Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

[clears throat] [cough] Call the January 19th, 2026 Pulk City Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to order. Uh item two, roll call here. Here item three, approval of agenda. and make a motion we approve the agenda as written. Second. All in favor? I opposed. [clears throat]

Item four, approval of P&Z commission meetings from December 15th, 2025. I'd make a motion that we approve the minutes of December 15, 2025 as written. Second. All in favor? I I. Item six, approval of reszoning for four seasons, Pulk City from R1 to C1 restricted developer report. Start with your name and address too, please.

Yeah. Good evening. My name is Jared Ruckle, MGR Developments. Address is 1425 Northwest Hug Drive, Pulk City. And I've got uh I just want to introduce Kelsey Scallan here from uh Shy Hatterie. So she's got the the uh proposal up in front of you here and we can answer questions. All right.

Yeah. Kelsey SC 4125 Westtown Parkway. Um so before you tonight you have a reasonzoning. You can see the exhibit here and in your packet. Um resoning for about 14 15 acres. Um and the development that is Pulk uh Four Seasons Pulk City. was previously [snorts] developed as a preliminary plat um a handful of years ago. Plat one has been completed. There are homes on it. Um as part of this, we'd be looking to revamp amend the preliminary plat. And as part of that, you know, kind of the precursor to that, do this resoning for a portion of that land, converting it from R1 to a C1 restricted um use to try to vary up um use in that area. uh take advantage of the future whitetail parkway that will be coming through the amenities um as town expands to the north here. So happy to answer any questions and I believe as one of the other agenda items we do have kind of a master plan that again not our formal plenary plat but just as we've been working with the city and re revamping what we think this area could look like um gives you a little bit of context of what we're asking for with this resoning in relation to the rest of the development that is forthcoming.

I thought I'd just add in here kind of the driver. So, what we looked at originally, this was zoned as R1, uh, and that is consistent with the the master plan for the city. The challenge that we had with that, if you notice, I don't know how else shows up there, but the square box there is a cell tower. So, [clears throat] with that cell tower there, we had originally put houses around there, but the challenge is is I'm not sure there's many people that are going to want to have a cell tower in their backyard, sideyard, front yard. So it kind of in general uh is already a a commercial area I guess. And then with the when you look at the master plan, you'll see the park land dedication and then also the um parkway [clears throat] that's planned, future parkway that's planned goes right by it. So it kind of sets up nicely, we think, for more of a commercial area. Uh I think that this layout that we've got up here kind of shows that a little better. You can see the the cell tower and the fall zone circle around it. So, [clears throat]

you want to move to the city engineer report if nobody has questions right now?

Yep. So, as Kelsey and Jared had mentioned, um the proposed resoning is to a C1 restricted with the restrictions specifically being C1 is a mixture of uh residential and commercial uses. We would restrict out the residential uses with the purpose being we're making a change to be a neighborhood friendly type um or a residential friendly type commercial use. We don't want that to then go through all this process just to have it come back as single family homes. that's not really what we're after. So, that's the restriction that's proposed. Um, as Kelsey and Jared also mentioned, um, the Fulk City future land use Use Plan had low density residential in this area. So, this change would require an amendment to the comprehensive plan. It's our thought that it's that the although it's not shown in the future land use plan this way um addition of commercial in this area seems to meet the general intent of the comprehensive plan where we we add commercial facilities within Pulk City in a manner that's reasonable and amanable to the neighborhood. Um, so by restricting out those residential uses, picking the C1 district, which was originally designed to be the area directly surrounding the CTS zoning, um, what we're doing is we're doing some lower intensity uses that are more tailored to be neighborhood amenities, things that aren't really office parks. Like that's not really the intent of the C1 district. It's going to be that intermingling of like convenience stores, retail [cough] restaurants, that kind of thing is kind of the intent of doing the C1 district and why we se selected reszoning to the C1 district versus like a C2 district like we would typically see. Um, I did want to mention that the C1 district is in the description it says it's to be mindful of the area directly surrounding the CTS zoning. Um, but I think it's reasonable

to use outside of that application if it's in the same context of providing that transitionary zone where we don't have a big commercial expansive space. It's more of a lighter use type space. Um, so that's kind of why we went with the C1 restricted. And then for the PNZ's consideration, we need two recommendations from you tonight. one on the um future land use plan update and the comprehensive plan amendment. You'll do that one first and then we'll do a second for a recommendation based on the zoning. Um you can the options are to approve it as presented, approve it subject to any comments, questions, concerns you may have or deny it. Um, the one thing on the questions or comments would be because it's a zoning matter, you cannot necessarily place those restrictions on, you can ask, you can recommend that your your approval be subject to those recommendations, but ultimately the property owner has to be willing to accept those. Um, you as a body cannot impose those. The council can deny it if they so choose not to follow those recommendations, however. So, just so you guys understand what's ahead of you, um be happy to answer any questions you may have, but staff recommends approval of both the amendment and the reszoning as presented.

Any questions from the commission? Does this restricted still have a buffer zone around it as those residential friendly are under that zoning? I should have looked that up, but it still there are there would be buffer requirements. I don't know what they are off right away, but there would be some sort of buffer requirements. I know that for a fact cuz pretty the way that our buffers are set up is anything higher than R2 has a has a um buffer requirement to the R1. Okay. It would just be a matter of whether I think it's probably a B. I'm not 100% sure on that option. Okay. Okay. That would be something that gets reviewed at the preliminary plat stage.

Got it. Okay. Thank you. Was there any public comment received? No. Anybody? [clears throat] I make a motion to approve of reszoning of four seas in Poke City from R1 to C1 restricted. Second. Roll call.

Yes. I can. Yes. [laughter] Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. We'll ask for a recommendation on the compliment of the two if you have one. [clears throat] Those would be separate items. [snorts] So, both within the same item, you're saying because you just did it that way would have to be a second [clears throat] motion. I make a motion to approve the comprehensive plan amendment as presented. The comprehensive plan amendment as presented.

Second. Roll call. Hi. Hi. Yes. Sorry. Hi. Yes. Yes.

All right. And then for the next item, I'm going to jump over you, Justin. Sorry. Um, for that next item, we wanted to just give the commission the opportunity. you know, this is a unique opportunity where you see the layout before it's actually put into a preliminary plat format. So, if there's anything that jumps out to the commission specifically on that layout, we wanted to give you the opportunity to discuss or comment on that. Um, one thing worth noting is [clears throat] the developer has made a change even from the the concept we have initially started this resoning application with um due to the culde-sac requirements. So as presented, the number of culde-sacs in this development meet the criteria for two per 40 acres. We would ask the commission for any comments, questions. There's no motion on this one specifically, but if you had any comments or questions, um this seemed like a good opportunity. Otherwise, we can move on to the next item. If it would be helpful, I can kind of walk through the changes. I don't know if you have a copy of the prior plat or not, but you can pull it up here real quick. Help. [snorts] But our goal basically would be to uh bring this back as a preliminary plat probably in February is what we were shooting for. So just needed to get the zoning to make sure that that was okay first before we move forward with the preliminary plat. But the concept is here. So Kelsey's got them side by side. So you first thing you see in the what's now plat 2 and was plat 4 before. So you can kind of see how we reoriented those. So, we've got two culde-sacs there where

there wasn't one before, but that change is really to try and uh match the layout or the the grading of the land that's there. So, in the back kind of backing up to what was plat one, that boundary between plat one and plat 2, that's a ravine creek bed area. So, there's trees there and obviously where the cell tower is, that's up on top of a hill. So, and the parkway kind of follows along that ridge of that hill. So, the old design where that was laid out, it was really going to make a lot of lots that the back of the yards of the lot were going to slope towards the house, which we didn't like. Um, the new lot layout, basically the culde-sac kind of follows down the hill, sets up for more walkouts and daylight lots, and then follows that grading contour that's already there instead of trying to fight it, if you will. say the other the other more minor change is in plat three which is plat two before you can see we split that culde-sac apart and it's kind of again that's also uh there was [clears throat] a natural waterway that ties into that creek area and our detention pond so rather than putting a road across that and it's essentially kind of blocking that up and fighting the grading there we're just opening that up to allow that to drain more naturally and again set up for more walkout out and daylight lots or sorry, walk out and yeah, daylight lots there. And then the rest of it uh is more minor changes, but just trying to optimize uh streets and lots. Uh we reentered the lots around there's a fence row currently between plat 4 and five shown there now. And so that lines uh that boundary is all lined with trees. So that way we were trying to maintain those trees versus before we were offset from that. So those trees were going to have to be removed. So

overall concept I think we were down about how many lots? I think we're going to end up between five and 10. 10 might be a little aggressive but so 10 less lots than we had before what we had before. Thank you. The only thing to notice is the the parkland again kind of shifting where that parkland falls. Um it's currently buffered against [clears throat] that commercial again providing kind of a an additional buffer if you will to the residential and then making sure we have some lots back to that parkland area. We did work with the city to review kind of the shape of that and its placement adjacent to Whitetail Parkway so that it would be usable and desirable for the city in the future.

I like the idea of using the natural train more. your your lots are going to be more attractive that way, I think, and more usable. And I like what you've done. Any other [clears throat] comments on changes, discussion points?

Need a motion on that. Just input. Okay. Just input. No, thank you. Y you bet. Thank you.

Item eight, approval of Pulk City Regional Park site plan, city engineer report. Um um so for the commission's consideration tonight is site plan associated um for the commission's consideration tonight is a site plan associated with Bulk City Regional Park phase one. Um included in that are three 19 or U19 soccer fields, three U12 soccer fields, a practice quad for um the baseball and softball teams to use for practice as part of this phase one project. Um a concession or a rest a modern restroom facility with a second building that will be left unfinished at this point for the purposes of a future concession stand. um as well as construction of the associated parking lots detention basin northeast 7th Street from its current stub off of Vista Lake Avenue to the southern boundary of the park. Um and then any associated utility work that goes along with that. Um specifically what we're asking for tonight is um review comment and recommendations on approval of the site plan itself. Um, so related to compliance with city code, site plan requirements, detention basins, that kind of stuff. Generally speaking, the proposed site plan follows um the general layout that was proposed as part of the city council's uh regional park master planning. Um there are a handful of coordination items that that will won't change the grand scheme of the the site plan itself, but [snorts] generally speaking are minor tweaks. You know, massaging grades here, reducing retaining walls there, um playing with some of the grading limits, that kind of stuff. But it all is going

to occur on the city's property aside from some minor grading west of Northeast 7th Street. Um staff is review. So, the way that we're handling this project is basically our our park designers are working with the parks and recck department to work through all the different um requirements and considerations of that. Then it's submitted to city staff and I review it just as if it's any other site plan. Um so that's gone through a full staff review um and staff recommends approval of the site plan. um subject to the items in my uh memo which are the project being bid in accordance with state code um any final documents being prepared in accordance with Pulk City municipal code and then no sub significant changes that would change the interpretation or cause non-conformities with Pulk city code. So those minor grading tweaks wouldn't trigger that. But if we're moving a field, we're changing a detention requirement, we're adding more pavement, that kind of stuff, this PNZ count or the the PNZ commission would see that again. Um, with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions, but we recommend approval of site plan.

Under this plan, the grading would be done for the future parking as well.

Correct. Yep. So, the way that it's set up right now is basically the park road T's and [clears throat] um at the edges of those T's you they'll grade the future road layout as well as a big pad off the end. Um cuz council I mean we're providing 200 just short of 250 spots which is approximately double what the current sports complex has for a similar number of fields. Council's still kind of concerned about the parking, the number of parking stalls out there. So, we're providing that grass overflow in the event that it's needed. Sure. The detention's already there or is that part of it as well?

It is significantly or it is significantly there. Um there'll be some minor tweaks just based on we've added a little bit more pavement. We've optimized some of the parking um to be able to provide what we think we need and kind of plan for some future amenities. Um I guess that is one thing that you'll notice that if you compare our this plan to the master plan, some of the parking we've actually flipped to the south side of the park road with the idea being is at some point there'll be a a dog park and um I think the pickle ball courts are down there. There's some amenities on the other side, the south side of that park road. So, we're providing a parking lot that will service the sports complex when needed, but specifically provides access to those other facilities south of the road um without having to cross that park road. But the to answer your question, the detention is pretty much there. There's been some minor tweaks to the some of the paved surfaces, so we we're going to have to make some minor modifications during the project. It's a nice layout. Looks like it'll work very well. And I guess the the one other thing worth mentioning is where there is an existing home north of the northwest soccer field. So in the northwest corner of the park, there is a netting proposed to keep the soccer balls on city property. And then as those houses continue to develop to the east, which would be part of what would be Big Creek Commons Plat 3, um we're going to make a recommendation to Parks and Reck that they start budgeting to erect those nettings as the street is extended.

Okay.

Any other questions on this? So looking at this it flow traffic only enters and exits on that left left [clears throat] side road for now. Yep. So once East Vista Lake is extended and PL and phase two of the park is built, you'll have a loop that goes through. Okay. It'll be basically a L [clears throat] shape that'll more or less follow where the trail meanders its way up and it aligns with the uh preliminary plat that was prepared by CC on Vicory Commons the streets dub.

Will there be lights at those at that one side on that left side for both intersections? There will be there'll be street lighting for all the all the parking, all the park road and northeast 7th. Um, at this time I believe we are planning to put the conduits in for field lighting but are not proposing it as part of this phase. Will there be traffic signals on the left on that road too? Not right now. [snorts] We've done a traffic impact study that doesn't warrant them. Um, as Northeast 7th is extended further to the north, I can see where that becomes warranted at some point. We just don't meet them right now. [snorts]

Questions or motion or I'd make a motion that we approve the Pulk City Regional Park site plan. I'll second. Roll call. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

All right. Item passes. Item nine, approval of old city hall demolition site plan. So for the commission's consideration tonight is a site plan showing the demolition of the northern leanto on the Big Creek Elementary School building what was old city hall. Um that site does not currently have a site plan. Uh public works is fully prepared to remove that lean to. Public works actually built that leanto um many many years ago. Um and so as part of this process um to be consistent with the rest of our procedures, we have submitted a site plan or prepared and submitted a site plan. Again, this was reviewed prepared by our south building uh using public works as um the client with me providing staff review on behalf of the city of Pulk City's administr [clears throat] administrative staff. Um, this really just shows taking of the old building, seating it back, protecting that historical structure. Um, as the process kind of evolves as, um, city council continues to plan for the future of that building, we will likely bring back some sort of site plan amendment to show the actual um, layouts, any improvements, that kind of thing. um as far as that's concerned, but as of right now, um we don't technically trigger full compliance with the site the Pulk City site plan ordinance because we're not doing 50% valuation change of that building. Um and as such we have shown removal of that building, protectoring of the existing structure, seating it back, and then we'll likely come back in the future with um an additional site plan as that building continues to evolve or devolve depending on how you want to look at it. That future plan would include any um sighting or what whatever happens to that exposed wall after demo

restoration of it. The restoration

likely um I think we don't have a real good feel on that right now. Um because despite public works doing it all those years ago, we're just not sure what we're going to encounter when we go to take that that structure off. Um, what I will tell you is we have reviewed the historical registration for that building and the leantos are not included in that. The rear edition, so the one that's directly behind the elementary, the old elementary school building is a little ambiguous with the registration. So, what I will tell you is we're going to have to do a little more digging and probably work with the state historical office to determine if we can take that rear that rear section off. But um what we would likely do [clears throat] and um is if the siding goes back on, it would be in accordance with that historical registration, which is very very prescriptive. Um the historical size society did a really nice job of applying for that historical registration. Um so it's very descriptive. It's pretty particular in terms of what materials are going to be used. So with the site plan, I would I would tell you to assume and understand that basically we're going to put back what's on the rest of the elementary school at this time.

Sure. And then if we need to change from that, I would say yes. That would that would be something that this more once the demolition's done obviously. So yeah. Okay.

Yeah. Uh I'll make a motion to approve [clears throat] the old city hall demolition site plan. Second. Roll call. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. All right. Item 10, reports and particulars. Council liaison.

Good evening, commission. Um, we got a couple items this evening. First of all, I want to welcome to the commission. Glad to see him continuing [clears throat] to give back to the community coming from the parks commission. So, welcome. Thank you. Um, just a couple of items like I said. First of all, uh the entire city council, mayor, and staff met last week. We do a every other year strategic planning, if you're not aware, session.

So, it's a strategic session where we kind of talk about what we've accomplished in the past couple years. Um look at um items in our current CIP, talk about things maybe that there might be deltas, things we might be missing, as well as opportunities to look at wants and needs of our city. So, it was a pretty good working session. I know we're going to have some takeaways from that. It's very timely because we're halfway through fiscal year 26 and we're going to start our budget session for fiscal year 27 here in a couple weeks. So with that, we'll be reviewing um all the items like I said that we kind of got um takeaways from the strategic planning and look at and see where we could accomplish. Not much above and beyond that. You know, we're just a couple weeks into the new year, but

Okay. All right. City staff, I can give you an update. Uh, for some numbers, I guess, for single family residential, uh, 2024, we have about 50 new homes and last year in 2025, we're at about 68. So, positive and going well that route. [clears throat] Started off strong this year. So, it's nice to see some other developments coming up. All right, commission members. [clears throat] Nothing. All right. Is there a motion to adjurnn?

So move. Second. I'll second. All in favor? I I meeting adjourned. A lot of new ones.