Beaver City planning commission approves duplex at 337 East 100 South, limits parking to two vehicles per unit

Beaver City’s Planning and Zoning Commission voted July 8 to approve a conditional use permit allowing the Beaver Housing Authority to replace an existing small dwelling with a two‑unit duplex at 337 East 100 South, adding a condition that limits regular parking to two vehicles per dwelling unit.

The commission heard from Jason Shire, executive director of the Beaver Housing Authority, who said the authority had revised plans and was seeking permission to enlarge the footprint of a nonconforming lot to build a roughly 2,500‑square‑foot duplex. “We have a waiting list of over 200 people from people trying to find somewhere to live,” Shire said, describing the agency’s mission to provide safe, clean and affordable housing.

Why it matters: the lot measures about 8,700 square feet, below the city’s single‑family minimum of 9,800 square feet. Commissioners and staff explained that under current Beaver City code a two‑family dwelling is a conditional use in the single‑family residential zone; the planning commission cannot deny a permitted conditional use but may attach conditions to its approval.

Residents who spoke at the public meeting urged caution. One neighbor said approving this application could set a precedent that encourages teardown and conversion of single‑family properties into duplexes in established blocks and expressed worry about congestion and neighborhood character. Another adjacent property owner, cited in a written comment read into the record, said they were not opposed but requested sufficient off‑street parking.

The applicant presented a site plan showing all required parking on private property and told the commission that parking spaces were designed to remain off the public right of way and within setback limits. Commissioners pressed for clarity about driveway configuration, landscaping and how the project would appear from the street; staff and the applicant said they could revise the design to improve curb appeal if needed.

Notice and procedure also drew questions. A resident said she had not seen the agenda on the city website and reported receiving mailed notice late; staff acknowledged a county tax‑roll address error that led to a mailing problem and said city records would be updated and state posting requirements reviewed.

On the motion: a commissioner moved to approve the conditional use permit with a specific parking condition limiting regular parking to two vehicles per unit (four total). The motion was seconded and, after brief discussion, the commission approved the permit and indicated the approval would include standard conditions requiring compliance with setbacks, construction standards and other city code requirements. The commission’s approval was procedural: under the code it exercises authority to set conditions rather than to deny a conditional use that meets ordinance criteria.

What happens next: the applicant will incorporate the parking condition and any other conditions set by the commission into the project plans and proceed with permitting and construction as allowed under city code. Neighbors were urged to contact city staff if off‑street parking or other nuisance issues arise so staff can investigate and enforce code requirements.

At the meeting close, commissioners thanked participants and moved toward adjournment.