We found that that was a common source of confusion basically for um residents and people trying to develop their land. Let's see what else we can solidate it. Um just standardizing minimum width depth and setbacks. Yep. So if you have questions about those like the tables, the use table and these dimensional tables are where the rubber meets the road. It's only for residential districts right now, but you'll be seeing more. So if the format is confusing or prompting questions, let us know. And then thank you again for promoting tomorrow night. I hope we see you guys there. It starts at 5. Um, and I do want to invite you guys if you have questions, we can do that now.

Commissioners, you have any questions. And if you need to think on your questions, that's fine, too. You can email them. Um, and we will be back talking to you guys many times before this is finalized. We know where you are. So, exactly. Okay. Um, thank you very much. Thank you. Uh, with that being said and over. So, remember your ethics training. Ethics training and

also just to kind of give a little detail to what Evelyn said, the open house tomorrow at the Firehouse Event Center is from 5 to 7, but you walk through and it's interactive in case you haven't made any of the previous ones. If you try to come, you know, it's not like you're in a meeting from 5:00 to 7:00. You come in and you're welcome to stay the entire time, but you're also, you know, you come through, pick up information, leave, whatever. So, it's not not too bad. We have fun. Be right at, right? You don't have to be there right at 5:00 and you don't have to stay till 7. And it's um really really been a good experience. So, and there's food. So, it's not a lockdown, which

No, you're not. Just checking on that. Uh, okay. With that, uh, in mind, uh, let's go ahead and, uh, without further debate, adjourn the Coington zoning meeting. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Have a class.