Planning commission directs staff to draft PD, discusses rezoning options and accessory-structure setback changes

At a Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, commissioners and staff discussed drafting a planned development (PD) for Lot 1, rezoning options for Lots 2 and 3, and proposed changes to accessory-structure setbacks. Planning staff said they will prepare a new draft and schedule a public hearing as soon as possible.

The exchange centered on how to zone three contiguous parcels. Staff and participants discussed designating Lot 1 as a PD, reclassifying Lot 2 to R‑1 (residential), and leaving Lot 3 as General Business (GB) until access details are resolved with the state Department of Transportation (DOT). A participant who identified themself as the property owner said, “I own all the property. Okay. But not the business,” and staff said ownership-language in the PD would be clarified in the draft.

Commission members and participants raised spot‑zoning concerns if a single lot is rezoned to residential while surrounding parcels remain commercial. One participant said the site “is being used as a commercial use” in practice even if the zoning designation reads otherwise. Staff suggested treating Lot 2 as R‑1 to avoid lender and appraisal issues: lenders often look for comparable properties with the same zoning, and a PD designation on a single lot could complicate financing and appraisals.

Access for Lot 3 depends on DOT’s Highway 11 project. Staff reported that DOT has indicated potential access locations “generally in that area, 600 feet away,” but final DOT design will determine exact access points; staff said the placeholder zoning for Lot 3 gives flexibility to react to DOT’s final plan.

Staff discussed procedural options for the zoning record, saying a plan is staff’s preference over a measurement‑description legal text because a plan makes rezoning clearer for the public; staff asked how soon they could finalize the PD and noted the goal was to “hammer out all the details” ahead of a public hearing. A staff member summarized the next step: “We will create a new draft. I’ll email you over a draft once it’s done to look it over, and we will get it scheduled for a public hearing as soon as we can.”

The commission also reviewed a proposed amendment clarifying setbacks for attached accessory structures. Under current language, accessory structures must be 10 feet from the principal building and 5 feet from the property line. The amendment would treat attached accessory structures (for example, a deck) as subject to the principal building’s setbacks (the “buildable box”), except for open, unenclosed features less than 12 inches above grade. Staff said the change aims to remove ambiguity and to better account for topography in rowhouse/townhouse designs; commissioners asked staff to refine the text and consider how patios should be handled.

Commissioners briefly discussed related items including an overlay district and sign/billboard policies; staff recommended further discussion of the overlay before finalizing sign‑related changes. The commission also debated scheduling: members asked whether a quorum would be available for a July 3 meeting and whether notices already sent to the paper list the entire site as a PD; staff said they would try to avoid re‑notice delays where possible.

The meeting ended with a motion to adjourn, which passed by voice vote; the meeting was adjourned at 9:53 p.m.