PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
For February 1, 2010, 7:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER Mr. Gibbs: I would like to call to order the February 1, 2010, planning commission meeting. Mr. Carlucci, would you pull the board to determine the quorum?
ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM Mr. Carlucci:
Mr. Satterfield is absent tonight
Mr. McPhail- here
Mr. Brandgard- here
Mr. Dunkin- here
Mr. Kirchoff is absent tonight
Mr. Gibbs- here
We have four members present; we have a quorum for the purpose of conducting business.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mr. Gibbs: Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES- December 7, 2009 & January 4, 2010
Mr. Gibbs: I'm assuming everyone's had an opportunity to review December 7th planning commission minutes. If so I will hear a motion.
Mr. Dunkin: So move
Mr. McPhail: Second.
Mr. Gibbs: I have a motion by Mr. Dunkin, second by Mr. McPhail. All those in favor signify by saying aye, opposed. Motion carries.
Mr. Gibbs: And the January 4, 2010.
Mr. Brandgard: I move that we approve the minutes from the January 4, 2010 Plan Commission as presented.
Mr. McPhail: Second.
Mr. Have a motion by Mr. Brandgard, seconded by Mr. McPhail. All those in favor signify by saying aye, opposed, motion is carried.
OATH OF TESTIMONY Mr. Gibbs: All those wishing to make a presentation tonight, will need to take a testimony.
Mr. Daniel: Conducted the Oath of Testimony.
Mr. Gibbs: It looks like nobody in the public at least making a presentation, so we'll go the format of governing our (inaudible).
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Amendment to Plainfield Comprehensive plan- Adoption of Carter's Neighborhood Plan by resolution
Mr. Gibbs: Mr. James, we'll turn the agenda over to you.
Mr. James: Good evening, the only item we have tonight for official
action is the Carter's Neighborhood Plan, you reviewed the (inaudible)
back at the December Plan Commission meeting. This is a map of what we
call Carter's Neighborhood, it's actually made up of several
subdivisions that were platted (inaudible) years ago. The boundaries
are Main Street, Avon Avenue, Vandalia trail and the White Lick Creek?
Mr. Brandgard: Joe, I appreciate you putting that in, it really helps
to find the area.
Mr. James: This is a systematic map Jill put together, it shows how
this neighborhood was created over the years. It (inaudible) as the
town grew so it's a pretty diverse area in the neighborhood. It was
one of the first areas to be platted. 2000 census population estimated
about 12,009. Planning process began back in August of 2009 when we
mailed out a survey to residents and property owners. Then we had our
first public meeting back in September. We've had three public
meetings, including the September meeting where we prioritized issues
and then we developed goals and objectives and action plan to implement
to resolve the issues. This is an amendment to the conference of plans
so we have to pass this by a resolution. Here is some of the goals and
objectives for the sidewalks create a master plan and improve property
conditions, better enforcement a volunteer program through police
presence, they are interested in creating a crime watch program,
improve town center for doing with the US 40 Street Scape plan and the
Facade improvement program and also the Indiana Main Street program
that we got going and in fact they had a work session Saturday at the
Rec Center for about four hours were they developed four committees met
and they worked on several issues, (inaudible) issues, we've already
done some sewer improvements in the neighborhood and our plans for more
sewer projects, it improves the alleys. Working on the alley master
plan. We talked to Public Works about snow removal and other items we
can do, improve street lighting, improve street signs, and replace
trees. Town Engineer, Tim Belcher is working on that and other things
we can do to improve curves. One of the primary efforts that come out
of this is getting the neighborhood together so they can create a
Neighborhood Association, create that grass roots effort, then they can
come to the Plan Commission with the Town Council with one voice to
work on some of these issues to make sure these plans getting
implemented and then other major effort for this area, re-develop the
northern area by rezoning or getting developers involved so we can
clean up that area. So in a nutshell that's the plan so what we need
tonight is the adoption of the plan by resolution and we will take it
to the Town Council, they will need to adopt it by resolution then it
will become a working component of our comprehensive plan. That's all
I have tonight, I'm not sure if any of the members are here in the
audience to comment on the plan or not. With that I will have a seat.
Ms. Sprague: I think the last time we talked about this, I was asked
to check to see how many of the homes in the neighborhood were rentals.
Unfortunately I can figure that out at the block section rather than
the block group. At least one of the blocks includes like half of
subdivision to the north. No, north of the ridgeline, ridgeline
estates half of ridgeline estates is included in there and I thought
that would skew the results so I didn't report those (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail: Jill, do you know what the regional time table is on
The skewer separation in that part of town?
Mr. James: Tim, our Town Engineer, Tim Belcher said it was in the
five year plan.
Mr. McPhail: Looking at the plan, the two issues that stood out to me
is getting that sewer work done eventually, and they talked about the
alley's being, the elevation raised, you know, we got to take those
alley's done and do something that's supposed to be more expensive than
us just going in there and repaving in there. Trying to pave them, I
think that aught to be taken care of with the sewer problem. If I
remember right a lot of the sewers are in the alley's. So I would
think that project in itself; sewer's should pretty much solve some of
those alley problems, maybe not all of them, but some of them.
Mr. Brandgard: Yeah, this is a good point (inaudible) I think we can
accomplish a lot of it, again like you said with the separation of the
sewer system (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail: I'd like to make one more comment, in this past Sunday's
Indianapolis Star they had a home finders section and there was a home
in that neighborhood that was a featured story of that home finders
magazine and the remodeling that they've done on it.
Mr. James: Something I wanted to add on that, I sent around the email
last week that DNR did approve the historic district so that will be
sent onto the National Parks Service and hopefully that will be
approved in about 45 days and once that's approved that the home
owners, some of the home owners that are in the district in this
neighborhood will be eligible for tax incentives and reductions to make
improvements to their property.
Mr. Carlucci: Joe, your meeting on Saturday was there a good turn out?
Ms. Sprague: I think I counted, there were about 13 people I don't
remember off the top of my head it was pretty close to that, so it was
a little lower than I had hoped. But we got a lot of good information
and had some discussion and so.
Mr. Carlucci: You have a chairman correct?
Ms. Sprague: We do, we have a chairman of our board and then we have
four committees in each and there is a chairperson for each of the
committees.
Mr. Gibbs: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this adoption? If not I will close the public portion of this
meeting and get a motion from the board?
Mr. Brandgard: With that, I move that we adopt the CP-10-01 Town of
Plainfield- Amendment to Plainfield Comprehensive plan- Adoption of
Carter's Neighborhood Plan by resolution.
Mr. McPhail: Second.
Mr. Gibbs: I have a motion from Mr. Brandgard, and seconded by Mr.
McPhail.
Mr. Gibbs: Mr. Carlucci, would you please pull the board?
PETITIONS FOR PUBLIC HEARING
CP-10-01 Town of Plainfield-
Mr. Satterfield is absent
Mr. McPhail- yes
Mr. Brandgard- yes
Mr. Dunkin- yes
Mr. Kirchoff is absent tonight
Mr. Gibbs- yes
We have four ayes, two absent, one vacancy the motion carries.
Mr. Gibbs: Thank you.
Mr. Daniel: Joe, are you going to prepare a resolution for them to
sign at the next meeting?
Mr. James: I've got it.
Mr. Daniel: Oh good.
Mr. James: That concludes our public hearing portion of tonights
meeting.
OLD BUSINESS/ NEW BUSINESS
● TA-10-01 Town of Plainfield amendments to the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance: 1) creation of new zoning district MUN Municipal Use District; and 2) amend Article 7.4.5 to add standards for wall signs on architectural features.
Mr. James: Now we will move onto our new business and old business. Got some new business, in the packet I sent you a memo and proposed Amendments for the zoning ordinance. These two proposed amendments, one was amendment to article 74 regards to building identification signs and how we regulate the size of signs on wall signs when there is an architectural feature involved. We amended the zoning ordinance a couple of years ago so that we created these façade planes, where, when you have a particular façade plain instead of using the whole façade. But when we did that it created issues for these façade plains in architectural feature like a tower or a gable and you actually had to take two of these to the BZA to grant variances for Hardee's their new remodel wall signing on that tower feature. The other one was for the State Bank of Lizton, they want to put signs in their new redesigned Gables on the front facing and rear. BZA did grant those two variances. We've gone back and looked at the ordinance and then offered these this article 7.4; we added the language that total sign surface of all building and size except those located on buildings that architectural feature included but not limited too gables and towers,and then we are going to restrict the size of the sign in these architectural features to 50% of that area in that architectural feature and the linear width cannot exceed by 95%. I think in the variances that were granted one of the signs was at 44%, I think it was at 96% linear width so we used those two variances as bench marks when we looked at this amendment. Then the second amendment is a promotion to create a new zoning district would be the Municipal Use District, this came about because the Department of Public Works they need to do an addition to the maintenance garage down on south center street. But that is zoned R-1 of single family residential, and actually it is a legal non conforming use in the R-1 district because it was grandfathered in and to do any expansion in there, now they have to goback to the BZA and get a special exception so talking to Tim, thoughtit would be a good idea to create a new zoning district that would permit many of the Government and Town services as a permitted useMunicipal Use District and then we patterned it this district after the Religious Use District the Park District and the School District, whereif they had to do any expansions for any of these land uses instead of coming back to the BZA doing a special exception every time, they would submit a master plan to the plan commission and that would take care of all of the expansions and then once the master plan is approved all they would need is just an improvement location permit to move forward with these expansions, that's how this district came about and some of these uses could have a negative impacts to surrounding residential uses we left in that it probably would be a good idea for them to go to BZA to get a special exception, that would allow for any public comment for any surrounding property owners and also we added that it would probably be a good idea to create a buffer yard for some of the uses next to residential districts. This would be uses like the water treatment plant, recycling point, commercial landfill, or refuge dump; those are some uses that could have a negative impact next to surrounding residential.
Mr. Carlucci: You got those under special uses?
Mr. James: Yes, special exceptions and they would also require a buffer yard.
Mr. Carlucci: I'm just wondering if the landfill, (inaudible) special exception typically means you can find a way to agree with the other party with restrictions you can go in there, wouldn't you think something like that would be a use variance?
Mr. James: Yes, surrounded by a special exception in the R-4 district.
Mr. Daniel: Rich, I think your point is I think it is, I'm not even sure it is a public (inaudible) use (inaudible). Municipal just leave it in
Mr. James: Just strike it out and leave it in the I-4?
Mr. Daniel: Yes, leave it in the I-4.
Mr. Carlucci: This (inaudible) district is just for Municipal Use. So you need to go through there and not make sure we're not putting something in there that wouldn't (inaudible). It's not likely, but (inaudible) you never know.
Mr. James: For your review take a look at them and you can email me any comments if you'd like.
Mr. McPhail: I've got a question on this sign thing, if I understand is what you are saying is that an architectural featured stands out from that basic building then we will allow a different way of measuring that sign, but it what I want to make sure is that we wouldn't allow a bigger sign there than we allow something with a straight face (inaudible) so we got that covered?
Mr. James: Yes.
Mr. McPhail: I thought I read that in there, but sometimes can't interpret these like you can. Signs are our biggest issue and I don't want to make it more complicated than it is.
Mr. Gibbs: So James do you want all of these comments emailed back to you before our next meeting?
Mr. James: Yes, please, if you have time too.
Mr. McPhail: I do believe this Municipal Use is a good idea and something we need to do.
Mr. Carlucci: We have a history with these kinds of districts because we've done one for parks, schools, and churches.
Mr. McPhail: It's worth it so.
Mr. James: I did some research on the internet looking at some other zoning ordinances and Franklin had a similar district, but they called it their Institutional District.
And then I emailed you Thursday or Friday of last week another proposed amendment, I'll pass this out. This has to do with the Design Review Committee our 10.5 of our zoning ordinance, it for some reason on the back page number five, under duties and powers was not included in the zoning ordinance, it is in the rules of procedures, it gives the director the authority to take other petitions like an improvement location permit or a zone map change, primary plat to the DRC for review. This came up with the Old Wal-Mart # 2 issue. Now, I'll go over that in more detail later. So this would just match what is in our rules and procedures. That's all I have as far as a proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance.
● Plan Commission Fee Schedule Update Analysis-Proposed and new Plan Commission fees
Mr. James: Our next item is the Fee Schedule update analysis; it's been almost five years since the last Fee Schedule update was done. The last was done in August of 2005, since 2006 fee revenue has decreased 72% we do need some new fees. We currently don't have in the fee schedule, fees like a re-plat IOP amendment, or a PUD amendment. In the analysis I compared Plainfield fees to Hendricks County communities and then some Indy area, Indianapolis area communities, did a development impact analysis, and how the fees would the fees impact small and large developments. With regards to what the developer would pay, and need protected revenue from increased fees analysis so should fees be increased and how much? The fee comparison analysis compared to the Hendricks County communities, 29% of Plainfield's fees were lower, 35% were mid range, and 35% were higher. But half of all of the higher fees were signed permit fees. Compared to the Indianapolis area communities, 56% fees were lower, 27% were mid range, and 16% were higher, and most of those are signed permit fees. Compared to Hendricks County increased fees are recommended rezones primary plats and BZA petitions note; no increases recommended for IOP's and signed permits. The developer cost analysis, we compared the Hendricks County average to the proposed fees by an average of the Hendricks County fees and then we determined a percentage change for small and large projects. Small projects were projects with 10 acres or 10 units; a large project is a project with a hundred acres or a hundred units. All for all, we compared 26 fees for a small project two fees increased over 100% those were omitted commitments and annexations which we don't have right now. For large projects seven fees were increased over 100%, three fees actually decreased for small projects and four decreased for large projects. Four out of six BZA fees were increased but then all the BZA fees were still less than Hendricks County average. The projected revenue analysis we took the first half to 2007 and compared the actual fees to the new fees and using the new fees revenue would increase 81% and the smallest increase from the use variances at 14% and the largest came from primary plats at over 200%. So to summarize the analysis out of fifty fees we recommend increasing 30%, leaving 60% unchanged, modifying one fee and removing four fees and then adding ten new fees. Ten new fees that we would add, we get a lot of requests for a zoning letter that takes some staff time. We will charge $25.00 for each request annexations Plainfield does not charge for annexations but many communities do, copies or, right now we don't charge for copies, people come in and we make copies for them. That would be one way to re-coop the paper expense. Signed planned amendment we don't have that right now. The re-plat we don't have that. The development plan amendment right now we would just charge the full price for the amendment or a re-plat, same with the PUD amendment and a primary plat amendment, and an IOP amendment. Minute commitments and text amendments, we don't have fees for those. (Inaudible) table for you. On all those tables I gave you were pretty large and a lot to take in. When I condensed the fees on that table, these are just fees that are proposed for increase for new fees and then I compared it to our existing fees the proposed new fees and then Brownsburg and Hendricks County, because our fees closely resemble their fees more than any other of the Hendricks County communities. And then the other table on the end, that's for the Indiana area communities, includes either the highest fee that they charge or a range of low fees and then the highest fee that they charge. So take a look at that table and the proposed zoning ordinance, just take a look at the analysis and if you've got any comments, please just email those to me and I'll take them under consideration. With that if you've got any comments.
Mr. Brandgard: If you go back to your fees chart. (Inaudible) The only issue I have with all of this is regarding for annexations, when people come in and ask for various reasons if they just want to be annexed with and be a part of the Town. (Inaudible) depending on the size (inaudible) annexation. If there is somebody that the Town is supporting to ask them to ask to annex for one reason or another and it's a large area that again can be detour ant to coming in and asking to be annexed. So I have a little concern with, again understand where we are going here, our funding is very limited due to the State of Legislature, the Governor has done so we've got to look at our fee structure other and other things, but at the same time, we don't want to do anything that's going to be negative to things happening.
Mr. James: Well, just to give you comparison, Brownsburg charges $50.00 for an annexation and that is just more like administrative fee and the Indianapolis area communities they charge anywhere from $50.00 to $300.00 plus $5.00 per acre.
Mr. Carlucci: They do mostly annexations. At our cost (inaudible) our cost is we have to have typically the developer doesn't have the (inaudible) there are other documents with that. The other document at the end of it when the final ordinance is approved to record the ordinance so there is a fee that we have to pay to do that. I'm not trying to take sides here, But the Council, Town Council this is what they (inaudible) that will be fine, if they said they wanted it that would be fine too.
Mr. Brandgard: All I'm doing is, I'm just bringing it up, I think there probably aught to be some charge because there is stuff that we have to do (inaudible) but we are not going (inaudible) we are going to discourage somebody from coming in and asking for the annexation. If they do they can do it where they are at.
Mr. McPhail: I suppose they could be if you were where we would solicit the annexation.
Mr. Brandgard: Well, I suppose it would get the Town to just use the annexation but the Town needs to be, if somebody comes in and asks to be annexed, that's (inaudible)
Mr. Carlucci: We've done a lot of, if I thought $50.00 was going to make or break the town, I'd probably say we aught to do it, and we've come a long way because we've done a lot of annexations. We took a stand, (inaudible) if we just stuck with $50.00, that's not going to make a difference. Because our costs are higher than that anyway. If you want to get into the true cost of the annexation, take the time that I spend on it with (inaudible)engineering, usually has to provide, cost of recording, you would do all that, if you really want to do that this might be one area maybe it's worth while just not worrying about the annexation fee, because we've gone from 3.1 square miles (inaudible) to 21-22 square miles so I don't know, like I said, it maybe better just to, well, it's up to the Plan Commission if we are going to leave that in or recommend it as opposed to the Town Council, but my situation doesn't help the annexations over the years. We've done some annexations that were actually pretty costly for us, but they were costly in a positive way, that any facts substantial doings to the Town.
Mr. McPhail: You know, when I look at these fees, normally an annexation normally is either, is someone wants to develop land and we are going to go through all these other processes anyway. But we very well could have an annexation where you just want to bring it in the town with no changes, and I'm not sure that's fair to the property owner put a hefty fee on there.
Mr. Carlucci: Well, you remember the annexation we did way north and east of the town. Where the mulch area was, nothing happened. And they did go through the annexation and our (inaudible) and sent us letters saying they wanted to be annexed because they thought a project was going to go through that, did not go through that. So that might be where the situation where you can hurt someone. And you know I was involved in copying all that land over six months off and on, trying to convince him to do it and he understood it and he wouldn't do it. But that is a (inaudible) situation that we are talking about. However if the land does develop, we do pick up all those other fees.
Mr. Brandgard: Well, you know where I'm at, $100.00 (inaudible) $5.00 per acre, you got a 400 acre plot, that's another $2,000.00 your adding onto it, and depending upon where that individual lives, that can be enough to say I'm not going to do that, they go where they won't charge anything. If we're going to do it, I (inaudible) $50.00 or a minimum charge of something.
Mr. McPhail: I'd personally just like to just forget it.
Mr. Brandgard: It puts the town, (inaudible) the State is supposed to be the rock in a hard spot, and how do you get to do what you need to do? And at the same time, you got to put something out there I suppose to stop. They could have potential to stop them from doing something like that. We could always come back and change it.
Mr. Carlucci: Well, and you guys looking at the chart (inaudible), you can see how much it's dropped, it's going right (inaudible). But we never had a this same kind of job preferred) as say (inaudible) county and Brownsburg, and others, but that means you have your zoning departments which for a County they were trying most of the money generated from these fees their fees to support that specific department. Our position where those fees aren't coming in like they used too and we've got a small staff here. Basically two members in the planning department.
Mr. McPhail: Well, I certainly want to since we've had this drop off list spend a lot of time on these other organizations and things like that really getting some things done that we couldn't do when we were so busy with permits and all that stuff coming in so you know, I think they've done a good job of really looking at what we are doing and what we can do based on the current work load, I think they've used that time productively and appreciate that.
Mr. James: That's what we try to do is to use our time we have now productively.
Mr. Carlucci: There's a list of consent not to charge the fee for the annexations.
Mr. James: Mr. Banning is in the audience and he called last week and saw the agenda and asked to see a copy of the report so I would like to see if he has any comments based on a developers point of view.
Mr. Daniel: You weren't here to be sworn we're you?
Mr. Banning: That's what I thought.
Mr. Daniel: Conducted the Oath of Testimony.
Mr. Banning: For the record, Jeff Banning, Banning Engineering, I think that's still at 853 Columbia Road suite 101, here in Plainfield. Jill passes on the agenda's on a monthly basis and by the way thank you for doing that. And when I saw this on the agenda, well, there is a couple of things I saw the zoning and then also the downtown stuff, so those were all good things. But I think the one thing that I just wanted to spell out here and I know this is a very difficult situation for the Town as well because they are facing a revenue crunch also, but you know the developers that I have talked with of course they are not really fond of paying additional fees, especially in the climate we're in right now. I think it's probably fair to say, you know it's been five years since there has been any increases, probably about time, but due to what's going on in the world right now, it makes it even that much more difficult to get people to come in and to do development work and I think one of the things and it looked like a lot of these are for amendments, I can understand the PUD amendment that's typically a large project that I've always been the one, I go back to Mr. Campfield and the gas station project we did way back when and what he had to go through to redeveloping a site or amending a site versus a brand new site, and I think that is one of the things that I always like to think about in which we've done a good job, especially with downtown area, is try to make sure that if we have these fees and we do change those that they aren't going to aversely affect some of those type of developments or improving existing situations I guess, so that is one thing I wanted to pass on. The other thing of course with the housing industry where it's at, and Kate Johnson's here with B.A.G.I. and I'll let her talk to that, but I think we are going to see an upturn in this, I think it's fair to say we had three or four five years that were significantly above what was normal, I think we've gone significantly below what is normal and I think we will get back to that range and I guess I'd just like to propose the potentiality of maybe just talking through some of these increases based on what might be normal from a residential stand point in the future. So that's really all I had to say, it's a from a business climate right now it's difficult enough I think anymore you add onto the business climate right now and that's not just in Plainfield, that's anywhere it just makes it that much more difficult. That's it, thank you.
Mr. Brandgard: Thank you, this is just a little comment, this is the first time we've, this is not a public hearing to approve it, this is still a review session. But yes, I need to reiterate I understand what you are saying but on the other hand, there are groups out there that supported the Governor's and Legislator's plan to change the property taxes, and now those groups are reaping the benefit of what they pushed for, because your going to have higher fees in order to do stuff because where it was a piece of what we did, we can't afford to do anything. Because there is nothing coming in to pay for it, so we've got to go back and look at how we do business, it's no different than private industry, you don't do anything, you don't get paid for it. And there is a happy medium out there somewhere, but I, be careful with my words, people downtown don't understand yet what they signed off on, on that bill that nobody read before they signed off on, and it took six months before anybody figured out what was on it.
Mr. Banning: Yes, I have to agree, I'm more of a user fee type of person, I've had that discussion with several of you in the past, if it costs you this much to do whatever your doing, that should be the individual paying for it, but ah.
Mr. Brandgard: I understand what you are talking about, that is a concern.
Mr. Banning: I think right now it's just the climate we're in right now, it just makes it that much more difficult, I agree with where your going as well. Thank you.
Mr. Gibbs: Thanks Jeff.
Mr. James: I want to point out these new fees in the amendments right now we would have to charge the full price like it was a new project, if they wanted to come in and do a PUD amendment or a development plan amendment or the primary plat amendment, but by this structure we're giving them a break in a sense of what we are trying to do.
Ms. Johnson: For the record, Kate Johnson, Builders Association of Greater Indianapolis, 1011 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Street, Indianapolis. Jeff hit on everything that we are saying it is a tough time for builders and developers out there right now, obviously permits are down the whole community is down. And just from an economic development stand point with the lower fees you have a competitive edge over some of the other communities. What we would just like to see, I know that it is mentioned in here, that fifteen of the fees fifteen of the fifty are proposed to fee increased, would be interested in seeing what those are, and working with staff and maybe some stake holder groups that do build and develop in the community, to kind of go over those fees. We are in support of user fees, we totally understand that what you do takes time and money, and we're willing to pulling up the money that it takes, but what doesn't sit well is if our community feels like we're funding a shortfall that doesn't really directly to the building development community. So that is why we would kind of like to go through the fees and see what they are and see what the actual costs are and see if we can work that out before it goes through the whole hearing process.
Mr. Carlucci: If we were to charge exactly what it costs us, we're already subsidizing these building permits; citizens of Plainfield aren't, so you know that. The issue is, what's the best timing we have to make these fees? That's (inaudible) the question. Actually I had been thinking about that over the weekend, it wasn't really a long time I did this, because I had other things I should be doing, but I had felt, I'm easy about doing it now, because it isn't going to raise any money anyways. We can do it now, raise the fees, whose building? You know, we got one real hot out west, the other thing then we have to give at least, should give at least three to six months the development community may get used to the new fees anyway. So that there making plans on the current fee structure, they try to look out how far they are going to go. So we probably have to bring these in slow anyways, we're not going to get one cent more than we are getting before, well, we will get a little more, but it's because the only two or three areas of the town they are still building. So I think one of the things to think about, the Plan Commission and the Town Council is, yeah we can agree that at some point in the future these are the fees we should put in, or we need to see substantial more activity in what's happening before we do this. But this doesn't mean that any of this information is going to waste because other than, I lost any what little eyesight I have trying to read these things, I just think the timing, is everything, this may be an issue as, we can agree on the amounts, when we implement these, and the development committee time to adjust to it. But you know, if you look at that chart, how little it was in 2009, I'm not sure it won't be the same in 2010. But, it might, we don't know, if we start to see a pick up then maybe that's the time to look at it. But that is all the things that I think the Plan Commission and Town Council have to kind of go through.
Mr. Brandgard: I agree with what you are saying, and I thought the same thing. But again, getting back to your question, I think that the Town is generally open for discussion to work things, and I think from my stand point, communication is good. No offense, but we're out here in Hendricks County, Plainfield and the builder's association of greater Indianapolis, we don't see much of anybody out here, unless there's a problem. And so we don't have the communication lines of (inaudible) that I would like to see that would help me. I mean you can provide as much help to us as we go through stuff with what you are doing it isn't the best job talking to everybody, and sometimes we have trouble doing it, so from my view point, yeah, we aught to try to work together, but understanding that I don't think that we could ever charge enough fees to pay for the costs (inaudible), if we did, I don't think we'd have anybody, and I'm not just saying that for the people that we have that work for the Town, but we use a lot of engineering, and other people's time as we go through (inaudible) charge to (inaudible), there's never a good time to raise a fee or a rate and so I think the key is that we've got to look at this as we are going to have to start doing that whether we want too or not, it's just a matter of how much.
Ms. Johnson: Right, I totally understand that, I mean, five years a lot happens economically and cost of doing business increases so we understand that completely. Just want to get more details and work through this together, it's a great opportunity. Thank you.
Mr. Brandgard: Thank you.
Mr. McPhail: I like to make a comment, I have an occasion to go to Noblesville on Sunday and I made a concentrated effort to not take the highway to there, and to drive through residential areas and it seems that certainly the highest fees were in Hamilton County and they seem to have the largest (inaudible) the same group of developers basically overall that's working here, that's working there and they don't have any trouble paying the fees there.
Mr. Brandgard: You know Kent and as we said, we've done a good job on the retail side, on the industrial side, and we've got to work harder and try and get some of the bigger housing developers out here like you see up in Hamilton
County. It's interesting to me when we talk to people about lot pricing and that is where your fees end up going. You know, I told you the price of a lot drives the price of the house that's on the lot. So in my view, higher lot prices is going to bring the houses that we want to see come here. But you don't want to stop the others while you're doing it either.
Mr. McPhail: It just, some of those areas I had not been in for four, five, or six years, just and particularly you know the 146th Street is Noblesville on one side and Carmel and Westfield on the other or whatever. You know and it just significantly more development there than we've seen in Hendricks County, you know both commercial retail and residential, and the traffic is a lot worse.
Mr. James: I want to point out that these fees wouldn't increase current or existing development, like it wouldn't increase the cost of building permit or a sewer or water connection fee. This would impact new development and had that rezone property and then add the primary plat it and then do a secondary plat. That is where it'd impact the developer. Another reason for this study was just to see if we were in line with what our neighbors charge, like Brownsburg and Hendricks County. It's not an attempt to increase our fees like what Carmel, Fishers, and Noblesville charge, it's just to make sure we're consistent with what our neighbors charge.
● ILP-09-089 Shops at Metropolis-2575 E. Main Street-Wal-Mart #2-remodeled compliance with Gateway Corridor Standards.
Mr. James: Next item is I wanted to go over the Wal-mart number two remodel. We're in compliance with the gateway and quarter standards. If you recall we amended an ordinance last year that if the building is vacant for six months or more on the gateway quarter that before it can be reused, they have to make an application for an improvement location permit for compliance with the gateway quarter standards. So the old Wal-mart which is zoned by the Tabani Group, we told them that we amended the ordinance, and now they have to submit a IOP which they did, but when it was originally submitted they needed some waivers from the Plan Commission, so we were going to bring it to the Plan Commission, but the way the ordinance was written, all they have to do is make application for an IOP. So they resubmitted plans the revised plans due comply with the Gateway quarter standards so no waivers are required and it can be approved with an IOP, and then go back to that zoning ordinance amendment the last one I gave you about amending our DRC ordinance, so that it would allow the Director to bring an IOP to the DRC. They've challenged our Rezoning
Ordinance and the Rules of Procedure. And the Rules of Procedure or the Zoning ordinance says that the Rules of Procedure shall be adopted to provide rules for the DRC, so by doing that, does that give me authority to take IOP to the DRC?
Mr. Daniel: Do you mean before they are adopted or amended Joe?
Mr. James: Yes.
Mr. Daniel: I don't think it does, no.
Mr. James: So this is the site plan and the landscaping plan they have submitted, the revised one, based on the number of parking spaces. They have added the number of parking lot trees in the parking lot and around the perimeter. The perimeter landscaping complies with what is required. We've got some existing landscaping back here, but combined plant (inaudible) based on the added trees complies with the what's required. Foundation landscaping, they've already had some existing landscaping on the B shops but they are adding some more in the planters and they brought it up to the compliance with what the ordinance requires for foundation landscaping. Elevations, this is a (inaudible) rendering. This elevation didn't have the required brick, there is another diagram, I just added those in there to give you an idea of what they want to do, we met with them last summer, we told them we wanted renovations to make the building more compatible with Metropolis, so they've added these features. They have revised elevations that comply to require brick for the north elevation and the east and west. The south elevation is exempt. Here is the added brick, and then they have given us an elevation for the east elevation and it has the required twenty percent brick. Rear elevation is exempt but we did ask them to give us a paint scheme that would add some type of architectural feature so they have a given this paint scheme. Based on the zoning ordinance, they comply, I can't make them go to DRC and I just want to bring this to you and show you what's going on with what they've resubmitted and that it complies with the Gateway Standards. So with that I guess I'm prepared to issue the IOP.
Mr. McPhail: Well I guess I have a question. Our ordinance doesn't allow them to piece fill this, they will have to do the whole complete building and all facades before we would allow them to lease that building?
Mr. James: Well, I will probably have to take another look at this; it just says before it can be reused owners shall make application for an IOP. Which they have done, but I've held them up until I actually approved the IOP, and they have a year, the IOP is good for a year. So they would have a year to make the improvements.
Mr. McPhail: We need to crack down if we can't you know, just because they made application, until they get this work done, I think they shouldn't be able to use the building.
Mr. Brandgard: I don't think that will be any different than any other. Until the work is done, you don't issue the documents.
Mr. Daniel: I was going to say don't they have to get an occupancy permit before they.
Mr. James: Yeah, I mean if they do interior remodel. They would have to get the occupancy permit.
Mr. Carlucci: We'll give them a permit that would do the entire building, not a permit to do part of the building.
Mr. McPhail: I mean that is my question, I don't want them to go in there and do a little bit of that building and then think they are going to go in there and start occupying it until they get that whole thing done.
Mr. Daniel: Can you spell that out in a letter?
Mr. James: Yes, I have put conditions on the IOP's and I don't know if that's legal or not.
Mr. Daniel: You can spell that out on a letter Joe.
Mr. James: That's what I will do.
Mr. McPhail: They come in with two or three different plans with the partial part of the building and leave the rest of it sit there and that's not going to render any positive results if you just go in there and patch part of it and leave the rest of it sit there like an albatross. One time they wanted to do the big pot and then just leave the bee shop sit there and not do anything to it. Throw some paint on the other and put a tenant in there.
● Ryland Homes elevation update for Forest Creek at Sugar Grove Farms subdivision
Mr. James: Jill's going to tell you about some new elevations for Ryland wants to get approval for out at Sugar Grove Farms.
Ms. Sprague: Actually just one, they did change six of their, what they call elevation A. They reduced the brick, and in reducing the brick they added different features with the same amount of money just to give a little more variety to their homes and they did that partly because the elevation A's weren't selling very well, so they are trying to get a couple new models in there. I didn't put an overhead projection of the model that I'm having you look at right now, but I did want to show you the craftsman's style, one of the things I had recommended was that they could just make it a first floor brick elevation, this actually doesn't meet the craftsman style, these are just a few, well you can see it kind of goes across the porch line rather than at the first floor line. Just on a lot of these, they have just a lot of details, like up around the roof lines and things, and they use the different like the shake sidings along with the regular horizontal sidings. And that's what the most of these plans do, they have the details and things like that, and then the chunky porch columns, and various other items. This elevation on the Monterrey is the only one that didn't meet the group one elements, and that's were the brick normally gives them the group one. They have three, and they are required to have four group one elements, and they are required to have eleven features out of all of the groups and they actually have fifteen for this, and so what they are requesting is that they are allowed to use either or both, either the 10/12 roof pitches that all of the gables have or the 4 X 8 portico that is over the front door and both of those were written in as options that were allowed to be approved by the Plan Commission in the Sugar Grove. And so that is what they are requesting is that you'll either one or both of those as group one elements for this elevation.
Mr. McPhail: You know Jill, my comment is that I think that Ryland has done a very good job in that development and the others after we started about these building standards to meet the intent of the Ordinance and I couldn't figure out myself trying to distinguish it, it appears to me that they are meeting ten of what we want to accomplish and it just, I can't explain it, I can't sit down without really looking at it pick out all of those, because I know we got that whole list to go through. But I really think they've done a good job and I think their request is reasonable myself.
Mr. Brandgard: I agree with this, but I see here it is acceptable. The houses don't look to (inaudible) the same, and that is what we are trying to get away from, and I think what we are trying to do here is accomplished.
Ms. Sprague: These are not the houses that we are looking at, they are just craftsman style that is just a picture.
Mr. McPhail: You know, I think also we can look at, they've through this down turn I don't think Ryland in Plainfield has had a down turn, I think they just, you know they must be doing what the market is demanding and that was the intent of us doing that, trying to do that, and I do believe they've been good to work with and I can't see any reason why we should reject their request myself.
Mr. Gibbs: Looks like we have consents of the board.
Ms. Sprague: I think in the past, well, I don't remember if we've done a motion or not, but we have done this as old business before, usually with a smaller garage than usual, so I don't know what we need.
Mr. Daniel: I think we need a motion.
Mr. Brandgard: With that I would move that we grant Ryland's request for the Sugar Grove to allow the ten/twelve pitch roof and the 4 X 8 portico (inaudible)in the request that was presented.
Mr. McPhail: Second.
Mr. Gibbs: I have a motion and a second. Mr. Carlucci, will you pull the board?
Mr. Satterfield is absent tonight.
Mr. McPhail- yes
Mr. Brandgard- yes
Mr. Gibbs- yes
Mr. Dunkin- yes
Mr. Kirchoff is absent
I'm pretty sure that was 4 ayes, 2 absent, and one vacancy.
Motion is approved.
Mr. Gibbs: Thank you.
● January Activity Report
Mr. James: I got two more items I'm going to give you a quick update on the façade program. Ratio Architect's will complete final design this week and the ad in the paper for the contracts bid will run Saturday. The contractor's bids are due March 22nd. So we should begin construction in April, but in the original design of the façade, the facades of five buildings were not addressed so the budget did not include the façade elevations for Center Street, and Vine Street. The base bids did come under the budget, but the alternative designs will be over the alternative designs biding includes the side elevations. Since the side elevations on Center Street and Vine Street are pretty prominent, it would make sense just to do the fronts of buildings. Also building at 115 West Main, which is next to First National Bank, he wants to improve that side and replace the windows, but that wasn't included with the original concept plan, and we've got another building that now wants to participate 116 West Main, they were not one of the buildings that agreed to participate, but now that we've got the grant, and they see that all of the other buildings are participating, now they want to participate.
Mr. Carlucci: Joe, where is 116 at? I'm good at 115, but not 116.
Mr. James: It's the Hinshaw's building; it's next to the Home Place, the other side of the alley.
Mr. McPhail: Where the coffee shop was. They finally stepped up to the plate.
Mr. James: Yeah, they want to receive the 80/20 match like the other buildings are. This is going to require some more funding, maybe. I wanted to let you know where we are. The good news is that the base bids came in under budget. Additionally Ratio thinks that because of the competitive market we can knock off another 10 to 20 percent of the contractor's bid, so we may be able to do these side elevations on the other building with the funding that we have, but we may have to come back and ask for a little more. Just wanted to update you on that. And then First Stop Furniture Warehouse, I sent them a zoning violation notice January 19, 2010, for parking trucks in the parking lot. They had ten days to comply; the tenth day was January 30th a Saturday. They had to February 4th to contact me and tell me if the property was in compliance or not so tonight I had not heard from her. So tonight I was prepared to ask you if I could go ahead and start the fining process out at the (inaudible) but she faxed that to me this afternoon, she's posted the signs up that the trucks are no longer able to park in the parking lot. She's taken care of it and then we should have the trucks out of there by February 4th.
Mr. Brandgard: Good job. Thank you.
Mr. James: That's all that I have for tonight.
Mr. Gibbs: Ok, Thank you. Is there an update on the Kroger situation?
Mr. Daniel: I can do that briefly, in fact it is interesting just today I got the original file mark, their copy of the complaint which had already been sent previously by both Rich and the plaintiff's. But briefly, and I'll explain this to the Plan Commission which might be helpful anyway. They have asked for what is called a writ of certiorary that's an old Latin phrase, but basically what, the reason this law suite is different than most is because when the Plan Commission makes a decision and someone chooses to challenge that decision they appeal that through the a writ of certiorary to the trial court. So unlike a normal law suite that most people are familiar with were you go in and have a trail, what and this in Judge Coleman's Court, Superior Court three, in Hendricks County what he will be hearing actually is an appeal from the Plan Commission decision, so what he will be looking at, I don't know whether he will allow anymore evidence on the case or not, sometimes they do sometimes they don't but like I say unlike the normal trial you go in and put evidence on it, there may well be no evidence, they will just take the record of the Plan Commission and the action of the Plan Commission presented to him as a legal challenge on the ordinance and the decision on and then he will render in appellate court instead of a like a trial court. We were required as of last Monday to decide whether to challenge the writ of certiorary which means are we going to go in and say he doesn't have the jurisdiction to hear the appeal and we did not do that, there is no reason for the Town to contest that issue, so we allowed the certiorary to go ahead and issue and now the Town will put together what's called a record for appeal, which will be the documents and the minutes and things like that, those will be submitted to the court, then we will see whether or not they ask to supplement the record or not and if they do we will decide whether we want to supplement the record. But it's really sending in the Hendricks Superior Court as an appeal, not as a trial. And that is where we are now.
