Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJPC September 26, 2023 MINUTES OF THE JEFFERSONVILLE PLAN COMMISSION September 26, 2023 Call to Order Board President Mike McCutcheon calls to order the Plan Commission meeting. It is Tuesday, September 26, 2023, it is 5:30 pm in the City Council Chambers, Jeffersonville City Hall, 500 Quartermaster Ct., Jeffersonville, Indiana. The meeting was held in person and streamed live on the City's website and City's Facebook page. Roll Call Board President Mike McCutcheon and board members Duard Avery, Chris Bottorff, Bill Burns, and Joe Paris were present in the City Council Chambers. Also present were Planning & Zoning Attorney Les Merkley, Planning and Zoning Director Chad Reischl, and Secretary Zachary Giuffre. David Schmidt and Steve Webb were absent at the time of roll call. (Secretary's Note: All plat maps, public letters, photos, etc. presented before the Plan Commission on this date can be found in the office of Planning & Zoning.) Approval of Minutes Approval of the minutes from July 25, 2023. Mr. Bottorff made a motion to approve the July, 2023 minutes, seconded by Mr. Burns. Roll Call vote. Motion passed 5-0. Approval of the Docket Motion to approve the agenda made by Mr. Burns, seconded by Mr. Paris. Roll call vote. Motion passed 5-0. Old Business None New Business PC-23-18 Rezoning Chase Murphy Enterprises Inc. filed a Rezoning application for 1021 Kehoe Lane. The current zoning is R2 (Single Family Residential: Medium Lot); the proposed zoning is R3 (Single Family Residential: Small Lot). The Docket Number is PC-23-18. Harold Hart stated the following: • I am with Hart surveying and engineering. • The property is situated on the Coots subdivision. • The existing 4 lots are only 25ft in width. • We are asking for a rezoning so that we can do a minor plat. Chad Reischl stated the applicant is looking to create 3 34ft-wide residential lots. We toyed with getting variances; however, we felt like this would be a much easier process if the applicant rezoned to R3. There is R3 across the road, and the R2 lots in the area are almost of an R3 size anyway. This project is consistent with our planning recommendations. 1 Open Public Comment No comment. Close Public Comment Mr. Burns made a motion for a favorable recommendation, seconded by Mr. Paris. Roll Call vote. Motion passed 5-0. ZO-23-04 Text Amendment The Department of Planning & Zoning submitted a text amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance for recommendation to the City Council. The proposed amendment is to revise a portion of Article 8 to add standards for Electric Vehicle Charging Stations. The Docket Number is ZO-23-04. Planner Shane Shaughnessy stated the following: • We have gotten several inquiries from developers concerning developments integrating electric vehicle charging stations. • The state of Indiana has recently allocated $100 million to subsidize electric vehicle charging stations. • Currently, we have no way to classify what an electric vehicle charging station is. As such, we have no way of permitting these structures. • There are four classification types o Type A, residential stations, would only be found in residential zone districts and only require an electric permit. o Type B, slow charging stations, would be allowed in all zoning districts except R1, R2, R3, R4, and M1. These would require a building permit. The stations would be subject to additional standards such as parking space width, lighting standards, etc. These stations allow for interaction with the surrounding businesses. o Type C, fast charging stations, would only be allowed in C1, C2, I1, 12, and CH. This is something that a fast-food establishment would have. o The fourth classification, stand-alone EV stations, are free-standing stations. These stations would require that additional development standards, such as landscaping and signage, are met. • These standards are subject to change in the future. Mr. Avery asked do electric vehicle stations have to be a mile apart? The gas stations are subject to this rule. Shane Shaughnessy stated no they would not be treated the same as gas stations. Mr. McCutcheon asked would the stations be allowed in the public right-of-way? Shane Shaughnessy stated stations would not be allowed in the public right-of-way. If the location is in a parking lot, that is up to the property owner. Mr. Burns asked if I am putting in 5 stations instead of 50 stations, would there be a difference in costs? 2 Mr. Merkley stated this would be just like any other electrical permit. Chad Reischl stated I am not worried about Meijer or a building with a physical address installing an electric charging station. We wanted to get ahead of someone trying to put an electric vehicle charging station on an empty piece of land and using it solely for charging. Mr. McCutcheon stated I think we have to have regulations for these stations. Open Public Comment No comment. Close Public Comment Mr. Burns made a motion for a favorable recommendation, seconded by Mr. Bottorff. Roll Call vote. Motion passed 5-0. ZO-23-05 Text Amendment The Department of Planning & Zoning submitted a text amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance for recommendation to the City Council. The proposed amendment is to revise portions of Articles 3, 6, 7, 9, and 12 and add Appendix D to the UDO. The Docket Number is ZO-23-05. Chad Reischl stated the following: • It has been over 2 years since we have adopted the UDO and we have corrected several errors in the past. Perhaps it makes sense to do an annual update to the Unified Development Ordinance. This can be considered the first annual update. • Article 3 c We recently learned that our code was not in line with federal regulations such as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act(RLUIPA). Churches should be allowed in zone districts where other public gatherings are allowed. Churches are now a permitted use in Cl and C2. c Our current impervious surface calculation system for residential lots has different thresholds. Smaller lots get less square footage of impervious surface than larger lots. We have made the lot coverage a linear regression for certain zone districts. This formula is based on the lot size rather than the zone district. We have run this calculation hundreds of times on many cases in the past year. • Article 6 c We have observed that there were notes regarded platting that were included in the minor platting process and the primary platting process that were not included in the secondary platting process. • We have added clarifications on Common Areas. o We have created cross-access standard clarifications for adjacent developments. o We have added sidewalk fee-in-lieu language. o We have added detailed language about cluster boxes. • Article 7 o We have allowed attached carports not to count towards the maximum accessory structure number. A carport is really no different than an attached garage in some cases. o We have added that large structures located in front yards of corner lots must be clad in the same materials as the primary structure. o We have repeated the cross-access standards found in Article 6. • We have changed a few parking standards for car-related uses. • Article 9 3 We have added that fences and sidewalks must come into compliance when redeveloping a site. • Article 12 We have clarified a number of definitions. • Appendix D We have worked with Engineering to clarify which streets are arterial and which streets are local, and created a map showing those classifications. Mr. McCutcheon stated having a fluid UDO is important. Mr. Burns stated, do we send notices to predominant companies about Unified Development Ordinance changes? Chad Reischl stated we do not do that usually; however, we will notify the relevant parties. Mr. Bottorff asked, under Article 7, there are rules that stipulate that there is 1 per service bay plus 1 per 500sf of the primary structure, will there be a bunch of variances generated from changes to these standards? Chad Reischl stated all existing companies would be grandfathered in. This parking requirement is for customers and staff. This specific requirement does not govern the parking for inventory. Open Public Comment No comment. Close Public Comment Mr. Paris made a motion for a favorable recommendation, seconded by Mr. Burns. Roll Call vote. Motion passed 5-0. Administrative Review Update None Adjournment There being no further business to come before the Plan Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 6:04 pm. /liV Mike McCutcheon, Chair Zachary Giuffre, Secretary 4