Planning & Zoning - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Miss go. He roll call please.

Mr. Boone here. Mr. Davidson here. Ms. Swords absent. Mr. Dubik here. Mr. Bullock absent. Mr. Hudson here. Ms. McKay here.

We have the approval of the minutes from the last meeting commissioners. If you have any amendments or changes, please state. So now, if not, I will entertain a motion.

I make a motion to approve the minutes. And a second.

Ms. Govey?

Mr. Boone? Yes. Mr. Davidson? Yes. Mr. Duvik? Yes. Mr. Hudson? Yes. Ms. McKay?

Yes. Okay, quick announcement before we get into the cases, that we would please ask you all, the applicants that are here, that if you would dispose of the signs that are posted on your property. after the meeting so that we don't have to send somebody out again. You can just dispose of them. We'd appreciate that very much. Okay, with that, we have the first case, which is case number 26-05-12, administrative sub. It's a request for an administrative subdivision referred to the Planning Commission by the Planning Department, an application to subdivide lot 4, square 2903, measuring 60 feet in width by 139.64 in depth into lots 4A and lot 4B, each measuring 60 feet in width by 69.82. in depth subject properties identified as lot 4 square 2903 division of new covington covington st tammany parish having the municipal address of 506 west 29th avenue covington This administrative subdivision request is in conjunction with the case that was heard earlier from the BOA, and I believe was approved.

Correct. The BOA granted the variance. As you can tell, it would have been administratively done, but for the need for the variance. That's why it's before you. Correct. The property is in an area that is zoned for small lot development. The minimum lot width is 30 feet. The lot width of this property is 60 feet. Additionally, the minimum square footage of a lot in this zoning district is 2,700 square feet. These lots each will be 4,100 square feet, 150% of the required lot square footage. but the variance granted the reduction of the lot depth by 20 feet.

Right. Commissioners, do you have any questions or comments for the city? We have the applicant to speak. Ms. Mose, would you please come state your name and address for the record, please?

I apologize for missing the first one and I appreciate your work on that. My name is Shiloh Motz and I'm the secretary of the West 30s Redemption Company and I'm here in lieu of Brian because he is out of the country as you guys determined. Well, Rod has expressed several good details about this. I just wanted to also point out that this is a common thing that we have done considering the historic development patterns in the area. There's a lot right next door that was allowed to have this particular type of resub division done. And if you look at plans of West 30s, you'll see front to back houses on the alleys all over the place. So anyway, I appreciate your consideration.

Commissioners, any questions for Ms. Mote? If not, I'll entertain a motion. If no one else is here to speak on behalf or against, they're not.

I have a motion and a second. Second.

And a second. Ms. Cohey?

Mr. Boone?

Yes.

Mr. Davidson? Yes. Mr. Duvik? Yes. Mr. Hudson?

Abstain.

Ms. McKay?

Okay. The last case is case number 26-06-02. It's a sale. It's a request for the city to sell at private sale a portion of McDougal Street line between squares 41A and 42 and East Tate Street and East 32nd Avenue. Second Connolly addition to the city of Covington measuring .275 acres, 240 feet by 50. The petitioner is Pamela Miley. The owner is the city of Covington. Does the city have any comments to make at the outset before the petitioner?

The main comments from the city are that the engineering and public works are not in favor of this because we have utilities in that street right-of-way.

Okay. Any other comments from the city? Commissioner, did you have any comments on that?

It referred to power lines. Are these transmission lines, or are these just pull-to-the-house lines?

No, those are those big power lines that run down the right-of-way. I have not been able to confirm from CLECO if there's a servitude or not. It's very hard. Their records go back to, like, the 70s and 60s. But, I mean, the power lines are there, and they're very big. The other thing that I had mentioned in my staff report is that there are four adjacent lots to the street. Lot number 10, the owner of that lot's here today to talk to at the meeting, and he is not involved in the request. He is not in favor of it, but he'll explain all that to you.

Is that the only utility running through this right of way?

According to our public works, we have water and sewer.

And Clico possibly over here. And possibly Clico over here.

Okay. Do we know who put in the gravel parking lot? Did the city?

No, but we do know that it's been there. I went back to 08 on Google Earth, and it was there. It's probably been there longer than that because there's been a business there for many, many, many, many years.

Commissioners, any other questions? Would the petitioner, Gary Miley, come to the front, please? State your name and address for the record, please.

Gary Miley, 304 East 32nd Avenue. Okay, you want to state what was the intent here? We own basically three sides of it now, and we want to increase our green space for the children. We own Little Red Schoolhouse right next door. We've been there 52 years, and there's a lot of programs right now for adding green space with gardening for the kids and more playground space.

And that's why you approached the city to see if they were willing to sell?

Yes, sir. Commissioner, did you have any questions for the petitioner? I have a question for council.

Okay.

Rod, is it possible if we did sell this, is it possible to deed restrict it to no construction or deed restrict it against improvements? But is it legally possible? The property owner is the city. The property owner is the city, right.

More decision of sell or not sell.

Okay.

Post acquisition. Okay.

I'm not opposed to that.

Yeah, okay. You understood what I was asking? Yes, sir.

Basically, it stays green space.

Yeah.

That's what I want.

correct but it gets you where you want to go yes sir accomplishes the goal you wouldn't be opposed to all that follow-up with the city council and

No. I've spoken to a few council members, and I actually started speaking about this two years ago at Mayor Mark, and it was just funding. It's just taking a little time to get it right, and now's the time.

Commissioners, any other questions for the petitioner?

The desire from the administration would not be to revoke and give the other adjacent property owner an opportunity. It would be just for... on a petition. I guess my biggest concern is we've identified what we think is Clico, which they typically have a 40 to 60 foot right of way, which the property is only 50 feet wide. And then with Public Works making a comment as well as Cali with the utilities that are not denoted on here. that would essentially make that entire strip non-buildable anyway. Right.

Right.

You can't build under the high tension lines anyway. So today.

I mean, I believe currently it's 20 feet for sewer and water. It used to be 10, it's 20 now. So that would pretty much restrict any construction on that as long as there was, and through title, that would be, all of those would be noted as far as the water and the sewer as well as the power, so.

So the city was actually there today doing some repair work. On the south side is where the water and sewer runs through the property. And I wouldn't be opposed to just buying the northern half of it. It was just because they said it's just that south side has where the water and sewer runs through.

Okay. Where the parking lot is? No, north of the parking lot. The north side. The green space. Gotcha.

Mr. Davidson, I have a question. If it turns out that the sale was not allowed, Is there a mechanism whereby the adjacent owners could come to the city and ask for use of that property?

So there would be a right-of-way permit, and actually one of the owners has applied for a right-of-way permit. I think it's pending the decision today, maybe. I don't know. We haven't had a response from Public Works on it.

Which owner?

That would be Mr. Malshevitz.

So giving a right-of-way permit to either one of the parties would enable them to have some use of the property.

If it was within...

I'm assuming there was no sale.

Okay. Mr. Rod, you can clarify this. I'm not sure, but I was told that we couldn't do anything garden-wise on it with a right-of-way permit. We would have to go through purchasing.

Well, I mean, we've had some situations, not the private individuals, but the clubs and groups that have allowed gardening on city property, but it's normally through some type of... Community garden stuff.

Community garden stuff.

Then with the acquisition, the new owner would have to maintain it to the city ordinance just as if the city owned it, correct? As far as keeping it mowed and cleared. It would follow the general rules of our code of ordinances. Right.

Yeah, they're buying the property.

The parking lot part we've all kind of maintained together, but the northern side, we've maintained it for over 30 years. The city hasn't done anything.

Any other questions for the petitioner?

Thank you for your time, gentlemen.

We have another speaker. If you would please come to the podium, state your name and address for the record. That way I won't botch your last name.

How are you all doing this evening? My name is Ivan Milicevic. I own a property right next to this lot, whatever they try to purchase. That property is used for entrance to my property. That property is used to exit my property. That property is used, that's only one entrance to my restaurant and that property I own it. We have electrical there, we have water there, we have gas there, we have everything that's in front of the property that I own it. So that's probably, that's why they built that road on the side, the public right way. And I pull the records too, I think that right way has been there for that property over 20 years. they use it for backing up 18-wheeler to unload it from a restaurant or whatever, sorry, or employees parking there and stuff like that. So I do have my own parking lot in front of my restaurant, but that's been used just for, because that 32nd Avenue is so small, And if anybody pull it up and stay there, it's gonna be nothing but a cluggage. Like they own that school too. It's like hundreds of cars pass there. So it's kinda the property help community. Help us too, but they help, you know, for traffic, help for, I understand what he want to do. He want to try, you know, because he own behind me property. So he own, he try connect that to in the back. So I understand where it's coming from. It's just to come, kind of try figure out what we can do with my people. Try figure out if there's any way possible that we can build another road to my, you know, but due to all that gas lines, sewerage and water line, it's,

it's impossible so so are you saying you lose access to what you have now if the property is purchased is that correct city yes sir and i got my employees too they're gonna work there and we have five from on there against that too because um and who granted access to to the use of of

So I tried to do some research, and there were no real right-of-way permits back in the day. It just kind of, you can see from Google Earth, it's been used for a long, long time.

To perfectly understand, if you wanted to, I can present you fictional property, and I can, my guys, they pull it up, records for over 20 years that always been entrance to that property from side of that city property.

But if you wanted to... No, I understand.

Yeah, so...

Commissioners, do you have any questions for?

So I would like to add that. Yes. I was not told by engineering or public works that the utilities only ran through half. I don't know if that's accurate or not. I don't know.

But we know for a fact that engineering as well as public works are not in favor of this. Correct, correct. For whatever reason.

I would just, I think we want to go back and revisit a comment that the applicant, Mr. Meyer, made that they would also be willing to buy a portion of it, buy half of it. I think that would be much more favorable and which would also protect the current business and the access there. If there was, my assumption, Ms. Allen, is that they would have to go back and reapply for half, or could we amend that here?

I have to reapply.

Can I suggest something? I know it's kind of, I mean, if you wanted to, I don't mind buying that parking lot because I love to maintain it. Now I have issues, you know, because every time I cut grass or clean something, I don't want it to make me a city because I'm doing this, it's not my property. So I don't mind, you know, buying that parking lot. So this way, you know, I purchase half, I purchase half. Whatever, you know, I'm just trying to help him out. He's my neighbor. But I just it's lacking me completely. And it's kind of. i would just hate for it to get to the council and they just reject it all together and then we're back to square one so what if if you want a weekend we come back every you know go back to the table and we talk to them maybe we come up with some solution that's fit me and feed them too you know so this one we know force attending um yes sir

are you talking about buying the entire

It's not my property.

I'm not selling it. I'm just telling you my situation. I don't know. You know, I can't get nowhere know how to this property without this.

I understand.

So that's only as I have. Or maybe you can just table and we come back and let's figure out this thing before we just. force it if you know what I mean. Let's think about it.

Last month. Yeah.

Correct. Correct. They were both in agreement to letting him make the purchase of the property. Correct. Correct. They will make the other deal. Right. I understand that. Well, that would be the question to me, though, is I want both parties to decide that if Mr. Miley buys the whole or wants to buy the whole piece, and is successful with that, he then works out the arrangement with you to have what is necessary for you.

Yeah, that's not, nothing against, you know, that's not, I like to have everything, you know, like in front of you, and you sell it to peace and me, half right away, and you sell it, I know, like on the side, you know, I had bad experience with, you know what I'm saying, it's nothing against.

Yeah, we can't do that here, though, is my point. I understand.

I perfectly understand. I appreciate your time and everything. I just want you to understand where I'm coming from. I have nothing against this man. It's just he's locking me completely out. That's it. No, I understand.

Hold on. And I brought this up last month when we were talking with Jerry Braswell. You all can get a document between the two of you. It's called a Memorandum of Understanding, which you both sign it. And you can get it notarized, make it as legal as possible. And it would protect you in the event he buys it, that he's obligated to sell you the front half and specify the number within. Let me just remind you that the property is going to be appraised by the city.

I understand. That is going to be the problem. I understand.

Okay. I know all this. Okay. I understand. I know you, yeah. I'm just trying to tell you how I feel. Okay. You know, it's not, again, I understand, great idea what she's saying. It's a great idea. I'm just not in a position, I mean, I just don't want to be misled. You know, I own lots of companies, businesses, and I got misled a million times like that. I just want to do fair. to me, to him, and to you all. You know, I'll give you my, I'll let you know, you know, I'll letting you know what a situation, if it's something. I understand.

We'll have over 60 days, won't we?

So your preference would be to purchase it from the city instead of Mr. Miles? Yes, sir. So it would be two different transactions? Yes, sir.

That's what I want. This way I know I'm going in the right direction. It's not going to be like I say, you say, we say.

Would it have to be re-subdivided in order to become separate lots of record to make two different transactions?

It would be administrative, I think.

Okay. Okay. It's not a lot of records.

And again, for the record, let's understand that this is a recommendation that goes to the council. They are the final say-so. We're not.

I talked to a councilman. He looked at my property and he told me, he said, just come in front of you because he knows, I don't want to, he's not here to say something, but he understood that If there's any other way that we can work this out. But it's just I'll be breaking my brain. It's what it is. Nothing against anybody. I never knew about this thing until I saw a sign Friday. You know, I think it should be fair way that, you know, somebody tell me, okay, we're doing this, you know what I'm saying? Like I said, my guys call me up, they say, look, there's this in front of your property. So that's what crushed me completely. So for me to go in some deals on the side, you know what I'm saying? It's like, that's what I'm, you know.

Go ahead, one more. Yes, please.

Richard, just to clarify, if both of these parties came to the city, and asked to buy him the south side of that right-of-way and this gentleman the north side of the right-of-way, the city would entertain granting a sale to each party.

Well, it still has to either have some sort of servitude for public works, you know, it's not... Well, any sale is subject to that anyway, right? Yes.

Okay, that's all I wanted to know.

I'm willing to even sign the papers that I'm never going to build, not today at all. I want to maintain it to have exit in my property. That's it. I don't have to, you know, it's not for me. It's just for parking lot.

So do we go forward with making the recommendation or we table until the resolution is achieved?

We reject it as is.

and if something blows up, the council just won't introduce the ordinance. The council can control the progress of the matter.

Okay. Are you understanding what Mr. Rod said? It means that if we did approve this and we made the recommendation that it go to the city council, this will be approved as it is written, which means it would be a recommendation that we sell it and sell it to Mr. Miley? To Mr. Miley. But then it's got to go to the city council, and then they're going to sort it out.

Just if you can just explain it to me, what is reason to sell it? Just give it to me. I'll show you my case. I'll show you this only way I can get to my property. Just give me a reason why you think, should we even talk about this, that somebody want to buy something, that that's the only way I can get to my property. I'm just confused. Do you know what I'm saying? I understand.

I think the reasoning was stated earlier that he wanted to add some green space. He's certainly willing to add only half that amount of space and allow you to have the other space. When it gets to the city council, they will sort it out or they won't pass it or they'll reject it in its entirety. So you have the ability to speak to your city councilman at that time, explain, both of you go together. Say, we're in agreement, we're going to do this. When the appraisal comes back, we look at the price, and you buy it for half that price, you get your sound out.

You gotta do what is in your heart.

You've got to do it the way the ordinance and the legal says you have to do.

What is the reason the city is selling this property? If I use it, it makes no sense to me.

The city has provisions in its ordinances that they can sell property that is unused, and we can sell it to people who petition to buy it.

Okay, we have one more speaker, so let's get to that before we get to any decision. Would you please come to the podium, state your name and address for the record, please?

Pamela Miley, 304 East 32nd Avenue. I own Little Red Schoolhouse right next door. I know the back adjacent property. And this is my new neighbor. And I thought when we walked in here tonight, I had an agreement with my neighbor that if we could do this, he would get his portion of the property. I certainly don't want it. It's a driveway into the property because when that building was built, I've been there since 84, it was built without a permit. And back then you could do things like that. So they built it right on the street. There's no driveway to it. He's exactly right. Without this property, he needs to be able to get in there. And I'm willing for that to happen. I'm willing to let him have the other end and sell him the other end. But I have to pay for it, so he has to pay for it. I mean, the city isn't going to give anybody anything. We have to pay for it. And that's the difference. And I came into here knowing that. And I thought we had the agreement because, He saw that I was gonna buy it because he saw the sign and wanted to know if I wanted to buy the whole place. And I said, no, I just want entrance to the street so we have our properties. And I can cross over my property in the back from my play yard, cross right over, because the city doesn't let you, not city, the state doesn't let us walk the kids out to the street to have a playground next door. We have to be able to walk into it. And this will allow me to use that as play space. So I'm in agreement, you know.

All right, commissioners, do you have any more comments, questions?

I think both parties are going to end up where they want to be. I think the challenge for us, at least in my mind, is that if we approve this tonight in order to try to expedite the process, the record the record for us for this commission is that we approved it with really only one owner one buyer in mind and uh... i just don't want to send that message personally i don't want to send that message to council uh... i would i would rather for us too stop it here and have them

spoke to Ms. Miley to solve Mr. Milovich's problem, she's willing to amend her request to merely buy half the coal out. And the city will keep ownership of Mr. Milovich's parking lot, which solves the problem of dealing with any agreement after this. It gets him what he wants.

And this can be amended that way right now?

Yeah. She's amending her request to only buy, what is that, the north half?

Yes. And he said no. He asked if that could be amended earlier, and we were told no, it couldn't. So when I asked earlier if this could be amended where they could only purchase half of it, and you said it would have to. No, no, you were talking about him buying now. No, Mr. Miley. No. Yes, sir.

Right. Yes, that's what I'd ask.

And I mean, Mr. Miley, right.

Right.

Because, thank you, with that amendment, it protects... It protects both sides. Yes. And then he can come back and ask for the city to buy. Correct. If he wants to.

If he wants to.

Or he just keeps using it. Okay. Good job. I think we're ready now. Thank you, Solomon.

Anyone else to comment? Okay. Yeah, we've got to make it clear if we're using it.

MacDougall Street between Tate and 32nd, 120 feet deep.

Right. That'd be the northern half of the property.

No.

It's 50 by 240.

Yeah, 50 by 240.

Yeah, the total property.

So you're going to cut it to 120?

120.

Okay, let me just clarify this just for a second. We are able to consider Mr. Miley's amendment to his request to the petition to purchase just half of the property and leave the remainder as is with the city. And with that, the portion that we've heard about from The restaurant owner is not in the story. They can look at something later down the road, but it's not Mr. Miley, so we're not talking about that. Is that not correct in my understanding? So with that, I think we can move forward with whatever decision is made unless any commissioners have any other questions or comments to make.

Okay, so you need to include that in your motion.

I understand, that's why we're gathering that now, and Mr. Rodriguez will correct us if he wants to. Do we have a motion, first of all, to do anything, and let's entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion to amend, and I'll give a stab at language. Go ahead, please. Case number 26-06-02, sale, a request for the city to sell a private sale portion of McDougal Street, lying between squares 41A and 42 in East Tate Street and East 32nd Avenue, second Connelly addition to the City of Covington measuring as amended 120 feet by 50 feet. Of the northern portion. Of the northern portion, yes, of those squares mentioned.

It doesn't, second.

Okay, and a second. Ms. Kohe.

Mr. Boone.

Yes.

Mr. Davidson? Yes. Mr. Dubik? Yes. Mr. Hudson? Yes. Ms. McKay?

Okay, it's approved so amended to forward on to the council at this point. Other business?

Ethics training, reminder if you haven't finished, and sexual harassment prevention training if you haven't finished.

Okay. We'll take care of that.

You do have a meeting on July 20th. We have a planning and a zoning meeting. Y'all haven't had that in a while.

Wait, say that again, please.

On July 20th, you will have a planning commission meeting and a zoning commission meeting.

Quite extensive, I might add.

A little busy.

A little busy. Can we get a head start on it?

Yes. I have some of the applications ready, so probably starting next week. I won't have my staff report ready, but I can have the applications sent to you guys and start reviewing them because there's some pretty heavy stuff. I'd like to because they're going to want to look at it.

I think that would be wise. Okay.

With that... Is there a way that if any of us are missing any of the requisite education that you can let us know specifically which one we're missing?

I think Bridget can answer that for you right now.

For sexual harassment prevention, it's only Mr. Boone, Ms. Swords, and Mr. Bullock. Ethics is Ms. Swords and Mr. Bullock. Okay. And that's it. Everybody else is good.

Perfect. With that, then we will adjourn tonight's meeting.

So moved.