Planning Commission approves Shepler Construction PUD for Lexington Village with fencing and drainage standards

The Logansport City Planning Commission on Feb. 6 approved Shepler Construction’s planned-unit development plan for Lexington Village (case 26-01), adopting specific standards on accessory-structure dimensions, fencing and drainage protections.

The hearing covered accessory-structure limits (one-story primary homes: accessory structures may not exceed 16 feet in height; two-story or taller primaries: accessory structures may not exceed 24 feet; accessory structures may not exceed the footprint square footage of the primary structure), a proposal to allow 6-foot privacy fencing for properties facing High Street and Yorktown Road so long as drainage requirements in the Lexington Village subdivision standard are met, and how corner lots should be handled.

Residents urged the commission to require better interim maintenance of undeveloped lots. William E. Pear of 204 Yorktown Road told commissioners the unsettled areas were effectively a long-term construction zone and urged upkeep: "It needs to look like a soccer field... it needs to be something that gets mowed and treated and cared for until a house gets put up there." Commissioners and staff said the Redevelopment Commission is the property owner responsible for routine maintenance and encouraged residents to raise the issue at that body’s meeting scheduled Feb. 19 at 11 a.m.

Staff and other speakers described engineered swales and elevations designed for storm events and cautioned that restoring topsoil or hauling in better topsoil would be expensive. One participant noted the design was prepared by technical consultants, saying the work was sized by "people with letters behind their names" to manage 100-year storm events. Speakers also noted a significant city investment in the development infrastructure.

Board members debated whether to set a fixed exception for certain corner lots that abut sidewalks or to continue to require those few owners to return to the commission for individual review. Several members favored keeping the code language as presented and requiring applicants for the approximately six corner lots to seek case-by-case review rather than adopting a broad exemption.

On a motion to bring the case to a vote, the commission recorded at least two affirmative roll-call statements (Jamie Harper: "Approve"; Aaron Shaver: recorded as in favor), and the chair announced: "Your case 26DashO1 has been approved." The chair also told attendees any committee decision may be appealed to the Logansport Common Council if a notice of appeal is filed within five days.

The commission did not adopt a uniform requirement forcing a single fence material for the entire subdivision, though members discussed allowing vinyl or iron-style options and planting buffers as a longer-term approach to creating a uniform appearance. The building code remains an enforcement tool to require repair if a fence becomes unsafe or falls into disrepair.

Next steps: the Redevelopment Commission (the owner/maintainer of the undeveloped lots) was identified as the appropriate venue for residents to press for interim seeding, grading or other maintenance; the city retained discretion to require individual fence proposals for the limited corner lots rather than incorporate a one-size-fits-all exception into the PUD standards.