Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Heat. Hey, heat. Hey, heat. Heat. Heat. Okay, let's call this meeting Hazel Pony Commission to order. First, I'd like to welcome our new member, Tracy. [clears throat]

Uh, roll call. Williams here. Troop here. Coleman here. Asia here. Sprayberry here. Rinky here. What here? Next item of business is the presentation approval of minutes of December 11th, 2025. I'd like to move that we approve those minutes as [cough] amended. Second. Uh motion second to approve as presented. All in favor? I. Sorry. Question. Williams. I. True. I Coleman I Asier I Sprayberry Rinky. I what I

uh no public forum, no old business. Under new business, we have a onestep final plat for 79th Estates's edition located approximately 600 ft west of the intersection of East 79th Street South and South Hillside Avenue in the area of influence. So, this is a 19 acre parcel just west of the intersection of West 79th and South Hillside. Um, in our Arabic area of influence, as Tim has just said, um, it's currently vacant and used for agricultural purposes and the surrounding land is also mostly agricultural with some homesteads and some large lot single family homes. Um the applicant's applying for this onestep final plat to build eight eight large single family lots. Um our land use plan is unfortunately outdated and doesn't cover this area. So we can't say it's in conformance but Derby's land use map which ours has the land just adjacent to it as either agricultural or residential. Um, all comments listed in the staff report have been addressed by the applicant and Logan is here today if you guys have any questions. [cough and clears throat]

Any planning commission members have a conflict of interest in this case? No. Any members received any written electronic communications in this matter? No. Staff? None. [clears throat] Any questions for staff or the applicant for that matter?

I have none. Any other discussion? I can go ahead and make a motion to uh recommend the approval of the onestep final plat uh subject to any uh staff comments being filled which I think we have. Yeah, all comments have been addressed by the applicant. We'll second. Have a motion and second to recommend approval. Question. Williams. I. True.

I Coleman. I Asier. I Spayberry. I Rinky. I Blunt. Hi. Next item of business is the review of the text amendment zoning regulations changes. Article two construction definitions. Article 3 regulations and article 4 zoning districts.

So, as a recap, since our last review, since it was back in November, the city is initiating these amendments to the zoning regulations in an effort to modernize and codify our practices, encourage the development of some more housing, and encouraged smart growth. The intent of these amendments is to achieve the city's goals of streamlining the development process, supporting new and existing businesses, capitalizing on existing infrastructure, and diversifying housing options. So, the changes that we'll be going over tonight deal with articles 2 through 4, um the land use regulations, the use chart, the special use standards, and the residential zoning districts. To save some time tonight, I'm not going to go over all of our changes, just the ones that are major changes. But please stop me if you have any questions. In article three, land use definitions. I have added some residential land uses. Live, work, apartment, multiplex, forplex, triplex, sidebyside, two family, and stacked two family are all new residential land uses. These were added because some of our residential zoning districts will have lot sizes based on the use instead of just a standard lot size. in the land use definitions as well. I believe we may have addressed this before, but we'll be splitting up limited manufacturing and general manufacturing into three. So, we'll have light manufacturing, medium, and heavy. Um this will allow light manufacturing which can be jewelry making, candle making, ceramics, um upholstery in um less intense zoning districts like

multif family apartment and like commercial. Looks like those are our major changes to land use definitions. We can skip to the residential districts if you guys don't have any questions about the general definitions.

[clears throat]

In the residential zoning districts, as I said before, some of our zoning districts will have lot sizes based on use. So, in the TF, two family zoning district lot sizes will be based on single family. They could be as small as 4,500 square ft with 45 foot width and an 80 foot depth. Um, stacked two family has that same lot size and sideby-side two family will actually be bigger. Um, with a 6,50 foot lot, 55 foot width and 80 foot depth. And then anything that's non-residential would be 50,000 ft with 45 ft width and an 80 foot depth. The sidebyside two family lot size is actually bigger than what we currently allow, but the other three are smaller. The single family and stack two family is a reduction of 25% lot size and it takes five feet off the width.

You still maintain what? Five foot minimum sideyard set back. We'll be making five foot. Right now it's six feet. So we'll just taking it down a foot

with the single family reducing in two family. The lot size will also reduce to 4500 in the SF district. Um, same lot size dimensions for SF as two family. Um, and those lot size dimensions carry up through the more intense sunny districts with MF4. The lot size changes to SFZ are also pretty major. Um, our 2023 housing study identified a need for some different housing types. One of those being town houses or attached attached single family dwelling units. Um, and that's not actually something we were able to construct prior, but this amendment would allow that. Um, because our SFC single family zoning district would require a 10-ft gap between each building. But with these proposed amendments, there will be no setbacks required. There will all be zero foot side setbacks unless it's adjacent to a street. And the lot size is a lot smaller. Since no side setbacks are needed, the width of the lot can be as small as 25 ft.

Without sideyard setbacks, do we have in the building code or permitting process firewall separation between structures and all of that built into the code as well? There is a little bit built into the zoning code where you have to have fire rated materials of at least two hours um and no windows or doors on the zero side setback side. But then the building code has additional regulations that should cover fire concerns. Anybody else have questions about that?

We made no changes to tiny home or manufactured homes. But then MF4 with a triplex and forplex edition. Um, triplex minimum lot size will be 5,175 with a width of 45 and a depth of 80. And a forplex will be 7,800 square ft with a width of 60 and a depth of 80. So the forplex will require the largest lot of all of our residential. [clears throat]

What are you doing for uh requiring for off and on street parking for all each of those? We're not proposing any changes right now, but I have considered some where I think right now it's like one is it one parking space per unit. I'd have to look at that. Required off streetet with supplementary on Yes. The stuff I've been thinking about proposing would be requiring on street parking in addition to our off streetet parking, but that's for another time.

Okay. Does anybody have any questions so far? I think there was one change I skipped over in article 4 and I think that's just adding state statutes to our special use standards. So I remember at our last meeting in November we talked about how micro breweries are regulated by state statutes. That's now in our zoning code and reflected on the use chart. Same goes for manufactured housing, residential design, manufactured housing, group homes, agriculture. I think that was the other one. And then we also added that section that we talked about in November about requiring the fence height to be built to the maximum that's allowed in the fence code. to help clarify what solidly screening and adequate screening screening would be when it comes to fence height. That looks to be the extent of our major changes. [clears throat] This is not going to require a motion tonight. Again, it's just a review. We have to schedule a public hearing in a couple months.

We're all very excited about that. Okay, you say that now. [clears throat] Any other questions or discussion? I have a couple of questions and I don't know if maybe I'm looking at the wrong pages or whatever, but in the agenda on page 25, we're talking about micro brewery. It's under 301c commercial. It says that uh 5,000 barrels it's page 25.

You're on the definition, right? Yeah, the definition. Yeah. So, it's not less than 100 and not more than 30,000 per state statute. So, I don't know where the 5,000 came from. That's just a beer and I don't remember what the hard cider is. I think it's 100,000 gallons, but it's 4130B 40 41308B. The state statute

said the state statutes in section or article four now. Yeah. 41710 is the statute we referenced. Is that the one you said? Uh 41308B. 41308B. Yeah. Okay. I'll add those changes to the definition then. Thank you. And then uh page 27 and 28. Tavern and drinking establishment. Is that in the definition still?

Yep. 2011C commercial. So that just says um less than 50% of its gross revenue from the sale of food and beverages for consumption on premise. And shouldn't it be food and non-alcoholic beverages? Looking at the state stuff is tavern and drinking establishment also regulated by the state statute. Yeah. I missed that one. Do you know what that one is? I don't know that one. Okay. I just I just looked at it because when you when you read it, it just says sale of food and beverages. Beverages is kind of vague and then you look at the state and it says non-alcoholic.

So it should probably say non-alcoholic beverages. I just something to look at. Okay. Anything else? The only thing I have is kind of a dead horse for me, but all weather surface and hard surface. So in that definition is also page 50 page 54 like hard surfaces just says concrete or other similar surface where all weather surface breaks it down and says you have to have a base of this and a base of that. I just wondered if they should be somewhat similar.

At least at least the hard surface say exactly what that means because it says in all weather surface that you have to have a base of 4 in and what's the purpose in having two definitions? Aren't we effectively saying the same thing or is there an instance where you want a hard surface and not an all weather surface? So we need the two definitions because all weather is a lesser restriction and hard surface is a more restrictive.

Okay. Is one for pedestrian traffic and one is for vehicle traffic. Is one for parking lots and one's for collector and arterial streets. They don't relate to the streets, but all weather leather can be used for parking lots depending on if the the frontage requires so much hard surface. But we've always had both definitions and we do meet both definitions for Okay, the truck parking and different things require hard surface. I don't disagree with that.

Yeah. My question is what's if the purpose is to have two different things, we have to figure out what hard surface is to be able to say, okay, it needs to have a base or not or be concrete or not or asphalt or not. So maybe all weather just needs to be your rock and your paver stone item three and item four and then asphalt and concrete moves to hard because item one is asphalt minimum of 2 in deep placed over base material a minimum of 4 in deep and that's on all weather and then item two is concrete minimum of 4 in deep.

To to answer your question um when I look up the definition it says a hard surface usually means a permanently paved surface with structural integrity and loadbearing capacity and an all weather service is about usability not structural equivalence to pavement. So traffic line sidewalk versus parking lot is really what we're talking about. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Whether you need whether you need a base or not effectively is what we're talking about. Yeah. I just I just thought it was interesting that all weather surface has it broken down like if you

Yeah. And I I don't disuse you. My point is if we're going to break hard surface down, let's make sure we understand what we're talking about before we start requiring certain things because if it's sidewalk and your minimum sidewalk almost everywhere is 4 in, well, you just told me that I can do two inches of asphalt for a parking lot. So, how much sense does that make? The base is different, I'll grant you. But [clears throat and cough] I think the question is, are we okay with two inches of concrete for a sidewalk? or should we look at both of them together?

So, I think the all weather surface definition came from different people trying to use different things and that's where that definition probably came from before. Um, I think we should probably check with public works what they have for hard surface and we might be able to break that down for parking. Um, parking verse sidewalk. I don't know if we would really have to have sidewalk in there, but um for a parking lot, we may want to put something in there for regulations of and we might want to check with public works. So, we can look into that. That's a good point. So, yeah, just if my only point is we're going to look at both of them. We need to look at both of them together and make sure they make sense together.

Yeah, I believe our all weather matches public works. Um we've never really had anybody question the hard surface, but that's we can look at that. Do we have a provision for asphalt millings too or it's not in there? That was my next question. Do we allow that? If it's a parking lot and it has a base, can I use asphalt millings instead of I believe so. So, um I write that down. That would be another question for public works too and what their preference is. What is asphalt milling? It's literally when you grind up old asphalt roads and it's it's loose, but it's on a lot of use because I know we have cheaper, not explicitly.

Item three of all weather is compacted rock or crushed concrete, which you could interpret as including crushed asphalt. Not with that definition. You can't not really because it's not crushed rock and it's not crushed asphalt or crushed. I don't It's not explicitly allowed as well. [clears throat] And if if we're okay with it, that's fine. Let's just make sure it's included as a definition and not leaving it up to that one a little more. Those two just kind of stuck out to me when I was going through it. Okay.

Anybody else? I got nothing. Okay. Anything else from staff on that item? Are we ready to move on? [clears throat] Uh correspondence.

I put three little educational materials in our packets this time around. um they were just to supplement some notes on our zoning regulation changes. The first one was on small lot subdivision design. So the benefits of having smaller lot sizes. Um the section where it talks about small lots to fit existing form. That one I thought was particularly relevant especially considering our non-conforming code changes where we're making our regulations on non-conformings more strict. So, you're not able to do as much with them as you used to be able to do. Um, and so by reducing our lot sizes, we'll actually be [snorts] reducing the number of non-conforming lots we have. And then the zoning for mixed uses, that one was to go with our use chart um because we've talked about the MFA district and the LC district. Those will be mixed use districts. So, that'll be a little bit more relevant next month when we talk about commercial and mixed use. And then the planning to support small businesses. Um it talks about live workspaces and then smallcale manufacturing. We added that live work to our use chart. Um so that's something that you'll be able to build in Hazesville. And then the smallcale manufacturing that will be our our light manufacturing that's allowed in our mixed use zoning districts.

Any questions about any of that?

[sighs] item eight. February 26 is our next meeting date. I move we'll second. Thank you. Motion and second to adjurnn. Question Williams. Hi. True. Hi Coleman. Hi Asier. Hi Spberry. Hi Rinky. All right. What? All right.