Planning and Zoning Commission — Gretna, LA
Date: 2025-12-22

THE CITY OF GRETNA
 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
 MEETING
 740 Second Street, Gretna, LA 70053
 Council Chambers, 2nd Floor
 October 1, 2025 - 5:30 PM
 AGENDA

 AGENDA ITEMS:

 1. Call to Order/ Roll Call.

 2. Appeal to Staff Decisions.

 A. 1001 Washington Street - Alison Clayton (Nelson Clayton Homes, LLC), Applicant
 Proposal to have a 20'+ wide driveway.

 B. For vacant corner lot on 8th Street and Dolhonde Street; (Lot 8-B, Square 23, New
 Mechanickham Subdivision)
 For side setback requirements for new single-family home.

 3. Other Matters:

 4. Meeting Adjournment.
 Hay asistencia lingüística gratuita disponible para acceder a todos los programas y servicios financiados con fondos federales.
 504.367.3230 (TTY/TDD)




In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance, please contact City Clerk's Office at (504) 227-7614
 1

City of Gretna
 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
 October 1, 2025, 20125 – 5:30 PM
 The Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of Gretna, Louisiana held the meeting scheduled for
  Wednesday, October 1, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. at 740 Second Street, Gretna City Hall, Gretna, LA 70053.

 Notice for the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting was duly posted as law requires on the bulletin
  board, at Gretna City Hall main entrance, 740 Second Street, Gretna, Louisiana 70053.

  1. Call to Order and Roll Call:

 Chairman, James Rolf was in the chair, and the City Clerk was present. A quorum of five members being
  present, Chairman Rolf, called the meeting to order at 5:35 PM.

 Roll call taken; Commission members present James Rolf; Rory Cadres; Elizabeth Strohmeyer; Tommy
Tingstrom; and William Tomasak. Absent: None

 City Staff present: Norma Cruz, City Clerk; Amelia Pellegrin, Director, Planning and City Development
  and Qudsiyyah Noorulhaaq, City Planner.
 
 Chairman Rolf recapped on the matters for review this evening— an appeal to staff decision for 20’+ wide
 driveway on 1001 Washington Street and an appeal for 8th Street and Dolhonde Street setbacks. Reports will be
 provided by the Director of Planning and City Development; consider public comments on each item will publicly
 deliberate the items; and based on the reports and evidence provided, and publicly either for or against the requests
 or with further conditions. The members will then deliberate publicly based on the evidence provided and
 publicly vote, to either approve or deny the appeal. He then reviewed Section 58-66 (h) of the Gretna Unified
 Development Code since these are the first appeals to staff decisions:

 Appeals Review Criteria. In evaluating an appeal, the Planning & Zoning Commission shall determine
 whether the action being appealed: (1) Was made based on correct interpretation of the UDC and other
 applicable regulations; and (2) Reﬂected the correct response to the application that was approved, denied,
 or conditionally approved.

  2. Appeal to Staff Decisions

 1. 1001 Washington Street- Alison Clayton (Nelson Clayton Homes, LLC), Applicant Proposal to have a
 20'+ wide driveway. (In District 2).

 -Chairman James Rolf informed that the Planning and Zoning Commission members were meeting
tonight to review an appeal to staff decision for a driveway at 1001 Washington Street.

 -Miss Amelia Pellegrin, Director, Zoning and City Development provided the staff report on the current
status and history of the property. Upon routine inspection, city officials observed that the driveway that had been
formed exceeds the approved 20-foot width. Appeal for a 25-foot-wide driveway violates Section 58-151 (a) of
the Gretna UDC: Driveways shall not exceed twenty (20) total feet in width measured along the front property line
for a single lot or twenty-four (24) feet in width for a shared driveway. While there may be examples in the area of
deviations from these standards, these requirements and allowances have been implemented as such for new
construction since the adoption of the Gretna UDC in 2019.

 This driveway could be reshaped to allow easier access to the garage and still remain 20 feet maximum at
the street. Or to accommodate the two garage doors, two separate driveways could be considered.

 Section 58-66 (h): Appeals Review Criteria:

 In evaluating an appeal, the Planning & Zoning Commission shall determine whether the action being
appealed:

 (1) Was made based on correct interpretation of the UDC and other applicable regulations; and
 (2) Reflected the correct response to the application that was approved, denied, or conditionally approved.
 P & Z Commission Meeting (October 1, 2025)

 Miss Pellegrin recommended not to approve the driveway because it violated the Gretna UDC, Section 58-
151 (a), and the existence of alternative options to meet compliance.

 Chairman Rolf called on comments from the Commission members. Commission members raised several
questions. The questions raised by the Commission members were answered in depth by Miss Amelia Pellegrin.

• Chairman James Rolf asked for clarification regarding the power of the Commission regarding appeals to staff
 decisions. Miss Pellegrin explained that Section 58-66(h) outlines the criteria for appeal review, emphasizing
 that the Commission must determine whether the staff decision was based on a correct interpretation of the
 UDC and whether it appropriately responded to the application.
• Member William Tomasak inquired whether administrative relief could be applied in this case. Miss Pellegrin
 responded that no administrative relief is available for this situation. Clarifying that while driveways may be
 up to 20 feet wide, there is no limit on the number of driveways a property may have.

 -Mr. Clayton Nelson, Applicant explained that the appeal was intended to allow for a safer and more accessible
 driveway for his elderly customers. He noted that the driveway slopes toward the house and that he was not
 involved in the creation of the previously approved plans, only realizing the issue after the driveway was
 formed.

 Chairman James Rolf questioned if he widened driveway will meet greenspace requirements. Mr. Nelson
 responds in the affirmative.

 Chairman James Rolf asked the members for a motion for consideration prior to public comment.

 Member William Tomasak moved to uphold the staff decision based on the staff report. This motion was
seconded by Member Elizabeth Strohmeyer for discussion.

 Chairman James Rolf opened the floor to public comment, hearing none, closed the floor to public
comment.

 On a motion by Member Willliam Tomasak and seconded by Member Elizabeth Strohmeyer, to accept
the staff recommendation and decision to deny the request of the applicant to have a 20'+ wide driveway; and the
same approved by the following vote:

 Yeas: William Tomasak
 Nays: Members James Rolf, Rory Cadres, Elizabeth Strohmeyer, and Tommy Tingstrom.
 Absent: None

 On a motion by Member Elizabeth Strohmeyer and seconded by Member Rory Cadres, IT WAS
RESOLVED not to accept the Administration Staff recommendation to deny; and to approve the applicant’s
request for a 20'+ wide driveway; and the same approved by the following vote:

 Yeas: Members James Rolf, Rory Cadres, Elizabeth Strohmeyer, and Tommy Tingstrom.
 Nays: Member William Tomasak
 Absent: None
 Abstain: None
 

 2. 8th Street and Dolhonde Street; (Lot 8-B, Square 23, New Mechanickham Subdivision)
 Ted Heine, Applicant. Proposal for expanded side setback requirements for new single-family home.

 Miss Amelia Pellegrin, Director of Planning and City Development provided the staff report:

 Tentative plans were submitted to the City of Gretna by the prospective buyer, Mr. Theodore Heine, for a
50’ x 70’ corner vacant lot (8‐B) at the intersection of Dolhonde Street and 8th Street, Gretna, LA 70053. He was
proposing the construction of a new three‐story single‐family residence with a five‐foot exterior (corner) setback.

 The Staff decision was made and was communicated to the applicant, that due to required setbacks of the
Gretna Unified Development Code (UDC) adopted 2019, administrative relief and neighborhood development
norms, the administration could not grant relief to allow a three‐foot interior side setback and a nine‐foot exterior
side setback.

 -Mr. Ted Heine was informed that an appeal can be made to the Planning & Zoning Commission within
fourteen days of the Staff decision and provided with the criteria for the Planning and Zoning Commission
determination under UDC Section 58‐66:
 Page 2 of 4
 P & Z Commission Meeting (October 1, 2025)


 Section 58-66 (h): Appeals Review Criteria:

 In evaluating an appeal, the Planning & Zoning Commission shall determine whether the action being
appealed:

 (1) Was made based on correct interpretation of the UDC and other applicable regulations; and
 (2) Reflected the correct response to the application that was approved, denied, or conditionally approved.

 In December 2024, Ms. Jessica Breaux, the then‐owner of 1030 8th Street (Lot 8‐A, Square 23, New
Mechanickham Subdivision), applied for a minor resubdivision of her property into Lots 8‐B and 8‐C. During the
review process, she was advised to carefully verify all setback requirements for both the existing structure and any
future development on the newly created lots. The new lot that was created as 8‐B is 49.5 feet wide by 72 feet deep.

 Gretna’s UDC setback requirements in R‐1 Single-Family zone are as follows: Per Sec. 58‐111:15 feet rear
setback, 20 feet front setback (or average of the block), 5 feet interior side setback, 10 feet exterior (street side on
corner) setback. While there may be examples in the area of deviations from these standards, these requirements
and allowances have been implemented as such for new construction since the adoption of the Gretna UDC in 2019.

 The applicant is proposing to construct a three‐story single‐family residence on Lot 8‐B. His submitted
conceptual plan includes 5‐foot side setbacks on both the interior and exterior sides.

 Staff review of the proposed site plan and setbacks as provided by Mr. Heine considers the setback
requirements set forth in the code, and the allowances under administrative relief per

 Administrative Relief Section 58‐86:

 Purpose. Administrative relief provides for expeditious review of minor deviations from the provisions of the
UDC under specified circumstances. The administrative relief process does not involve a public hearing unless a
decision is appealed by the applicant to the Planning & Zoning Commission.
Types of Administrative Relief. Administrative relief may be granted for any of situations listed in Exhibit 58‐86
subject to the limitations established in this section and the applicable section referenced in the following exhibit:
… Reduce building setbacks to reflect character of the existing neighborhood, to protect existing trees or achieve
other purposes of this UDC. Reduce setbacks by not more than ten (10) percent to facilitate efficient use of lots.

 Per the above excerpts of Section 58‐86, the Planning Director can reduce a building setback by 10% for the
exterior side setback, allowing 9 feet instead of the 10 feet required. However, additional flexibility is provided in
the code under certain conditions.

 UDC Section 58‐150 (b):

 (3) Exterior or street side setbacks may be reduced by the Planning Director to reflect the front
 setback of the abutting property along the side street, historical precedence of nearby parcels or
 other circumstances that improve the function and compatibility of the building with adjacent
 properties.

 (4) Internal side and rear setbacks may be reduced by the Planning Director to the typical setback
 of the block on which the property is located, provided that the resulting setback does not violate
 adopted building and fire safety codes.

 Based on the UDC and existing development patterns and in order to assist with the applicant’s goals for
the property, Staff recommend a minimum interior side setback of three feet based on neighborhood norms,
and a minimum exterior side setback of eight feet.

 Further, Building Official’s review of this appeal includes the following additional points for consideration:

 1. The suggested 3’‐0” (interior side setback) is allowable by building code however it would require afire
rated wall assembly and projections, limited fenestrations.
 2. If a fence is being installed on interior side the clearance to structure should be 3’‐0” for egress.
 3. All new construction is required to meet flood requirements of 3’‐0” above center line of street.
 4. New construction will require HDC review.

 Chairman Rolf requested comments from the Commission members and the applicant. The Commission
members raised several questions. The questions raised by the Commission members were answered in depth by
Miss Amelia Pellegrin, Director and Ted Heine, Applicant.

 Page 3 of 4
 P & Z Commission Meeting (October 1, 2025)

 •  Chairman Rolf inquired about neighborhood property lines and setbacks.
 • Mr. Heine explained the home layout and noted that Dolhonde Street is one-way, reducing crash risk of site
 obstructions.
 • Chairman Rolf expressed concern about the massing of the proposed three-story structure.
Chairman James Rolf opened the floor to public comment, hearing none, closed the floor to public comment.

 On a motion by Member Willliam Tomasak and seconded by Member Elizabeth Strohmeyer, IT WAS
RESOLVED to approve the appeal with the clarification that the setback of the proposed house must match the
setback of the existing home behind it on Dolhonde Street. Specifically, gable alignment is required. This condition
aligns with UDC Section 58-150(b).

 Yeas: Members Rory Cadres, Elizabeth Strohmeyer, Tommy Tingstrom, James Rolf, William
 Tomasak
 Nays: None
 Absent: None
 Abstain: None
 
5. Meeting Adjournment

 There was no further business to conduct, and on a motion by Member Tommy Tingstrom and seconded
by Member Elizabeth Strohmeyer, the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for Wednesday, October 1,
2025, adjourned at 6:24PM, and the same was unanimously approved.

 Respectfully submitted,

 Amelia Pellegrin,
 Director, Planning and City Development




 Page 4 of 4