Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Well, good evening. Welcome to the City of Possen Planning Commission work session for May the 18th, 2026. Um, I'd like to thank staff and the commissioner for the time. We're gonna jump right in this. We have two things that we want to talk about tonight. Before we get started, but like with that, I'd like to do a roll call, please. Sure. Commissioner Armenro, present. Commissioner Hartley, present. Commissioner Hirsch, present. Commissioner, excuse me, Commissioner Peterson, present. Commissioner Joerger, present. Vice Chairman Gisinger, present. A quorum is present.

Thank you. So, the um first topic that we're going to talk about tonight is the um additions to the comprehensions plan. And uh Mr. Horton, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um this is uh some text that the planning commission no doubt is somewhat familiar with. The only thing that I really did from the last time we met was I softened up. Uh number two, uh the future land use should be cohesively planned rather than peace meal. This may require joint effort by all stakeholders being the property owners. I'll put them first, the city and the economic development authority. As I said last time, it's been two months ago now, but as I said last time, uh, you know, the idea has always been for this to come forward from the private property owners and not to be superimposed by the city council or the economic development authority. So anyway, we kept that in there. Um, I'll uh just for the public at home, I'll go ahead and read all of them. Uh the Big Woods North area would be characterized by references to the Bigwood North residential and Bigwoods North commercial areas. That's number one. Number two, I just read the future land use should be cohesively planned rather than peace meal. This may require a joint effort by all stakeholders, meaning the private property owner, the city, and the economic development authority. Number three, any traffic in the R1 zone of properties, in other words, Big Woods North residential for bite development in accord with all zoning district regulations should be off existing public streets and should be focused on areas where existing frontage is available can be acquired for a new street and in any case should require traffic impact analysis for review in order to ensure efficient traffic flow. Number four, in cases where R1 properties are landlocked or where no access exists or can be created, access

to a new development from a public street off Victory Road should A being the ownership of the developer at the time of application. B be limited to the new public street. C be focused towards existing intersections such as City Hall Avenue, Legacy Boulevard, and Big Woods Drive. And D require a traffic impact analysis for review. Uh again, in order to ensure efficient traffic flow. Number five, the research and development R&D district in the Big Woods commercial area should be redesated in favor of general commercial in the 2018 2038 comprehensive plan future land use map. Now obviously we can insert these discussions or amend as necessary tonight. uh these will be the pillars that I will use to construct the language uh for the additions into the comprehensive plan. Uh we can do that either of two ways. We can u you know I can write them the planning commission can take a look at them before we go to public hearing or we can go directly to public hearing. But I just wanted to get that out there. Um obviously I'd want the city management input on this as well. Um, but it's my intention to have something for the planning commission to review at the next meeting. Whether that's a public hearing or whether you want to do another work session to discuss that before we go to public hearing can do it either way. Um, but with all that said, uh, I'll take any any uh any, um, changes or amendments or or any questions you might have.

All right. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that. Um, so commissioners, what do y'all what do y'all think? I assume that if you amended the the comprehensive plan that this language would stay mostly intact. It would just get inserted into appropriate places. Yes. Yes. Again, those are sort of the guiding uh post that in order to to build the entire amendments. Keeping those in mind, we won't come up with anything counter as this. Given that personally I don't see any need to look at this again before we go to public hearing. I think I'd be good with staff consorting this in the comprehensive plan and then go into public hearing from there. Okay.

Did I get a uh a motion or or an acclamation? Can we get a motion and a second for that and we'll vote on it? I will make a motion that we authorize staff to insert these items into the comprehensive plan for use in a future public hearing. Second. Commissioner Armen Trout. I. Commissioner Hartley. I. Commissioner Hirs. I. Commissioner Peterson. I. Commissioner Joerger. Hi. Vice Chairman Gisinger. I.

The motion passes. Michael, I just wanted to follow up on that and say that we're we're looking at language specific to the north side of Victory Boulevard. We'll move on to the central business area once this uh this process is complete and and after that we'll review the entire comprehensive plan because you know obviously legacy is almost built now and we we go back and basically modernize everything. That'll include updated demographics as well. Very good. Um, so we're ready to move on to the second item. All right. So, let's go ahead and uh we'll move on to the second item for the agenda tonight. Um, it's the possible zoning text amendment for the addition of gas stations and convenience stores in the uh B2 zoning district.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um uh this is a continuation of a joint uh effort by the city council, the planning commission and staff to look at our ordinances and identify areas where you know we may need tweaking. Uh when we looked at the B2 zoning district, and I know we had an amendment last month, but but we looked under there, we also saw that there's there's no allowance for gas stations or convenience stores by right in the entire city. Uh our thought was it should be included in B2. Number one, uh, you know, a developer coming in does not want to be held up necessarily with with unnecessary um delays. is in a and and the idea would be that a u a conditional use permit would not be needed in this place because we would write language in there that guarantee that property owners uh residential property owners would be protected from the encryption of of any type of gas station or convenience store use. Um I did put down four options. Obviously the planning comm con commission can choose no change at all. Um the one that staff settled on was allowance by right in the B district with a condition that no existing residential uses are in any property. This seems superior to me anyway to uh to looking at the districts because we do have some non-conforming uses in other districts. So this would for example the uh the house that we looked at the other month that's in B2 you know so so uh you know and other

options obviously is may be amended by the uh may be uh decided by the planning commission. Um can I interrupt you for just for a second? Yes, please. I mean I'm I want to be clear as far as like what's um what's meant by exist existing residential uses. I mean, if it's a residential piece of property that nothing's built on, is that still considered under the same uses or is it

That's That's a good question. Um, we might need to do some work on using the be zoning. Uh, I'm sorry, uh, residential zoning that that's that's vacant. But the idea was to uh uh you if you were well I mean like we talked about with the with the one out here a few months ago um the idea would be that there's no existing residential uses around that there's no existing uh commercial property no existing residential sorry zone property around so that would be a possible location for for a gas station not saying Not I mean we're obviously doing it for the whole city and not for one property, but I'm just trying to

Yeah, I would just believe that we would need to kind of include any kind of residential property. They're not able to put a gas station or something, you know. Sure. Sure. Rally, do we have a a current map that would show those locations where those conflicts may occur? I think in the Big Woods north there might be with the the rear property.

Yeah, there's not going to be any B. Well, at least the way the comp plan is, there won't be any B2, but there is B2 along W Creek all the way down to like General and all the way uh extending on north side of W Creek Road to uh approximately where the uh the this the uh the apartments are. So you look at what residential parcels might still be left.

Well, there could be a reasonzoning. Uh what we've typically done as a city is accept an application for reszoning. What I think you might be leading up to is a unilateral reasonzoning. And I don't I don't know that the city council would really necessarily be for that, but but of course, you know, we've got conditional use provisions pretty much in any zoning district. There would be that many properties along with Creek Road that that are left that Yeah, I know Mr. Canela was working with uh several property owners down on the north side of uh Victory Boat Bard, but nothing's really come of that as of yet.

I I have a clarifying question about this as well. So, I I think I could read this a couple of ways. Mhm.

This meant to cover residentially zoned properties that are adjacent directly adjacent to a B2 zoning or is this meant to cover residential existing residential uses already inside of the B2 zoning that may have been exempted through some other and is is there both that exist? When we say no existing residential uses on adjoining properties, we're pretty much saying no residential zone as well because uh you could have a vacant piece of property. That's true. And if it's zoned commercial, then maybe you know we ought to take a look at that. Disinger pointed out, but the idea is existing residential uses.

That was the intent was least was that was the intent. Yes. It does seem reasonable to extend that to residentially zoned properties directly adjacent to B2, but okay. We'll take a look at it. I mean, I think it's a good suggestion. I mean, those could always be approved through a conditional use permit anyway. True. in that in those situations. But absolutely if the idea well just

we're trying to provide an avenue for by right but not open it up past the point where we don't you know take into consideration residential uses. That's really what we're trying to do and uh we might be able to attack it a little bit with uh to talk about the residential districts. That was my concern. I didn't want to get rid of them have through us to do a gas station or convenience store. A convenience store is pretty broad when you think about it. Take a step back. It could be all kinds of stuff that we may not necessarily think fits the town. Um, you know, whatever. So, um, well, I think the idea, and I'm sorry, I I should have let you finish,

but I think the idea was to tie gas stations and convenience stores both together. Yeah, that can get crazier, too. I just I just I would like to have I wouldn't want it to be by right where they can just do it and without uh us having some say in what is that going to look like. Okay. Is convenience store defined anywhere in our language already clearly? I don't know if we actually define a convenience store, but you know, we could say we can do that. Yeah, it's vague. I believe I have the same concern as the other commissioners here.

All right.

That's just too vague. Wally, I would um like the you know, I'm not sure how the the Waw Was and the um and the Sheets are or are they consider a gas station, but that would be something that I would would be in some lesser attractive and um entities that we see out there, you know, Yeah. Well, that and and you know a combination of two and three was meant to you know protect the perhaps uh a clearer wording would be gas station and gas station with attached retail space. Well,

most gas stations you go to nowadays have a convenience store where you can go in and buy a Coke or buy a pack of naps or, you know, whatever, what have you. And that was the idea. It's less debatable what a gas station is than a convenience store. Okay. All right. Yeah, I am I'm kind of with the other commissioners.

All right, we'll work on the language and we'll bring it back next month then.

I'm uh I'm in favor of obviously we do need more businesses here, but we also do need to do it the right way and doing it the right way is having uh make have some say in what that's going to look like. Well, if we were going to make it by right, we would make sure that these, you know, an amalgamation basically of two and three were met. The planning commission or the city council would not uh have a conditional use role anymore. But if we don't do anything, then they're still allowable by conditional use.

That's what I mean. That's what I'd like to keep it that way, right? Wally, I have a question if you um two two gas stations come to mind. U with Creek Road. Um we have the 7-Eleven and then right next to it I think is the Metro Station or close by, not right next to it, but just down the street, correct? Is are there any other additional uh retail space that dispenses gas in the city?

Not that I'm aware of. is so the language I guess does the current situation of of those two gas convenience stores is that the intent is the wording match kind of what's currently here? Well, of course

or or could the Metro Mart's been there for a long long time. the 7-Eleven would have gone through a conditional use. So really it comes down to whether you want to kind of look at gas station and convenience stores as a bite use or you want to keep in conditional use. Well, I mean, just for the sake of clarity, um, while we're sitting here, what

I think they just say conditional even gas stations not that it doesn't really change anything between it being a gas station convenience. I mean, it can be a vape shop inside of a gas station. It can be all kinds of things and we've seen those, you know, around. So for us to do it by ride, not have any say so and just have a million possibilities of what it could be, I don't think is what uh town's looking for in my opinion. Again, it's not saying no to it. It's just saying that we, you know, have some control over when they come in. Personally, I I like the idea of having things that make sense by right just to remove the impediments he was talking about to try to encourage business to come into the city. But I would at least want to see some clear definitions about what we're going to allow. And I don't know if we can come up with language that's satisfactory to everyone or not, but I think that might be satisfactory to me if we could come up with some clear

at least it up. Right. I agree. And honestly, I mean, it is a barrier, but it's not that bad to do a conditional use thing. That's why we've seen so many of them. So, it's not really if you're really that serious and you're leg, it's it's not that hard. We make it pretty easy for them here, especially compared to a pounds, which would hardly even do them. So,

so number one, Wall-E, it says no change at all. So, basically, we'd stay status quo on essentially they'd be a CU. There's quite a few options. It'd be a cup if essentially I think is kind of what Mr. Hart, Commissioner Hartley stated. Mhm.

I'm in line with Commissioner Hirs as well in regards to not wanting to, you know, limit the ability of the city to, you know, encourage the business. And I'm looking down the strip mall um on W Creek Road and and there's a variety of stores there and um trying to to make sure that we're not I guess not being fair maybe uh with what might be 300 yards down the street maybe potentially. I mean I would prefer that gas station look a certain way whether it's a Waw Wa Sheets or what have you. Let me state one other thing. Might clarify one thing. In the B2 district, all uses would be uh subject to architectural review.

But I think clarifying language would benefit everybody. And if there's a way we can continue to clarify that, I would be for that as well. Right now I'm on the fence. I think we I could be persuaded either direction, but the thing that I'm kind of missing is um how this is going to impact and fit into the larger uh comprehensing where there's broader issues and consider that one of these facilities could be opt in opposite legacy. It could replace the closed right aid. It could be a remodel of one of the existing stations. It could go down by the post office. There's a whole lot of uh variations and it could broadly impact at least the traffic flow um if not uh residential policy. So, um yeah, I I think there's definitely room to do some development in this area.

Well, traffic would obviously be a very important thing uh element of any site plan that we would look at. I think I'm in agreement with everything I've heard from

sharing my uh you know uh deal for commercial development in the city. I know we need it, especially

try to offset maybe some of the property taxes and stuff and bring some of that uh from commercial business, but I I don't want to just see anything come in here. So, um I think I don't know how we tighten up the language without it really getting real deep. Um, so maybe you know the conditional use that way over that area or even just a few weeks ago traffic specifically. You know, there's two areas

couple opportunities there where I think would those would be real positive for the city um with the right um franchise. I did ask for some information that uh Mr. Thomas Caneli to me uh for this uh meeting and basically it's in the back of your mind about the tax dollars which it should be um we don't get any uh tax money off the gas. So just keep that and uh you're looking at about if I think if it was a Waw Wa or something like that maybe looking at 80 to 100,000 revenue make a real dent in what we you know XY we need like a bunch of these. So it's not like it's a I I would almost think if we got like a million off of it a year, I would be much more lenient in making it buy, right? If it's like a cure all, but fact that it's not really like that steers me back over it to, hey, you know, these are the numbers. We really should keep it, you know, where still fits. And um so that's where I'm at with that. That's my thinking. Well, I think that um we're very much in agreement as far as um we certainly don't want to shun any businesses um away from coming into Picosen. Um but we also want to retain certain control that looks like. So, I think that certainly we might be able to achieve that with some um a little bit more direct language and how we address this. Um or it uh certainly can fall back into um

me ask you this. Um, what other zoning district would you expect a gas station to go into, if any? Well, right now we're proposing uh B2, which is our general business uh our most intensive business district, right? That's my question. This is probably where it belongs basically. Yeah, this would be where it belongs. Yeah, that would keep it separated from residential. There are there are a lot of other byright conditions for that zoning that exist. We don't have any control over, right? So, are we unduly trying to impose control over something that maybe we shouldn't have that much control over? Well,

that's that's the question I'm stuck. I would argue that I would argue that if you if not not that I'm but I would point out that many of our um many other jurisdictions have a district where they allow gas station and convenience stores by right wouldn't be a hard to get a definition because I'm sure they're all over their zoning ordinances. Uh but uh you know the staff's recommendation is that we allow them in B2 and I think your zoning com was was pretty good. We ought to we ought to put those two together and we ought to come back and and present text amendment. However, if the planning commission's call on us and if they think it's fine the way it is, then okay, that's what we're going to do. We're going to continue to enforce the ordinance as it is. I I agree that it would be easy to find a definition, but other towns definition around us are different than what ours would be.

Yeah. And I mean it just the way that creek flow is and it that's the main area that we're looking at right now. I'm also trying to think how that fits in there as much as

where it would fit. Well, obviously if it's too big, it's not going to fit, you know. Um that that that's what we would decide at site plan phase cuz I mean there stormware man got to think about the parking got to think about the driveway aisle and and lastly you know how big the use is. So, so there's a lot of factors that go into it, but uh probably all of that would get considered during the architectural review and the traffic impact analysis, I would assume. Correct. Uh yeah, it would be reconsidered as part of a traffic impact analysis, the architectural review board and also staff site plan review.

Where where I land is, I would like to see if we could come up with some language we could agree on. Um, if not, maybe we defer back to conditional, but I think we should explore the language and see if we can find something we're comfortable with. Would it be worthwhile if I came back next month with uh with maybe a little bit more tying down what we're talking about and, you know, definitions. It needs to be solid. Yeah. No, I think so. And I think that the commissioners ought to spin that around in their heads as well, you know, to see if if we can't find a little more. Okay.

One one last comment. I think I may have missed this. I'm sorry if I'm being redundant, but in for the subject we're talking about, we're discussing a possible zoning text amendment to include allowance and requirements for the addition of gas stations and convenience stores. Now, sir, I think we talked about are those two separate entities where it could be a convenience store without gas or or is it are we're looking at the way we looked at it and perhaps we weren't as clear as could be and for that I apologize but we were thinking about gas stations and convenience stores together.

Fact that you tie those two together might help with the wording as well. Interesting thing about this category of business is it's especially sensitive partly because of the traffic flow, but also partly because it's prochemical and the fumes are noxious and it's it's a significant thing if you have one coming in next to you just because it's hazardous substances. But we are seeing uh the possibility in the near future that someone might open with electric refueling that doesn't have any. So we ought to at least as we're word smithing and thinking about things, you know, would we want to be as restrictive if it were nonpetrochemical? Is that the same category? May maybe instead of call it gas station, we say fueling station,

something. Anyway, it's and and I don't know what the state in in local governance is with these kind. Uh they're not nearly as complicated in pop one out in front of a pretty small store.

So something to think about as we're developing this. Also, there may be ideas out there that we don't even haven't heard yet and uh somebody may come in with a new concept for fuel station convenience store and all be like, "Oh, okay." Whereas, if we did tighten up the language, that would, you know, cancel it out. So, that's just something else to think about. Whereas, if we just stuck with how it is now, that's something we can move forward with. We have the up. Would there be any merit in looking at the size of the parcel and having a minimum

want perhaps? I mean, you know, obviously it's got to be big enough to accommodate the use plan ordinance might dictate that.

Yeah. I mean, we could look at that, but I mean, I I really think that uh a company that's going to want to do a gas station, I mean, they're going to look at the lot before they even anything to us and determine whether it's going to work for their use. I mean, if it's it's too crowded there, I would think I'd be interested. larger more desirable franchises would be a larger piece of property where

it would be if the smaller parcel maybe

I'm hearing just this is just me obviously talking, but it sounds like we're collectively saying that we're interested in gas station or or refueling station, convenience store for the city. Um, as a benefit to the citizens and and so on. And as I read number one the bottom of the page here. Uh if the plan if the planning commission agrees to amend B2 district till out gas stations and convenience stores the anticipated step after the meeting on the 18th include I think number one is fairly appropriate where it says you know it'd be allowed by right in B2 district under certain conditions.

Yeah. Yeah, I mean, you know, we can we can we can work on those conditions now and but since it would be beat by right, it wouldn't be a CP obviously. Yeah. But the conditions might be outlined, right? in a different format or Well, yeah, that was the whole idea uh is I wanted to plan and which y'all have and I appreciate everything you've done, but uh that's why I put down options two and three um which you know they would be under the certain circumst a certain condition. We could also look at, you know, definitions and things, but

we may need more time. Yeah, I think so, too. I think just thinking it through a little bit more time of consideration as far as like because we certainly don't want to steer anybody clear. Sure. But we also want to control what what does. All right. Well, I'll return next month with uh something different or something a little more detailed and we'll go from there. Yes. Well, I'll volunteer to help with that. If you want some help, reach out to me and I'm happy to help. Yep. Certainly reach out. I may do that anyway. My own.

Yep. We appreciate that. certainly reach out.

Thank you. Um, is that it for tonight? Is there anything else that anybody wants to discuss?

All right. Thank you everybody. We're journed.