Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Here. Mr. Wall? Here. Mr. Hoagler? Mrs. Stewart?

Here.

Mr. Shubeck? Here.

Stand and witness the budget. we have no public hearings tonight so we're right into our work session first item on the work session is lot split consolidation validation split 26-0001 9010 ro from our parcel six four zero zero six nine two r2 single presidential zone mr conway tell us what you're looking for this evening

What we're looking for is a consolidation of four existing parcels. Two of the parcels have frontage on Rivona Road. Two of them are isolated towards the back of the property, ultimately consolidating them into one and then splitting into two different parcels. The northern parcel would be roughly 20 acres and the southern parcel 10.

And then you're going to come back later for the conservation?

So the idea is there is a goofy point at the back of the 10-acre parcel. And the bigger story with that is at a later time, there is an option to possibly donate or sell the back portion to the Metro Parks, which owns the property around the backside of the property. So it looks a little odd right now, but once the back nine acres comes off, it would straighten things up a little bit.

it's pretty straightforward all right um no no no not at all nothing for me i do i want could could we talk a little bit more about the wonky um sharp angle at the back so so i i understand that you know um jeff and i had spoken about actually as part of this action to create the third parcel and i i let him know that planning commission wouldn't be able to do that because you all would be creating a landlocked parcel with no frontage so if the intent is to sell it to the nature conservancy or to dominate it either way um that sounds great it's primarily flood district anyhow um But planning commission couldn't do it. And so we talked about, well, could we get a letter of intent or something? We could keep the third parcel on here. And Jeff explained, well, no, they don't have funding this year, but maybe likely next year it could happen. And so then he came back with this. And so with the understanding that the rear of the parcels will likely be combined into a third parcel and conserved, Explain why the sharp angle at that location now.

The sharp angle, if we follow the flood plain and the flood district in that overview, it'll show where the creek is. They were really interested with the flood plain portion of it. From that point, there's a pin on the north end of that lot that there would be a straight line that would go over. Down the road, we would have a 10-acre parcel, an 11-acre parcel, and then the rear would be a 9, which would be absorbed into an existing Metro Park parcel. So it was really just trying to keep the property that's not in the floodplain and be willing to... I think that's the cleaner way to do it.

Yeah, I don't... I mean, in the... The code requires that the side lot lines be essentially at 90-degree angles from the street or aerial from the street, you know, like a spoke and a wheel. So we've met that requirement essentially with the side lot lines. There's not a specific requirement for the rear lot line. There's maybe one other lot in the city that sort of has that jagged rear lot line, and it's not to this degree. So it's not common. Obviously, the creek accounts for some of this. And I didn't know if you were trying to keep access to the creek

No, we weren't trying to keep any access to the creek. And they kind of expressed that if they were to purchase, that they really wanted anything and everything.

That's their thing, yeah. That's really their thing.

And then with that, even if that never does happen, we still own the parcel that that point goes to. So it's not affecting a neighbor. A neighbor's lot, yeah. And when you look at the size of the lots, too, it's not a one-acre parcel that we're trying to get fancy with the property lines.

There's two things that I think the surveyor needs to just tweak on here. In the little kind of text box at the bottom, you guys, it has the parcel numbers, and the third parcel number is missing a zero. Okay. So I just think if there's a motion made that the minor corrections noted, you could put that into the motion. But then also parcel 6400659, that little sliver, it doesn't fully show on the survey document.

It's kind of an odd shape that's overlaying the creek.

Yeah, it's right. So the creek.

That's it, right? Right.

So this red line and this red line are missing.

Okay.

I just think that's no big deal. He's got it on one of these layers. It's just not appearing on this revised. Okay.

But you and I can talk about that. Okay. It's this, you guys. This is a sliver of parcel right here. This 640-006. From there to there? Yes. Yes. Is it? It's right here.

It's like a tenth of an acre.

It's right here. This red line here, down here, it had to be a correction. The lot above it had the creek in it. I think people were just at times trying to gain access to that. So this parcel exists. It's just not fully reflected on the document. This right here.

Is it missing the dotted line on the north side?

Okay, okay.

So where would you, what part would you give or sell to the Metro Parks? Ultimately from this point to this point. This would become a parcel. Okay. And the creek would be all, so from here, from this line back, and then all of this.

Oh, that's the line back this way?

That's what would happen.

It would be.

It doesn't need to give it a name.

Yeah, we're lying. Yeah. Okay. It would be more like this. This would spring that. This is the parcel right now, this right here. Oh, I see, okay. Yeah.

I mean, so these lot lines aren't violating any rules? They're just creative?

No. I mean, if this was going to be a buildable lot back there, clearly you wouldn't want to approve that. Because you'd have somebody just putting their shed back there in that back little corner or something weird. And it'd be just hard to know where your lot line is. But this rear piece of this land area is all in the flood district. Yeah.

And that's what the lot line is identifying the flow.

So when you look at it, I'm not going to lie to you, when you look at it initially, you go, whoa, what's happening with that?

I guess if he would have showed a topo as an overlay on that, you would see some of the elevation change that's not shown on that.

All right, anything else?

So I gave each of you a copy of these. Our new members wouldn't have seen these before, but Steve and Craig have. Planning Commission approved these last year. And so it's just taken a while for us to process these for various reasons. We've finally got the ordinances pulled together in the format that you see in these copies. And then we realized, oh, well, the exact language in the new code says Planning Commission shall approve the ordinance. And it has some other language, but the word ordinance is used. So our previous efforts to review the changes And to make a recommendation to council was all great. But in a world where maybe the process gets scrutinized, it does say ordinance. So better safe than sorry. And we brought the actual ordinance.

It was like a formality because we've already approved it. It's a formality. They didn't change our recommendations.

It didn't change anything. So just quickly for new members. The 070 ordinance is to create a little bit more flexibility with the orientation now permitted for attached garages on a single-family home. The new code stipulates that an attached garage must sit three feet back from the front elevation of the house. This is an effort to allow for some different orientations of that. Let's see, 071. Yeah. We're simply changing the minimum spacing between fence boards from 1 and 5 eighths inch to 1 and 1 half inches. Big change there. So we're doing that because a lot of residents want to buy like a kind of a pre-made vinyl fencing product. And it's really limited choices with this 1 and 5 eighths dimension. So there's nothing nuanced with that. It's just people can't, they're struggling to find a vinyl product that meets that criteria. Let's see, 072. Okay, so in the new ordinance, we listed signage in the C2 community commercial zone. And the underlying zoning at Ethan's Green commercial area is C2. So for someone that understands that, you would understand that signage is allowed there. But the language in the code says that the signage isn't allowed in the PUD zone. So this is sort of clarifying. the way the code language was written to have no misunderstanding that signage is permitted at Heinen's and at the Dale Drive commercial properties. Again, I don't think that one's controversial. Okay, 073. This is allowing for the code enforcement official to remove signs in the public right-of-way, typically yard signs, be them political signs, pressure washing, garage sale, whatever. If you've placed them in the public right-of-way, we're saying we're going to remove those without notice, meaning we're going to drive by and put them in the trunk of the city car and put them here. at City Hall at Service Department, and if you want to pick them up, you can, but we're not sending you a letter saying you're in violation. We're just pulling them out of the ground. And then the other, the secondary part of this, 073, is to allow FedEx and UPS to deliver a violation letter for us. We're permitted to use certified mail in the code, that can be pretty slow. And so we'd like to be able to use a commercial service for that. It's adding that. And 074, this is one that I find to be embarrassing really. This is correcting the definition of cemetery. There was a cut and paste error essentially in the new code. The code drafter put There's child daycare center, there's cemetery right next to each other in the definitions. The child daycare center got put in the cemetery definition. And so this is asking to correct that.

No. No.

No.

All right, we'll just move right ahead to the regular meeting. First item on the regular meeting is approval of the April 20th, 26th minutes. Do we have a motion to approve?

So motion.

Second. Second. Move on to public participation. We have no public, so public participation. Item three, lot split and consolidation. Mr. Connolly, would you like to come up? else you want to add i think we figured out the back end of the property and the wonkiness of the property our lives on representations made by the air representatives lots this is a four and zero to zero better or or sixty four dash zero six ninety three sixty four zero zero six ninety four sixty four dash zero zero six ninety two sixty four dash zero zero six ninety five received Take stand and receive May 12, 2026. I move that the Planning Commission approve the lots with the following conditions. With a correction to parcel number 64-00692 on the consolidation survey map. The surveyor drew up and missed a zero. Do I have a second? Second. Second from Mr. Rall. Roll call, please.

Mr. Shebeck? Yes. Mr. Rall? Yes. Mr. Shipley?

Yes.

Mrs. Stewart? Yes. All right.

We've got four of them. Thank you. We'll move on to council then. Next item is the zoning tax amendments. I have a question that the commission is assuming has anything else they want to add on this discussion.

Yeah, and this is a recommendation to council to approve or deny.

recommends the adoption of the Ordinance 2026070, Ordinance 2026-071, Ordinance 2026-072, Ordinance 2026-073, and Ordinance 2026-074. Do you have a second? I'll second. Second. Mr. Shipley, roll call. Mr. Schubach. Yes.

Mr. Shipley?

Yes.

Mr. Wrong? Yes. Mrs. Stewart? Yes.

That brings us to communications in Miss Olney. Is Mr. Stewart available?

No.

The only thing I have is did we get a referral to the law director on the issue that was raised in the last meeting about the corporate hearing?

We did. I have asked him about it a couple times now, and he hasn't responded officially to that yet. I almost was going to forward you the email about the heading was also questioned on the public notice. We contacted our software provider. provider and they made that revision for us. Is that the BZA versus Planning Commission? The time permitted? Not the time permitted, but the point was also made that that Planning Commission public notice said Board of Zoning Appeals on the heading. Oh, okay. So those are being automatically somewhat generated for us at this point, which is lovely. But since we've had this new software, maybe since January, we haven't had that many public hearings for Planning Commission, so we didn't pick up on that, just to be honest. And, yeah, we would have known about that before the meeting. We could have republished it, but it was fine, and we have that corrected in the system. Right.

But before that, the... The 30 days? The 30 day. I was in Matt's office when he looked it up. Oh, okay. Because we did it prior to the council last month. Okay. Because I had sent him an email that day. You had sent him an email, and then he called me. Yeah. But I was in a finance meeting. So it is. He's correct, and we don't go by the state. I mean, that's what I... He printed it out in case someone questioned him. Yeah. Okay, but nobody okay.

I mean, that's what I came up with some that email and then I didn't hear anything then we Whoever I spoke with it was Lori or whomever. He didn't share that wisdom with me. But yeah So we're in compliance.

We're okay.

Yes following our Because we established through our zoning code and through our charter that those the zoning districts and those conditional uses are then we are authorized to establish the public hearing time frame for those conditional uses.

Yeah. Typically, the state sets their rule. You can go, you can make it shorter, but you can't make it longer.

Yeah.

You can't exceed the state statute.

Yeah.

Local governments can create their own. I just wanted a double check question.

just a shorter timeline now that we just put everything on our website. You know, you're not timing it to be in the newspaper. Yeah.

So... Yeah. Does it ship with you? No, I don't. Nothing?

Lynn? We should have a meeting in June. I have a couple items that are working their way through, so we should have a meeting. I'm hoping... Gosh, I was going to say by the end of the month, but we are getting there. I'm going to send you a full draft of the streetscape design documents that we have a consultant working on, and then we'll go over that in June. And I think we have a couple projects, simple projects, but I think we have a couple applications.

This confirmation is the 15th, right? June 15th. I have it on my calendar as well.

is it that's so it seems so early um yeah that's correct june 15th i have it in this 15th everything's early now with memorial day that's right nothing further for me thank you all right i need a motion to excuse mr hope i motion to excuse

We can call in. Mr. Shipley?

Yes.

Mrs. Stewart? Yes. Mr. Raw? Yes. Mr. Shebeck? Yes.

All right. We are adjourned.