Vice-Chairman Guttery explained the protocol for audience participation.

The minutes of the Regular Called Meeting on April 8, 2025, were presented for approval. A motion was made by Member Julien to approve the minutes as presented with a second by Member Allen. Motion carried unanimously.

Asst. Director Victor introduced the item and provided background information to the Commission. She stated that in 2022, carport permits were transitioned to a new process which required a specific use permit to be obtained in addition to a carport permit. She explained that the purpose of this new process was to help regulate carport aesthetics while expanding eligibility to residents beyond the original carport overlay district to apply if desired, which previously was the only area permitted to apply for a carport. Since implementation, a variety of implications have been observed and challenged by residents and staff which have led staff to propose an amendment to the carport permitting process.

Mrs. Victor explained that the proposal before the Commission recommends the withdraw of requiring a specific use permit for residentially zoned properties and returning the carport permitting process to the jurisdiction of the Building Division. Additionally, the proposed amendment outlines clearer construction standards for carport permits, as previous language was more ambiguous.

She stated that the reason the item was being presented for modification was that they have received many ill sentiments from residents about the extraneous process as well as having their team also experience some challenges implementing the process. Specifically, since 2022 the Planning and Zoning Division and Building Division have received several inquiries regarding carports but have only received a hand-full of applications. Staff has found that the reasoning behind this was due to the fact that many of the inquiries were appalled at the extraneous process to obtain a carport permit that many times residents implied that they would build their structures without going through the city or they did not think it was worth it. Additionally, several residents have shared their concern with have two separate fees associated with each application. On top of the city fees, residents have to hire their contractor to attend their corresponding public hearings and apply for the carport permit through two separate entities which leads to additional fees on their end. From the City's perspective, the carport fee for the specific use permit is not enough to cover notices, staff time, and other elements of the specific use permit process. The $375 SUP fee, for example, does not fully cover the cost of the required newspaper notice, which averages $415 depending on length and publication date. Furthermore, it does not account for engineering services for obtaining a 200 ft. radius, mail outs for property owners, nor staff time for producing the various required items for an SUP. Staff believes that modifying requirements may alleviate some of the frustration from residents and the financial losses of the process. Mrs. Victor opened the floor for any questions the Commission had. City Attorney Bronstein further explained the proposal of the item.

Vice-Chairman Guttery opened the public hearing at 6:54 P.M. There was no audience participation. Vice-Chairman Guttery closed the public hearing at 6:54 P.M.

The Commission had several questions regarding the proposed changes and City Attorney Bronstein, Asst. Director Victor, and Deputy Building Official Dyer answered their questions. Some the questions the members had were regarding applications specifics, previous carport overlay district, and consistency with aesthetics, the procedural voting process.

Vice-Chairman Guttery inquired about why the carport overlay district was only in a set geographical area and the history behind it. Mr. Dyer explained that although he was not present at the time of its adoption, he believed it was related to the transition from country roads to city streets in combination with the increasing prevalence of newer homes having attached garages.

Vice-Chairman Guttery and Member Allen inquired about the procedural voting process regarding their recommendation. Mrs. Bronstein stated that if the Commission were to recommend approval of the item, then City Council will only need a majority to approve it. Conversely, if the Commission recommended denial, the City Council would need a supermajority vote to override the denial.

Overall the Commission was divided on their stance on this item. Member Julien shared that she was confident that the Building Division would be able to ensure that all carports would maintain the integrity of an adequate build out having experienced their inspection process herself. She stated that staff was very capable of ensuring that all requirements are met to the city's standards. Vice-Chairman Guttery acknowledged that while the permitting process was not the most efficient and he understood why applicants believed it to be extraneous, he also believed that language of the carport requirements needed to be stronger and more defined to prevent a carport from not blending in within its enclave. Member Allen was also concerned that removing the SUP requirement would allow some permits from not having the additional element of review from the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council opening up the possibility of non-aesthetically compatible carports. Both Vice-Chairman Guttery and Member Allen believed that the language needed stronger and more defined language.

Member Julien made a motion to recommend approval of amending the Zoning Ordinance regarding the regulation of carports as presented, receiving no second. Motion failed. After further discussion regarding motion requirements and options, Vice-Chairman Guttery made a motion to make a recommendation to the City Council to deny amending the Zoning Ordinance regarding the regulation of carports as presented with a second from Member Allen. Motion passed 2-1 with Member Julien opposed.