The Plainfield Plan Commission met on Monday, November 2, 2009. In attendance were Mr. Satterfield, Mr. McPhail, Mr. Dunkin, Mr. Gibbs and Mr. Brandgard.
ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM
Mr. Carlucci administered the Roll Call.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Satterfield made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 5, 2009 Plainfield Plan Commission meeting as presented. Second by Mr. McPhail. Motion carried.
OATH OF TESTIMONY
Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Testimony.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mr. Gibbs reviewed the Guidelines Governing the Conduct of Public Hearings.
Mr. James said our first petition tonight is a request to amend the Sugar Grove assisted living detailed plan for the development plan to remove the clubhouse and horse barn riding stable. That was approved with the original plan. This project is being financed by HUD but HUD would not finance the clubhouse and the riding stable so that is why the request is before you tonight. The zoning and the original development plan was approved last year for the assisted living facility, which included 48 garden homes, 76 assisted living units and 40 memory care beds in the primary building. It was also approved with a separate clubhouse and then a horse barn with a riding stable as an amenity but as I mentioned HUD would not finance these. So, the Improvement Location Permit was approved with the clubhouse removed and the barn/riding stable removed with the condition that they bring this back to the Plan Commission amend the final detailed plan. In place of removing the clubhouse they will add a club room in the primary building, which one advantage is it will be close to the residence but it will function like the clubhouse where they will be able to hold special events in the club room. And then in place of the riding stable and barn they are going to do an amphitheater, which will have an outdoor lawn seating where they can have a special outdoor event. The Zoning Ordinance does allow the director to approve minor amendments to a PUD but in this case we thought it best to bring it back to the Plan Commission just to let you know what was going on. With that I will have a seat and Tony Schantz is here to answer any questions that you might have.
Mr. Tony Schantz at 4900 S. CR600E, Plainfield, IN 46168 said that is our business address.
Mr. Gibbs asked, do you have a presentation?
Mr. Schantz said what it boils down to if I can just talk frankly, is we were approved for 14.7 million dollar loan that consisted of two loans insured by HUD and mortgaged by Lancaster Power & Mortgage Company out of Columbus, Ohio. Unfortunately, when it came down to it, they would not finance detached buildings such as a clubhouse or the horse barn. As owners and representatives of our ownership group we don't have the cash to do that. I talked with Joe and said look we had a meeting with HUD and a meeting with our mortgage company and they liked the amenities that the clubhouse gave our residents so we compromised with the mortgage company and HUD. They said we will increase the loan value if you are able to move those amenities inside the main building because they wouldn't finance something that wasn't attached to our main building. So, we agreed with that and quickly got with our architect and changed the plans a little bit to create a club room, which is about the size of this room here that we are sitting in that will suffice to all of the amenities that our clubhouse was going to do. In terms of the horse barn/riding stable we are going to use the opened pasture space as an amphitheater area so we can have our gatherings for our residents and their families and friends. We can have an outdoor amphitheater area or a Christian rock band or high school performances on a removable stage. We can have it out in that pasture area and have some opened lawn seating for our residents underneath a nice tent. So, that is really how we traded off. Also, I think one thing that we forgot to mention is we are going to have a pitch and putt green for the residents where the clubhouse was going to be. So, I think all in all the site plan didn't change except for the amenities of the clubhouse and the riding stable, which I think what we came up with is a pretty good compromise given the circumstances of the banking industry. It was a traditionally financed property, it wouldn't have been an issue but since no one is lending for projects for this anymore we had to go through HUD. So, that is really our presentation.
Mr. Gibbs asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this petitioner either for or in opposition? Being no one coming forward I will close the public portion of this meeting and open it up to the board for further discussion or a possible motion.
Mr. Brandgard made a motion to approve DP-09-010 as filed by Tony Schantz requesting an amendment to the Final Detailed Plan for the Sugar Grove Senior Living PUD , development plan, standards and commitments to remove the clubhouse and horse barn/riding stable and replace them with a club room, amphitheater and putting green/chipping area finding that:
1. The Final Detailed Plan satisfies the development requirements and the development standards as specified in the PUD District ordinance establishing such district.
2. The Final Detailed Plan accomplishes the intent set forth in Article VI of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
3. The Final Detailed Plan provides for the protection or provisions of the site features and amenities outlined in Article 6,C.,2. of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
And that such approval be subject to the following condition:
1. Substantial compliance with the site plan file and development standards file dated September 17, 2009.
Second by Mr. McPhail. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Satterfield – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Dunkin – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – absent
Mr. Gibbs – yes
5-ayes, 0-opposed, 1-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Gibbs said the next item on the agenda is DP-09-012.
Ms. Sprague said this one is an amendment requested for the Forest Creek Village area of the Sugar Grove Farm Subdivision. They are requesting to change 3.4 acres from the two-family section to the Area “B”, which is the smallest single-family section. It wouldn't be completely changing the development standards but for the most part the property in the center on the north and the east is Area “A”, the two-family and then to the south and the west is the Area “B” so it would be next to some of the Area “B”.
There would have been 14 units on that area and they propose 11 single-family units instead. They have been having trouble with some of the requests. Some of the people will ask for a slightly wider home and they find that they can't fit among the smaller lots that the two-family homes are allowed to have especially in the cul-de-sacs where the fronts of the lots are pretty narrow. The single development standards would allow for larger lots and would also require larger homes. They do request leaving the reduced size garages to 400 square feet instead of the 484, which was approved previously for the two-family area because those are maintenance free homes. Also, they would like to maintain the 40% lot coverage that is allowed on the two-family home lots again in order to help them fit some of the requested homes on those lots.
The architectural standards they don't propose to change those from the PUD although they did again have a previous commitment that they made to maintain a brick wrap and they still propose to do that on these homes as well. We received plans for all of the homes, which are basically just one of the duplexes with an opened side. They all meet the requirements. I do have a couple of samples but the pictures are better on the samples that you have.
Currently there is only one home that borders this area and those folks did have to be noticed and I checked through the notices and we did get a green card from them. So, basically most buyers that will come in after the fact if this change is approved hopefully will be aware of it. Adams and Marshall had a meeting on October 13th with some of the residents out there and they said that there was no remonstrance at that meeting. That was one of the requests for DRC and I know the petitioner is here if you have any questions.
Mr. Bill Blake said I live in Indianapolis and I'm just here from Adams and Marshall as the builder if you have any questions and would be happy to answer them. We have worked closely with Jill and Joe to work through this process. As she mentioned we do build what we call active adult homes. They are maintained communities and we provide the lawn mowing and the snow removal through the association. We have had a lot of people that really like that lifestyle but they want a bigger home that we can offer on the parent patio homes. So, with the cul-de-sac it was kind of an opportunity that when you try to put parent homes around a cul-de-sac, you get into some difficulty trying to make it look right. So, it was kind of a win win we thought to take those homes apart and have a little bit bigger home and at the same time a more appealing streetscape. So, that is why we are here. As she mentioned it is actually a loss of density and it is going to raise the price of the lots and the home values in that area but it is still the same buyers. We are not trying to attract a different audience.
Mr. Brandgard asked, why do we need to reduce the garage size?
Mr. Blake said as Joe mentioned it has already been reduced in the parent section. The reason that it was reduced is because we are providing snow removal. I think it is trying to avoid sheds. Since they don't have to have lawnmowers and snow shovels so it is already that way today. We are just asking to continue that.
Mr. McPhail asked, what is the requirement now?
Mr. James said twenty-four.
Mr. Blake said the other areas, Area “B”, they do their own lawn mowing and snow removal so they won't have snow blowers or other items that they would want to store. Joe reminded me that we do have a bonus room feature that people can add a storage area over the garage, which also helps with storage. We actually have a storage option and then we also have a bonus room option. They can put a stairway in and we beef up the trusses. Storage is a big thing with our buyers.
Mr. Gibbs asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak in favor or in opposition to this petition? Being no one coming forward I will close the public portion of this hearing and open it up to the board for further discussion or a possible motion.
Mr. McPhail said in the flyers there are about three of these models the garage will have to be expanded somewhat on these plans. Nineteen by 19 x 11 is about 400 square feet. I think three of these don't have a garage big enough. I don't have any problems with the changes that you are requesting but we do need to maintain that garage size.
Mr. James said we will check the garage size when the building plans are submitted and make sure that they are at least 400 square feet.
Mr. McPhail said I have a question Joe in your proposed motion. It says all single-family units may have a minimum 400 square foot garage if the community remains maintenance free. I don't like the word “if” in there. It is my understanding that they are not requesting to remove the maintenance free.
Ms. Sprague said yes you are right they are not.
Mr. James said (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail made a motion that the Plan Commission approve DP-09-012 as filed by Sugar Grove Farms, LLC requesting Final Detailed Plan approval to allow 3.4 acres to be converted from the Area “A” standards to Area “B” standards:
1. The Final Detailed Plan satisfies the development requirements and the development standards as specified in the PUD District ordinance establishing such district.
2. The Final Detailed Plan accomplishes the intent set forth in Article VI of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
3. The Final Detailed Plan provides for the protection or provisions of the site features and amenities outlined in Article 6,C.,2. of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
And that such approval be subject to the following conditions:
1. Substantial compliance with the site plan, building elevations and building renderings file dated October 15, 2009.
2. All single-family units shall be constructed with a brick wrap.
3. All single-family units may have a minimum 400 square feet garage.
Mr. Daniel said I just noticed something else too Mr. McPhail. It says “may have a minimum”. That probably should be “shall have”.
Mr. McPhail said yes. We will change that to “shall have a minimum 400 square foot garage”.
Mr. Brandgard made a second to the motion. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Satterfield – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Dunkin – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – absent
Mr. Gibbs – yes
4-ayes, 0-opposed, 1-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Brandgard said before we leave the subject, and this has nothing to do with this one directly, a few months ago we had a group in concerned about the path system.
Mr. James said they have met with the homeowners and I believe Republic has agreed to move the path. If that is the case, we may have to bring the PUD back to the Plan Commission again to take that out of the preliminary plan.
OLD BUSINESS/NEW BUSINESS
Mr. James said I have two invitees to the Plan Commission for violations. The first one is 920 Walton Drive. The owner of the house had these items stored in the front yard for a couple of months now and there is high grass and weeds and an inoperable vehicle on the property. Out of all of the notices that I have sent I have never received any contact. The property owner is listed as Donna Brown. I'm not sure if Ms. Brown is present tonight. So, we need to get these items removed from the property.
Ms. Donna Brown said I now reside at 927A Pinewood Drive in Plainfield in Stafford Pointe. The home went into foreclosure and the car has been gone since mid September. I did try to send you an e-mail and it came back saying it could not be sent. I have the paperwork all here and everything should you have any questions. Right now I'm trying to catch up on bills that I have been behind on since last December because of everything going on in the foreclosure. Right now I have no money. I got a printout today from my bank. If you will look at the last page, you will see that even though I had a payday last Friday I'm still unemployed. I tried three times and talked to a gentleman that picks up trash and has picked up trash for us before and taken it away. All I know is his first name is Leon. He seems to be a nice gentleman but, of course, he wants money to be able to take it away and I don't have it right now. Like I said the car has been gone since September. My son sold it. Most of the metal that is showing there, the red and everything, Leon had already picked that up and took it and scrapped it and got money for it but he did not take the rest of it because I didn't have $75.00.
Mr. Carlucci asked, what kind of material is up there that still needs to be removed?
Ms. Brown said it is some couches.
Mr. James said I think there were a lot of shelves.
Mr. Carlucci said I can find a truck and a couple of able bodied people. We have a heavy trash pickup every year. You missed it but if you don't mind, we will pick up the stuff with a couple of volunteers, I'm not saying who, and we will clean it up and put it in the dumpster if that will help out.
Ms. Brown said yes sir it would; thank you very much.
Mr. James asked, are these items that you want to get rid of?
Ms. Brown said yes sir.
Mr. Daniel asked, is there anyone occupying the property now Mrs. Brown?
Ms. Brown said no sir. I have been informed that the gentleman next door is storing his pickup truck under the carport. I'm assuming to make everyone assume that someone is still living there but I have the summons for going to court over the house and everything.
Mr. Daniel said but if the Town came out there, there wouldn't be any problem with them picking that up?
Ms. Brown said no sir there would be no problem whatsoever and I would appreciate it so very much.
Mr. Gibbs said it sounds like a good solution; thank you Ms. Brown for coming.
Mr. James said our second invitee is 1025 Kirkwood Drive. There is an inoperable vehicle right here I think and some junk, trash and debris on the side of the house. There are weeds between the vehicle and the boat. There are some high grass and weeds back here. I haven't received any contact for this property either. It is in Cynthia and Richard Thorne's name. Is there anyone here representing the Thorne's for this property? (No one came forward).
Mr. Gibbs asked, so you have not heard from them either?
Mr. James said no contact.
Mr. Daniel asked, are you getting a return on your mailings? Is someone signing for it?
Mr. James said I don't believe they did sign for them. In fact, I delivered one notice myself and left it in the door.
Mr. Daniel asked, is someone living there?
Mr. James said yes. I don't know if it is a rental or if the Thorne's are the actual residents.
Mr. Gibbs asked, have we started the fining process?
Mr. James said no. I can have a CSO officer tag the vehicle and get it towed. Of course, the other vehicle would have to be moved.
Mr. Brandgard asked, have you sent the letters out?
Mr. James said yes certified mail. I just get them returned with no signatures.
Mr. Daniel said one possibility would be to have the CSO officer take them out there and actually go and have somebody appear there and find out who they are so that he can come back and report that they have actually been served with a notice. Sometimes we have used the police department to do that as well.
Mr. Brandgard said (inaudible).
Mr. Daniel said I think so because they are used to doing that and they can sign an affidavit. They know what to do to make sure that somebody gets served and know that there is an issue here.
Mr. McPhail said I think that is the proper approach. We could have the one vehicle tagged couldn't we?
Mr. Daniel said yes.
Mr. Carlucci asked, are you talking about the one in the back or the garage?
Mr. James said this vehicle is never moved. I'm pretty sure it is probably inoperable.
Mr. Carlucci said you can't drag it across someone else's yard to do it.
Mr. McPhail said but you can tag it. Even if you can't get to it, you can tag it and they know that it has been tagged. The other vehicle would have to be moved before they can get it out.
Mr. James said they did park a green pickup truck on the street.
Mr. McPhail asked, is the blue car moved?
Mr. James said probably.
Mr. Gibbs asked, has the boat ever been moved?
Mr. James said the boat is never moved.
Mr. Brandgard asked, where is Kirkwood?
Mr. James said it is at the end of Gary. So, I will have the CSO tag this vehicle.
Mr. Brandgard said have the police serve notice.
Mr. James said okay.
Mr. Carlucci said have a police officer do this.
Mr. James said alright that is what we'll do. That is all that we have for tonight.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Brandgard made a motion to adjourn. Second by Mr. Satterfield. Motion carried.
