The Thurs sought a variance from city code section 129.198B, which limits properties to a single access point onto major streets unless approved by the city engineer. Their request for a second driveway near the intersection of Baywood Shores and Three Points Boulevard was presented as a solution to practical difficulties they experienced due to unique property circumstances. Despite the request, city planning staff opposed granting the variance, citing safety hazards for eastbound traffic on Three Points Boulevard and the existence of alternative arrangements for trailer traffic.

During the meeting, various safety concerns were raised, particularly regarding the curve of the road and a nearby fire hydrant. A graphic was displayed. Commission members debated whether Baywood Shores qualified as a major street under city code and whether the existing driveway provided sufficient parking, considering city regulations did not prohibit lawn parking.

A representative from the city engineering department proposed an alternative layout for trailer storage and driveway access. However, this suggestion led to confusion about its feasibility and practicality. Some commission members questioned whether city engineers would offer further solutions, interpreting the recommendation as implying parking could be managed within the existing driveway setup.

Public input was provided by Kathy Fear, who, along with her husband Rodney, presented their perspective on the driveway amendment. Fear emphasized the community’s outdoor recreational nature, highlighting the prevalence of vehicles, trailers, and boats parked on properties. She argued that Baywood Shores should not be considered a main thoroughfare, referencing conversations with local police and fire departments. Fear also shared anecdotal evidence of traffic impediments caused by residents backing out of driveways, noting a lack of accidents on Three Points since 2016.

Fear criticized the city’s regulations as outdated and not reflective of current community needs, asserting that ordinances should evolve with modern times. She pointed out examples of other residents who had received approval for second driveways or modifications, arguing her request was consistent with these precedents. Fear maintained that her proposed changes would not compromise safety or traffic flow and urged the commission to accommodate residents’ needs.

Further complicating the discussion was Mrs. Styer, who expressed concerns about her driveway’s limitations, advocating for an additional driveway to prevent property damage. Styer, an insurance agent and safety advocate, emphasized her commitment to ensuring safe conditions. She detailed the challenges of parking a boat or trailer on her steep driveway and proposed installing a mirror to aid in safely backing out. Styer iterated her willingness to cooperate with the commission to find a viable solution.

The commission discussed whether Styer’s proposed driveway met city regulations, particularly regarding curb cuts and dimensions. The existing driveway’s compliance with code, including the requirement for hard surfaces, was debated. The commission considered whether the situation would have necessitated review if it were a primary driveway, with comparisons made to a nearby resident who had widened their driveway.

The meeting also covered an expansion permit request for a property on Jones Lane. Steve Hansen represented the property owner, Steve Chase, who was undergoing cancer treatment. The request involved converting an existing deck into a screened porch. Sarah Smith from the planning staff presented the application, noting the deck had previously received a variance for a lesser setback. The proposed conversion required an expansion permit due to the change in intensity of use. After discussion, the commission approved the permit with specific conditions, forwarding it to the city council for consideration.