Minutes from the April 28, 2025 meeting

Tabled from April 28, 2025
Certificate of Appropriateness PZCOA2025-00015
8-Plex Residential Development - 1204 Avenue E

The clerk introduced Certificate of Appropriateness 2025-00015 for an 8-plex residential development located at 1204 Avenue E.

The chair called the proceeding to order. 

The Board Attorney explained the Quasi-Judicial Hearing procedures.

When acting as a quasi-judicial body, the Board is held to certain procedural requirements. Quasi-judicial proceedings are less formal than proceedings before a circuit court, but are more formal than the other aspects of today’s meeting. Quasi-judicial proceedings must follow basic standards of notice and due process, and decisions must be made based on competent substantial evidence. Therefore, board members have a duty to conduct quasi-judicial proceedings more like judges than legislators.  This afternoon, the Board will follow the same uniform procedure in all quasi-judicial hearings.

The clerk confirmed the City complied with the advertisement and notice requirements. 

The chair inquired with the Board regarding ex-parte communications and asked the Clerk to call the roll:                                                        

Ms. Starke - no
Mr. Vinson - no
Ms. Garrett - no
Mr. Westbury - no
Chair Davis - no

The chair opened the public hearing.

The clerk was asked to swear in those wanting to speak during this Quasi-Judicial hearing. Individuals in the audience intending to speak on the item were asked to stand, raise their right hand, and administered an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. 

Staff Presentation:
Kev Freeman, Planning Director, stated the historic status of the property is non-contributing, and it is located in the Lincoln Park Historic District. The vacant site is .73 acres with a zoning of R-4 and a Future Land Use of Residential Medium Density. The application is for new construction of 8-units split into two blocks with 4-units each. The rendering shows the parking lot in the front with a substantial landscape buffer. No dumpster was shown in the rendering and the dumpster requirement will be referred to Public Works.  Mr. Freeman said the Secretary of Interior Standards looks at how the new construction affects the historic district as a whole. He noted the city is looking to improve the area by bringing it up to a higher standard. He said staff recommended that architectural features, such as decorative shutters and differentiating color banding, be incorporated into the final design to better comply with the characteristics of the Lincoln Park Historic District and large areas of solid blank wall should be avoided. Mr. Freeman stated the landscape plan did not show any additional landscaping. He stated that in the current layout, the dumpster will have to be located in the front of the buildings and the layout does not meet the city's design standards.  He provided the applicant with a possible layout, which recommended moving the parking lot and adding a dumpster to the rear of the property.   

Board questions for staff: Mr. Westbury asked how much room was in the back of the buildings and if there was enough room for a refuse collection truck on either side to empty the dumpster.  Mr. Westbury also asked to see pictures of neighboring lots. Ms. Starke asked if the handicap parking space was sufficient to back out. Ms. Starke asked if there would be a sidewalk. Mr. Vinson asked about access to the rear of the property and if the dumpster could be left up front if a fence was placed around it. Ms. Starke asked how the windows could be dressed up. Ms. Garrett asked how the dumpster condition with Public Works would play out and if the structures are relocated, would the application come back to the Board for review. The chair asked if the colors provided were going to be used and if exceptions could be made to the setbacks. 

Mr. Freeman answered the questions from the Board.  He suggested moving the buildings forward, adding a driveway in the rear for the refuse collection truck to maneuver, and a "T" arrangement for parking in the rear.  He noted the buildings may need to be redesigned and have a different floor plan.  He said the city code states that dumpsters should be located in an area that minimizes public view and are to be screened with a wall or fence. Mr. Freeman highlighted that Public Works prefers a dumpster in multifamily buildings for efficiency and to cut down on staff time. Mr. Freeman explained that prior to the issuance of a building permit, Public Works, Engineering, Drainage, Fire, Building, and Planning will ensure the application meets city code and external agencies ensure the application is compliant with the state. Mr. Freeman said the color choice is what was provided by the applicant.  Mr. Freeman said the mitigation of trees is penalized by a cost factor and a certain percentage of trees need to be replanted.

Applicant Presentation: Terry Coley, owner and general contractor, sworn and Monique Neal, applicant, sworn, introduced themselves. Mr. Coley said he purchased three (3) lots and combined them into one and, based on the size of the lot, the current configuration of the buildings is the only way the buildings are going to fit.  There is not enough space to build side-by-side buildings.  Mr. Coley said there should not be a requirement for a dumpster.  He said he plans to split the lots and have an address for each building with regular garbage cans for each building. He noted there would be banding around the windows and the outside of the buildings. Mr. Coley said he would save the trees if he could. Mr Coley said he plans to build two more lots on the backside of the property.

Board questions for applicant: Ms. Starke asked who would pay for the garbage cans.

Staff final comments: Mr. Freeman suggested that the Board may want to build in some flexibility if the plan needs to be amended due to a dumpster requirement. The Board may want the application to be brought back to the Board if the change is significant or a variance is needed.

Applicant final comments: none

The Chair, seeing no one else, closed the public hearing. 

Comments by the Board: Ms. Garrett said the application will need to come back to the Board if a variance is required. Chair Davis asked staff to work with the applicant on meeting the code and to bring the application back to the Board if a variance is needed.  Chair Davis said the project is an improvement to the area. Ms. Starke asked that the Public Works department decides how they want to handle the refuse collection.