Planning and Zoning - Regular Meeting

I would like to call this public hearing to order. We're here to request a condition. We have some folks that have requested a conditional use permit to install a manufactured home on the property currently addressed to 707 West 1st Street. This was requested by Paul and Cecilia VanVleet. Is that correct? Sam, please. Sam, please. I apologize. I should have asked. I should have asked that. Would you all, we'd like to recognize anybody who wishes to speak about it. Go ahead, what's your? This is our son, Derek .

Pardon me? My name is Derek . I'm their son. Thank you. This is my stepdad, Paul Zanefleet, one of the applicants, and then my mom. They're requesting that you guys grant this conditional use permit for them. They bought the property right next door to them. Currently it had a house on it that frequented drug trafficking a lot. The individual that ended up, they purchased it from, he passed away and they were able to get it from his family. But while it sat vacant, there was numerous arrests made for drug-related crimes and then it just sat vacant and became a derelict eyesore on the city. So they bought the property with the intent of being able to place a manufacturer at home on that lot. Since then they've done all the dirt work. They've done everything. They've cleaned the property up. They've taken all the existing buildings that were there and have had them torn down professionally. They were demoed by Goaty Excavating. He took care of all that work for them. They're obviously getting up in age, and their current house is not best fit for them anymore with having to climb a bunch of stairs just to go anywhere in the house or to go to bed at night. So the idea is if you guys grant this, they're going to put a 32, I think it is. 30 by 72. 30 by 72 double-wide manufactured modular home. The floor plans are actually up there. It's a four-bedroom, three-bath professional installation, the block foundation, everything. It's going to be done right. And with the intentions of once that's there and they're moved in, then they'll knock their existing house down. So it's essentially still two properties, but it'll become like one big property. They'll have two garages and the new residence on the property.

So that's your house just right to the east of that? Yes. Two-story house? Yes. Do we have anything, any questions?

You guys have any questions for us? No.

I have some questions, but I think would we, yeah, I think that'll be more for the next.

Probably during the meeting. Okay. Then I would like to close the hearing.

Hey, Keith, before you open the public meeting, I wasn't looking around while I was setting things up. Mr. Stegall's out here in the And the audience, and he needs to be up here. You were appointed, weren't you?

No. He's one of our new members of the Crown Regional Commission.

I would have said something sooner, but I didn't see that until we called the meeting.

I was curious. What was your name? Rick. I think I've met you once before.

Sorry, Keith. Go ahead.

Okay. Well, we'd like to close the hearing. We're going to close the public hearing and we'll go directly to the public meeting. If you'd like to call that to order. We'd like to have a roll call. Everybody's name is here. Chair Greg Musil. Rick Stegall.

Chair Greg Musil.

Kyle Williams. Mike Burks. Keith Edmund.

Kim Steelman.

I guess we'll have to approve our agenda, which our agenda is here is to discuss the acceptance and rejection of the request for the conditional use permit to install a manufactured home on the property. The current address is 707 West 1st Street, and this was requested by Paul and Cecilia Zanpley. I'm sorry.

I would so move to approve the agenda.

Second. Okay. Does anybody have any questions to talk about?

On the agenda item? Yeah. We have to vote to approve the agenda first. We have to vote first on the approval of the agenda.

We just made a motion and seconded it.

Yeah, we just had a motion and seconded it. I don't have anything, but I know, Kim, you said.

Yeah, I just had a couple questions. What's the time frame that the existing home will be demolished by after completion of the installation of the new home?

As soon as we can get to it, yeah.

So I know that if this is approved, they've already got all their stuff taken care of at the bank. they will go sign as long as this is granted and then they go to the board of aldermen on the 9th their closing date for the loan and everything is on june 10th they will place their down payment and to get the the home built at six weeks build time six to eight weeks build time eight to ten weeks build time now they were anticipating that this be done uh kurt is estimating it be done in in place by october that starts turning in the winter time. So, you know, once it's done and set up, then they can start moving in. I would estimate, I don't know if any contractors would do it during the winter time. If they would, great. If not, probably early spring before they can get it torn down before any contractors will come take care of it.

Because with the current, where it'll be built, will it be like with it as close to the current structure? Will that be? That's against current code, right?

So clarification on that. Okay. So if you look on the screen, this house underneath the number four is already demolished.

Okay.

The number three would be demolished, correct me if I'm wrong, after the home is set.

Yes, everything in lot four, obviously that blue rectangle is proposed where it's going to go, but that whole property, all the structures have already been removed from it and the dirt work and grading and all that's been done. The two under seven are the two garages on the existing property at 705, and then what's right under three is their existing residence, and kind of where that line is, they've got an established, very nice, very long concrete driveway that splits the two properties. So four is completely vacant already where the home would go. And then once that home is set up and everything gets moved in, then what's right under three would be what was demolished.

Gotcha. Okay. So for where they're building the new or where the new manufactured home will go, is the like the easement and like the distance from the existing structure. Does that, if that were to stay in place, does that pose any issues with current?

So setbacks I think is what you're referring to. So yeah, this, this is closer to this property line than is allowed by code. It would be the rear property line. Last Wednesday, The Board of Adjustment held a hearing and meeting for a variance on that, and they did grant the variance for that reduced setback because when this is all done, this will then be the rear setback, the 64 feet. This will all be one parcel.

Gotcha. Yeah, I think my question is just like, That answers that part of the question. My reason for the question is like if the intention is to demolish that home and that's part of us granting this conditional use agreement is with that stipulation in place that that second that existing home is going to be demolished. My question would be like how are we going to enforce that and what are the what are the stipulations that are going to be in place that that needs to be demolished by if that's part of us coming to this agreement that we're going to grant this?

So conditional uses would most of the time come with some sort of conditions. In this case that it meets the, the, the, the, The manufactured home meets the definition of a dwelling. That's what code requires. Additional conditions can be imposed by this commission or be not imposed but recommended to the board by this commission. And one of those, if you choose to add the condition that... the other house be removed within a certain amount of time after that house is set or whatever that timeline looks like or however you want to do that, that could be part of your recommendation to the Board.

Yeah, I think it's great. I completely understand the reasoning for wanting to put it there. And I think it'll be an improvement. Just want to make sure that as that was part of the application. And it's obviously the intention. Just want to make sure that there is some kind of teeth to make sure that that is followed through on and that we have means for enforcing that so it's not a year and a half later and that structure is still there. And so anyways, that's my thoughts. I don't know if anybody else has any comments or.

Great project. Might be a, and I don't know, I shouldn't be asking questions from this, from this table over here, but what kind of timeline would you be looking at for demolition after the, the, manufactured home is set and moved into. Maybe that might help them out.

Again, it's really going to depend on if a contractor wants to take that on in the middle of the winter. I can't give you a direct answer. I can tell you that once it's going to take a month or so to get everything moved over because they will be living in it as soon as it's done and ready. Right. And then that will allow a slow transition of being able to move so we're not in a huge hurry for that because it's wintertime. Sure. If a contractor is willing to take it on in the winter, then, you know, we can start that process and go from there. If not, I was estimating it would probably be spring before anybody would want to come nest live in here. That's my opinion. I don't know.

I don't know.

I'd say if you're getting it set somewhere around October on a timeline, give it a year.

Yeah, I think a year is a fair time.

If you get rid of it within a year, I'm not going to be upset.

That's what I figured.

I figured there's no reason to try to rush you in the contract. It's just a matter of with the condition of making sure it gets done. Yep, exactly.

Yep, exactly.

Very, very terrible. So call it one year next October.

Or can it be like one year post-installation? I don't know.

I don't know if we have one year after taking occupancy of the new. That would do it. One year after taking occupancy of the new. That's fine. Again, I'm just throwing out stuff for you. I appreciate it. Kind of the peanut gallery over here.

So I guess that would, sorry. I guess my question with that would be how do we define that they've taken occupancy? And who is determining that?

I would think probably power and water on it. Okay. It's its own.

It's got its own metering from the previous residences that were there. So once things are transitioned or power is established there, then that would be their starting.

Great. That works. That works great.

Is that a commercial or residential area?

That is a residential area.

Residential area. Yep. And does that apply with the city code to have a manufactured home in the residential area?

Yeah, and I probably should have dropped that in the packet. I've kind of done a little summary sheet. I gave that to the family when this conversation first started. So a manufactured home on a residential lot, there's minimum dimensions, 22 feet in one direction, 36 feet in the other. The long site has to face the street it's addressed to. It has to be set on a permanent foundation, masonry or concrete. It has to have the appearance of a site-built home. There's some overhang requirements. I don't remember all of those off the top of my head. most of the size, the placement, and then approval or recommendation from this Planned Zoning Commission and then approval by the Board of Aldermen.

Okay. So this meets all the requirements?

This would, yes. Now currently this lot is addressed to First Street, but obviously it's a super narrow lot on First Street. That's why they're going to turn that to face Grand Street, the whole parcel, then we'll get a new address.

Yes, so they're going to turn it so it faces the other.

It's going to be a Grand address instead of a First Street address, which makes sense.

Yes, because we don't want those in trailer courts. Right. I vote yes. Yeah, let's start.

How would I word this? I would move to accept the request of the conditional use permit to the Board of Aldermen to install the manufactured home on the property currently addressed at 707 West First Street on the conditions that once occupancy is taken, the removal of the other house is within a year after taking occupancy, and the address is changed to a grand address, which I think it's going to be anyway.

And trailers? Sheds or garages?

The garages are staying.

Yeah, the garage is staying. Oh, okay.

Yeah, this garage here, bottom right, would stay. Okay. Yeah.

I second that.

And to clarify, Kyle, you're talking about the house at 705? Yeah, that's currently address 705.

Yeah, upon whether you want to say occupancy taken or utilities are turned on to the manufactured home, either one is fine with me, really. I can write that out because I know that was fairly long.

I'm just taking some notes. What I've got is the condition of removal of the house currently addressed 705 West 1st within one year after taking occupancy of the new structure. Yeah, that's fine.

Does this specifically have to be in the new home?

As far as our requirements, we don't specify a new home as far as what's required by the city. Just those dimensions and placement, things like that. Several things on there, but one of the conditions is not that it's brand new.

But it is.

But this is brand new.

It'll be built to order once this is all approved. It'll be absolutely brand new, like 2026 model.

Okay, so we... Is your motion, do you have your motion? I second. Kim seconded his motion. Then we need to call for a vote. All in favor?

Aye.

All in favor, if the motion has passed, that we will recommend to the City Council that you be granted the conditional use permit.

Thank you.

Make a motion, we adjourn.

I'll second that. All in favor? Before we adjourn, and I don't know if this needs to be part of the meeting, it's a discussion mostly, but since we're here and you all are here, I had a question come in to me about a church that would like to put up a lighted sign. Now, it's not on the agenda to approve, disapprove, whatever. I'm just looking for a little bit of clarification from the Planning and Zoning Commission because it's part of the Planning and Zoning part of the code book. I'm just looking for a little input here. if you've got a couple minutes here to look. If I can get in the right chapter here. All right, so the church currently sits in a residential district, which is allowed under our code currently. Permitted uses in a R1 single-family residential. Number four is a church. I think that... It's kind of, I think it would be a given that a church would probably have a sign out front that tells when they have services and Sunday school and what times and what the name of the church is and things like that. That's an assumption that could be made by about anyone. So we don't talk about a sign or whether or not a sign is allowed on a church. We just assume that it's going to have one. Same as a library would or a public park, all these other things that are allowed in in a residential zone. The only place that we talk about signs in residential zones are under conditional uses where it comes to home occupations, where they talk about non-electrical signs of a certain area to advertise that home occupation. Question here is would a church be allowed to have a sign that is electrical, I guess, and more of a screen-type sign? And I don't see anything in the code that prohibits a church specifically from doing that. And again, a church would have a sign, but I'm stuck a little bit on what I'm...

what i'm allowed to approve and what uh... we should be looking at a board to approve uh... yes there's any thoughts that description but not anything about the electrical on the side if you go well not there's nothing on the church right now it doesn't talk about the only time it talks about it is under the conditional uses yeah and so that would be i think it would be a good idea to have something there in the code uh... Because the last thing I'd like, because I don't know if you guys remember about five years ago or so, I think Sacred Heart had a sign in front of the... storage units across from Walmart that was obscenely bright. Luckily, we didn't have any occupancy nearby, but it shined like crazy. And the last thing I'd like to see is a stupidly bright sign right in the middle of the neighborhood shining everybody out, which would be a jerk move on their part.

Right, and that was actually discussed that they wouldn't leave this sign lit at night. It would only be lit at night. during the day or especially on Sundays.

I mean, if it's a light glow or a diffused sign that, you know, but like, we don't need spotlights in the middle. You know, that Sacred Heart sign was a spotlight at one point. I was like, holy crap.

And that was my only concern with a more of a screen type sign in a residential area. Look at there.

All right.

That's fun. Let's remind me later on that. But that was one of the conditions that they'd even talked about at the church was that it wouldn't be lit at night. It would be lit during the day.

Yeah, and a timer even would be at certain times of the day or certain times of the evening.

So I guess my question to you was, again, just a discussion, just get a little feedback from you. Does that look like something that's permitted by code? I mean, again, we don't say a church would have a sign or a library, but we're making some pretty, I think, average assumptions that those things would happen at public school, elementary school, high school, that they're going to have a sign.

Yeah, I feel like there's not any grounds to prohibit them from putting a sign out right now. But I think, like Kyle said, it brings up a good point that we probably should have some more specific something more specific in here.

Yeah, and these things are going to change fairly soon. I don't think we need to have another meeting to start putting in more ordinance there because we had a, last year we had the zoning workshop where MRPC had a, you know, we were going to change what some of the zones meant

Yeah, and I think the goal is to kind of clean slate this thing sooner or later and modernize it. You know, when this was, some of this was changed in 2002, but a lot of this stuff is from 86, 87. Nobody was thinking about video signs, you know, screens and things like that back then. So anyway, like I said, I'm just looking for a little input from this body. But, yeah, I'm with you. I don't think anything prohibits it. Currently nothing prohibits them from doing whatever sign they want. Okay. All right. Well, that's all I had. Again, that wasn't on the agenda. I was just wanting a little feedback.

Now, we had two motions to adjourn. We had first and second, didn't we? Who votes to adjourn? Aye.

Appreciate it.