Board of Zoning Adjustment

City of Slidell, Louisiana Board of Zoning Adjustment Agenda October 6, 2022 at 7:00pm Council Chambers, 2045 2nd St, Slidell, LA Agenda packet available at myslidell.com/planning/boards/bza For questions or to provide public comment before the meeting, email BZA1@cityofslidell.org or call (985) 646-4320 (M-F 8am to 4:30pm) SCAN ME for the BZA website 1. Call to Order and Roll Call 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Minutes. Review and approve minutes from September 8, 2022. Meeting originally scheduled for September 1 was postponed due to lack of quorum. 4. Public Hearings V22-24: A request for a variance from Lot Area regulations in the A-6 Single-Family Urban district; for property located at 806 Pine Tree Street, identified as Lot 34, Sq 6 in Pinecrest Subdivision, by Steven Wilt, Contractor. 5. Other Business 6. General and Public Comments 7. Adjournment The next Board of Zoning Adjustment meeting will be November 3, 2022. Board of Zoning Adjustment Agenda for October 6, 2022 Page 1 of 1  City of Slidell, Louisiana Board of Zoning Adjustment Minutes September 8, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 2045 2nd St, Slidell, LA 1. Call to Order and Roll Call. Meeting called to order by Chairperson Jordan at 6:58 p.m. Board Members Present Board Members Not Present Staff Present Shane Jordan, Chair Jim Timmons Theresa Alexander, Planner Christy West, Vice Chair Eric Lundin, Desire Line Patrick Brady Daniel Laurant René LeBreton 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Minutes. Motion by Board Member West to approve minutes of August 4, 2022 as written; Board Member Brady seconded. A vote of 5 YAYS, 0 NAYS, 0 ABSTAIN approved the minutes as written. 4. Public Hearings a. V22-21: A request for variances from signage and parking regulations in the C-4 Highway Commercial district; for property located at 1121 Gause Blvd; identified as a 0.4211 ac parcel bounded by the W-14 Drainage Canal, Gause Blvd., and fourteenth St, by Creative Kidz Slidell, through Felicia Magee. Chairperson Jordan introduced the item and asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to speak. The applicant, Carrie Henry, came to the podium to speak. Eric Lundin asked to be recognized by the Chairperson. Once recognized, Eric Lundin recommended that each of the three signs requesting a variance be presented, discussed, and voted on separately because each one was different and required its own decision. Chairperson Jordan directed each sign be considered separately. 1) Sign A. Eric Lundin introduced the variance request for Sign A, a free-standing sign oriented on Gause Blvd. that exceeds the height limit for a free-standing sign at this location. Eric Lundin summarized the information provided in the accompanying staff report that determined that the sign is Not Legal, Nonconforming. The Administration is recommending approval of the variance because the rules for determining a sign is Not Legal, Nonconforming differ from the rest of the City’s rules, the sign structure pre-dates the adoption of current sign ordinance, and the sign ordinance is undergoing a rewrite that if adopted would result in the sign retaining its Legal, Nonconforming status. Ms. Henry explained that she was unfamiliar with sign regulations and had hired a sign company to create and install the sign. The sign company informed her that a change in sign Board of Zoning Adjustment Minutes for September 8, 2022 Page 1 of 3  face did not require a permit, and she was not aware that the sign was not in conformance with the City’s sign code. Vice Chairperson West asked if there is a way the applicant could have known a sign permit was required and the sign was nonconforming? Eric Lundin informed the Board that a change of sign face was considered an alteration to the sign and therefore required a permit and that the sign company, as a licensed contractor, should have known a permit was required. Eric Lundin further explained that there are many nonconforming structures throughout the City that can remain in use until they hit a “trigger” requiring the sign to be altered to conform or to be removed. A decision on whether a specific structure conforms or not is usually only made when an occasion arises. In this case, since Double “M” feedstore had been occupying the site since the late 1970s there had been no reason to make a determination on this sign structure. Creative Kidz occupation of the site generated a requirement to determine if the sign structure was conforming or not. Board Member Brady made a motion to approve the variance; Board Member Laurant seconded. A vote was taken and with the result of 5 YAYS, 0 NAYS, 0 ABSTAIN the motion was approved. 2) Sign B. Eric Lundin introduced the variance request for Sign B, a primary wall sign oriented towards Gause Blvd that exceeds the allowable square footage for a sign. Eric Lundin reviewed the staff report information for Sign B that determines that the sign is Not Legal, Nonconforming. The Administration is recommending approval of the variance for the same reasons as for Sign A. Vice Chairperson West made a motion to approve the variance; Chairperson Jordan seconded. A vote was taken and with the result of 5 YAYS, 0 NAYS, 0 ABSTAIN the motion was approved. 3) Sign C. Eric Lundin introduced the variance request for Sign C, a window cling sign oriented towards Gause Blvd that exceeds the allowable square footage for the wall. Eric Lundin reviewed the staff report information for Sign C that determines the sign is Not Legal, Nonconforming. The Administration is recommending denial because this is a new sign as Double “M” did not have a window sign and therefore cannot be permitted and does not have the same justification for approval supported for Sign A and Sign B. Ms. Henry explained that the window cling was necessary to block ultra violet (UV) and thermal radiation to make a more suitable environment for the children. Eric Lundin proffered that there are other conforming ways to block UV and thermal radiation such as blinds, awning, or tinting. Board Member Brady asked if the advertisement part of the cling was covered up or removed would that change the situation. Board of Zoning Adjustment Minutes for September 8, 2022 Page 2 of 3  After conferring with Theresa Alexander, Eric Lundin said that if the advertisement part of the cling was removed then the window cling would not constitute a sign and the window cling could remain. Christy Himel, a business owner, rose to speak. Ms. Himel felt that “blacking out” part of the sign was excessive and would look bad. Eric Lundin offered that instead of “blacking out” the advertisement they could cover it up or replace it with fluffy clouds. Board Members discussed with the applicant about being given thirty days to modify the cling to remove the advertisement which would allow the remainder of the cling to remain. The applicant asked for sixty days as the expense and time associated with starting up the childcare business would make thirty days challenging. Board Member LeBreton made a motion to approve the variance with the modification that the advertisement be removed or covered up by November 3, 2022, and if the Administration and applicant cannot agree on the modification then the matter will be returned to the Board of Adjustments for a decision; Board Member Brady seconded. A vote was taken, and with a result of 5 YAYS, 0 NAYS, 0 ABSTAIN the motion was approved. b. Parking Variance. Board asked staff about the parking variance. Theresa Alexander stated that the applicant had modified their plan removing the need for a parking variance. 5. Other Business a. Required Training Ethics. Theresa Alexander reminded the commissioners that if they have not yet completed their annual ethics training, they must complete training. 6. General and Public Comments. There were none. 7. Adjournment. Meeting adjourned at 7:34 p.m. on motion by Chairperson Jordan, second by Board Member Brady and a vote of 5 YAYS, 0 NAYS, 0 ABSTAIN. Board of Zoning Adjustment Minutes for September 8, 2022 Page 3 of 3