Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Right. Just before we start the uh plan commission meeting, I want to take the opportunity to introduce to the the commission and to the public on YouTube, Austin De. Austin, if you want to raise your hand so everybody YouTube can see who you are. Austin is our new community development director. So, we had the opportunity to add on additional staff to our community development, zoning and planning, building construction department uh to help us with the upcoming um workload with some of the growth that we're seeing and just to help us um keep things rolling with developers and with the public and construction with everything going on. So, Austin comes to us from Adagini County um very smart individual. he's hitting the ground running um and has a world a wealth of knowledge in planning, zoning, shortland zoning, regular zoning, site plan review. So, um welcome to the team and you're doing a great job so far. So,

thank you. Happy to be here. With that said, go ahead Bernie. Okay. Being 5:16, I'd like to call February 26 Planning Commission meeting to order. Please stand for the pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisibley and justice for all. [clears throat] Okay. I'm looking for a motion to adopt the agenda. [clears throat] I'll make that motion.

I'll second. Motion's been made by Susie, seconded by Donna. Is there any additional or corrections? Hearing none. All in favor signify by saying I. All opposed. Motion's carried. Looking for a motion to approve January 22nd, 2026 planning commission meeting minutes as read in your packet. I'll make that motion and I'll second it. Motion was made by Jay, seconded by Susie. All in favor signify by saying I.

All opposed. [clears throat] Motion's carried. Any public comment? Any public comment? Seeing none, moving along. um CSM for 1601 Warner Allen Road and 1100 West Cameron Street. Thank you. Uh proposed CSM uh is essentially moving a property line 30 ft to the north. Uh we'll bring it up there on the screen to take a look at it. Um, this is a simple lot line adjustment. Uh, per the city's subdivision or ACSM's required to do this lot line adjustment, which is why it's here today for review. Um, based on staff's review of the proposed CSM, we found no issues other than a couple technical things within the surveyor data and the signature lines, they do have to put my name on there now, which is a change. So, um, but other than that, uh, based on staff's review, we found no issues and are recommending approval of the proposed CSM. No conditions. Happy to answer any questions. There any utility easements within the old line?

If there would have been, they would have shown them on the shown. No, they would have been shown if they existed. Um, and number found during stats review. Thank you. Okay. I'm looking for a motion for the approval of the CFM for 1601 Warner Allen Road and 1100 West Cameron Street. I'll make that motion and I'll second it. Motion's been made by Mark, second by Susie. Any more discussion? All in favor signify by saying I. I. All opposed.

Motion's carried. Okay, moving on. Conceptual conceptional review by Ben Leair Breezewood Builder LLC Town Homes. Thank you. So, this proposal is for a housing development on the corner of County Highway D, Orville Drive, and North Point Drive in the city of New London. As shown on the screen above, um the developer is proposing uh what is known as attached single family attached style homes or town homes as commonly referred to. Um this particular proposal is uh 19 units uh with this development with four rows associated with that. Um access to the property will be off of County Road Doubled D uh with a private driveway leading into the parking area for the development. Um the development will be served by an on-site storm water treatment facility located on the southeast corner. Uh that storm water facility will be reviewed by um city staff and engineering to make sure it complies and we able to serve the developments um associated with uh the proposal. Uh currently the property is zoned a mixed residential low density. Based on the proposal of this development and the density that is being proposed um it does require a reszone to a residential district that uh accommodates that type of density. Um based on the city's comprehensive plan um it's currently listed as single family duplex residential which doesn't support a type of development at this density. um as as such a comprehensive plan amendment is also required in order to support this development. So based on my review of the elements and the proposed density uh with this uh proposal uh my recommendation is to go to a higher density development uh known as mixed residential high density as listed with the city and women's new zoning code. um which again will start with a comprehensive plan amendment followed by a reszone which will go to review to you

guys and then eventually to council for final approval. Um this type of housing is what we refer to in the planning world as missing middle housing. So um and different types of housing may have your single family detached homes. You may go to the higherend, you know, high-rise, you know, upscale apartments, upscale single family homes. This is kind of that missing middle where these are intended to be affordable. um for people to come in and be able to purchase these homes. And the nice thing about this proposal is that each of these units are intended to be individually owned through um a condominium or HOA type development. So when owners come in for this type of developments, they're able to purchase something that may be less expensive than other things on the market and also be able to build equity um at the same time. So it's what we refer to as missing middle housing, which is a need as identified in the city's comprehensive plan. Um, so this is a development that uh I feel like is a good fit based on my opinion and I'm open to discussion and happy to answer any questions about it.

Is there a reason they didn't put the exit on Orwell Drive and that the road is at the back of the property? It seems like the housing is pushed to the road rather than utilize the yard space for viewing of the property. It looks like they pushed it out with the driveway access to the back of the lot. Yeah, I mean based on what the proposal was on it, there's room to to change it a little bit. Um I think the intention with this is to have green space in between um each of the units. Um so by by placing that row in the back, you allow for additional green space which is good for storm water infiltration in addition to the pond and also just adds a add additional aesthetic to the development. So um I don't think Ben the developer provided any reason why he put it in the back there. Um but that's what was proposed at this time. Um if you guys have feedback or would like to see something different, we can provide that to the developer um for his review and uh we can go from there.

Jay had also might have had um maybe a thought, you know, because there's the the drive separates with that middle island in there. Yeah. So, I mean, if you brought this to here, it'd be kind of a oneway to get in and get out. whether that was part of the the thought process, right? As part of the developers agreement when I developed that out there, that was part of the developers agreement that there's no access allowed other than the streets from Orville Drive because the park got busy. They didn't want that interference with that traffic. Makes sense. Thank you. There's your answer. Do these have basements in them?

Uh, as currently proposed, I do not believe so. You may not know this answer, Chad. You might be able to answer it better than must being so new. But do we have any concerns with parking? I know SAS Werski had we they didn't meet the parking requirement. Is this going to be similar to that with the available spaces that I see for each unit? Yep. So, the new zoning ordinance lays out the parking requirements for um each of these units on there. Um I believe each of these units with it being attached only needs to have one stall in front. Um and with their proposal there, I think I I think they're actually proposing some additional ones. And then if you consider off- streetet parking um on the back side there too, um they'll be able to meet that requirement.

They're actually proposing two for majority of them. That' be two plus the plus the garage. So three. Yep.

And as mentioned to you guys will see this proposal if it moves forward again. um you know through a reason and a comprehensive plan amendments um because that needs to happen to unlock the use as proposed here. So this will come up again just a a cursory conceptual review. So if you guys got major issues with it now is an easy time before any money is spent correct to make changes suggestions. So um not looking for any action tonight just feedback. I think it'll look nice out there.

Yeah. And again, too, I had talked about um you know, the missing middle housing part of it. Um you know, this this has been identified as a type of housing that we need in the city. Um so this type of development would help address that. If there isn't a basement, is there a reason for that or just cost or why not having basements? It could be a variety of things, right? So if the intention is for these to be affordable um you know cost does factor into that by not needing to excavate um with that too that fill needs to go somewhere when they dig out those basement. So that's another factor that goes into that. Um but as is currently proposed I do not believe that there's basements. Yeah.

I think they're very nice looking. Yeah. Yep. Yep. And obviously the, you know, the colors of the siding and whatnot may change. Um, you know, then we'll get another crack at it through site site plan interview as well at the end. Any idea request possibility?

I don't believe that was discussed in my meeting with them. Um, but obviously that'll be information to provide How many square feet did you say each one is? Um Chad, if you scroll up to here, I [clears throat] want to say they were 38 by Oh, it's size. Yeah. 38 by what does that say? It's either 18 or 19. 19. 38 by 19. So, the picture isn't it's kind of pixelated, but yeah,

um

I can get that information for you if you like. I can send it to you via email the exact measurements because we I have a better blown up version of the proposal um on my computer. So, I think we had to reduce the size a little bit to email it to everyone. Yeah. But looks like about 500 somewhere in thereish of living space not including the garage. So something just based on what I'm seeing there. Right. What everybody's asking for. questions, discussion. As Chad mentioned, this is the time if we have feedback for the developer.

Sounds like a thumbs up to continue at this point. Okay. [snorts] Okay, seeing nothing else on the agenda. Um, review upcoming agenda items. Do you have any?

I have one upcoming at some point um with the adoption of our new zoning code. Um, we do have to amend part of our comprehensive plan to put in um what's intended zoning districts they're going to be for our comprehensive plan. So in our comprehensive plan, we have listed areas designated whether it's low density residential, high density residential. Um there's new language associated with that. So in the comprehensive plan, so our new zoning code has to relate back to that. So there will be a comprehensive plan amendment coming up just changing some of the language in there. Um I don't have an exact date where that will come across, but that'll be coming at some point.

Okay. Review next meeting date tenatively March 26th, 2026. Any more questions? Okay. Looking for a motion to adjourn the meeting. So move. Second. Motion was made by Donna, second by smoothie.