The Plainfield Plan Commission met on Monday, June 1, 2009. In attendance were Mr. Satterfield, Mr. Kirchoff, Mr. McPhail, Mr. Brandgard, Mr. Dunkin and Mr. Gibbs.
ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM
Mr. Carlucci administered the Roll Call.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 4, 2009 Plainfield Plan Commission meeting as submitted. Second by Mr. Dunkin. Motion carried.
Mr. Satterfield abstained from voting since he was not present at the above meeting.
OATH OF TESTIMONY
Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Testimony.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mr. Gibbs reviewed the Guidelines Governing the Conduct of Public Hearings. Our first petition this evening is going to be continued, which is RZ-09-002, DP-09-004 and DP-09-005, is that right?
Mr. James said that is correct. The petitioner has requested to continue these petitions to the July 6th Plan Commission hearing.
Mr. Brandgard made a motion to approve the continuance of RZ-09-002, DP-09-004 and DP-09-005, Wellington Park Partners, LLC to the July 6th Plan Commission meeting. Second by Mr. McPhail. Motion carried.
Mr. James said that leaves one petition tonight for a public hearing and Ms. Sprague will introduce this petition to you.
Ms. Sprague said DP-09-006 is the Plainfield Baptist Church. They are requesting a master plan approval so instead of having to come in with what we used to do before we rezoned everything a Religious District they would have to come in for a BZA hearing anytime they wanted to do an addition. The master plan process allows them to do this once where they have a public hearing once and then they just submit ILPs. As long as the ILP coincides with what they have presented here then we can just approve it as is.
They are proposing several phases, which includes a classroom addition, fellowship hall, new parking, possibly a sanctuary down the line sometime and then a picnic area. This is the site; it is next to the high school on Reeves Road. As I mentioned, it is zoned Religious District and primarily surrounded by Residential not counting on the school side.
These are the phases. The orange is the classroom addition and the blue is the fellowship hall. The grey part is the existing building and then the kind of tan color is they either want to add on a new sanctuary or add onto the existing sanctuary. And also the picnic area is the little orange square on the south side there. They haven't decided yet whether they want to do the classroom addition first or the fellowship hall but as far as this is concerned I don't know that the timing matters.
I didn't show the site plan because it already complies but this is a copy of their old landscape plan. I didn't have an electronic copy but they had proposed after DRC to remove some of the excess foundation landscaping that they had. They decided to remove that from the south and the east sides. On the east side you can see they have a whole lot of evergreens here. Those are existing so that is going to cover their east side and no problem. They have also decided to take all of the foundation landscaping that they have moved in the parking lot islands that they were missing and consolidate that landscaping into an evergreen row along the south side here in order to help screen the building and the parking lot from the houses to the southwest.
We did have one request; if they decide to put in the drive on the east side where all of the existing evergreens are right now, they have agreed to put in the Level 1 PUV if they should decide to build that. We did ask them if they could move those evergreens and they said they have already grown together too much and they wouldn't really be viable.
This is an example of what the buildings would look like. This is the front elevation and this in here is the only thing that would be from the classroom addition. This is the fellowship hall and it is the east elevation so the view from the school. This part I believe is the classroom and then from the south side this is the fellowship hall. One unusually thing that they have proposed was to use the stamped concrete so that it would look like brick. They have agreed to make sure whether they use brick veneer or the precast concrete that it would be the same color as the existing brick or a contrasting color that would be appropriate.
At DRC they requested that if the elevations are facing the front, that they use the brick veneer rather than the precast concrete but otherwise the concrete was okay with DRC.
We don't have all of the details at this time like where any HVAC would go but we could cover that at the ILP stage and then what your opinions are on the brick I think that is the main question. I know the petitioner is here if you have any questions.
Mr. Steve Craney at 1609 Stafford Road, Plainfield said I'm representing Plainfield Baptist as their master planner. I will say that we are excited about this opportunity because as far as I know this is the first master plan process that the commission has gone through since the new zoning was put into place. I think it really offers a lot of great opportunities, not just for the religious uses, but other uses to develop planning for the future to allow you to see what their plans are as well as the adjoining neighborhood if they choose to do that to see that and ask questions about it.
We proposed this several years ago and as some of you sit on the council I'm not sure the Plan Commission would have been aware of it but part of the planning of Reeves Road included a need to improve the drainage to the subdivision to the west, which is currently being looked at. We were able to work out an arrangement with the church to offer four acres to the Town to allow for a retention pond to help with that drainage situation. So, it has really been a good give and take in the process and that all came about through the master plan study because Reeves was just beginning to be designed along with the high school project. So, if you have any questions, Dewey Irvin who heads up their planning team and I will try to answer them; otherwise we would appreciate your approval.
Mr. McPhail asked, can you get the classroom addition in there without taking out any of those large pine trees in the east?
Mr. Craney said our goal right now is not to have to put that drive in. In talking with Tim and the fire folks about that one of the reasons we put it in the master plan was to allow an alternate access to the rear of the building in the event of the main access being blocked for some reason and an emergency occur. In talking with Tim there are some other possibilities that might be looked at to provide that access. Right now it would be one of the last things that the church would do if they would do it but yes we planned it so that we could get the classrooms in there without affecting the trees.
Mr. Kirchoff said I know we have the four acres; what is to the south, residential?
Mr. Craney said the residential, the subdivision, which I can't remember the name of it.
Mr. Kirchoff said Hadley Acres.
Mr. Gibbs asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this petition? Being no one coming forward I will close the public portion of this hearing and open it up to the board for comments or a possible motion.
Mr. Kirchoff said I guess I would be interested to know (inaudible).
Mr. Dewey Irvin at 1227 Ken Ross Drive, Avon said no we have not. We are still in the planning stage of getting this thing kicked off so this is something where the process started about three and a half years ago and it has kind of been put on hold because of the acquisition and the school and everything else. So, we just started back up.
Ms. Sprague said I did have three people come in and ask to see stuff and most of the stuff that they wanted to know about was the drainage. So, it didn't have anything to do with their plans.
Mr. McPhail said I drove around the site today and very little their addition is going to be noticeable; anybody other than the school and you can't see it for the pine trees. That is a nice stand of pines between them and the school. I hope they can keep those for their privacy more than for the school.
Mr. James said (inaudible).
Mr. Kirchoff said it is several hundred feet south.
Mr. Belcher said I don't want to prolong it unless you would like to but I think there are some files here on the drainage if you want to look at that.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion that the Plan Commission approve DP-09-006 as filed by Plainfield Baptist Church requesting approval of a master plan for future improvements to the Plainfield Baptist Church at 1575 Reeves Road finding that:
1. The Development Plan complies with all applicable development standards of the district in which the site is located.
2. The Development Plan complies with all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Control Ordinance for which a waiver has not been granted.
3. The Development Plan complies with all applicable provisions for Architectural and Site Design Review for which a waiver has not been granted.
4. The proposed development is appropriate to the site and its surroundings.
5. The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
And that such approval be subject to the following conditions:
1. Substantial compliance with the master plan packet file dated May 17, 2009.
2. If option 1 (adding to the additional sanctuary at the front of the building) is chosen, the addition should use brick veneer.
Second by Mr. McPhail. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Satterfield – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Dunkin – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Gibbs – yes
6-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Brandgard said this is probably one of the best master plans I have ever seen. I appreciate the efforts.
NEW BUSINESS/OLD BUSINESS
Mr. James said we have several items under the old business/new business portion of the agenda. I'm going to rearrange the order a little bit. We have some members here that are interested in the need to adopt the negative findings for the Kroger's development plan. So, I'm going to recommend that we do that first.
Mr. Gibbs asked, did everybody get a copy?
Mr. James said yes I passed out copies of the negative findings for everyone to review. The development plan was denied at the April Plan Commission meeting but we didn't have negative findings prepared and then I forgot to do this at the May meeting so we need to take care of this tonight. By state law you have to make either favorable findings or negative findings for development plans. I passed out some motions if anyone would care to make a motion.
Mr. Gibbs asked, is the motion to make these or is it just to have the president sign this?
Mr. Daniel said the motion is to continue those earlier hearings to allow the president to sign those.
Mr. Kirchoff said so we don't have to vote on this; we just need to (inaudible).
Mr. Daniel said that is correct.
Mr. McPhail made a motion to continue the hearing on the petition for SSOE, Inc. Kroger site, DP-09-001. A public hearing on said petition occurred on April 9, 2009. The petition was denied and a public hearing was continued to May 4, 2009 for the sole purpose of adopting the findings of facts. I now move to continue the May 4, 2009 public hearing on the petition to June 1, 2009. Second by Mr. Brandgard. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Satterfield – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Dunkin – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Gibbs – yes
6-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Kirchoff said I move for a determination that re-notification of interested property owners is not necessary for today's hearing on the petition for SSOE, Inc. the Kroger site DP-09-001. A public hearing on this petition took place on April 9, 2009. All interested parties were notified and do not need to appear and participate in said hearing. All interested parties can chose to attend and know that the petition was denied. Today's hearing on the petition is solely for the purpose of adopting the findings of facts, which does not necessitate re-notification to the interested parties. Second by Mr. McPhail. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Satterfield – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Dunkin – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Gibbs – yes
6-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Daniel said you will need a motion to approve the findings of facts.
Mr. McPhail made a motion to approve the negative findings of facts and allow the president to sign the documents on behalf of the Plan Commission. Second by Mr. Brandgard. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Satterfield – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Dunkin – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Gibbs – yes
6-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. James said the next item on the agenda is a resolution to amend the TIF district and I will let Mr. Carlucci explain why this resolution is before you tonight.
Mr. Carlucci said the Town of Plainfield is in the process of financing the Plainfield Fire Territory Station 123. It is going to be located out on Airtech Boulevard as you go north from Stafford Road almost to the curb. That is where the new fire station will be located. The Town of Plainfield has already gone through a bid process and has received bids. The process we are in now is the plan for financing this project includes using four of the TIF districts to do this. We are going to finance the project with some cash out of some of the districts and the balance of that will finance the new station. The new station we are proposing to use TIF funds for that new facility and the term of that will be five years. So, we are going to put 1.4/1.5 million down as a down payment on it and then we are going to finance the rest over a five year period. This station is critical to the fire fighting and EMS services of the Town. With this process we have kept the school district fully informed of the process that we have gone through here. They do not have objections to this project. It is a way of avoiding problems with our property tax caps and other ways of doing things but to get to that point we have had to amend four of our TIF districts, which is the I-70 interchange TIF district, the SR267 corridor TIF district, Six Points TIF district, and the U.S. 40 TIF district. This is an amendment to allow that use specific to those buildings to allow a fire station as a permitted use in those districts so that we can use funds for those districts. The net affect of this is using existing dollars as opposed to funding it any other way, which we would either increase property taxes. Under House Bill 1001 to go to a referendum we have to build a fire station of a minimum twelve million dollars. I don't know anybody in the state that builds a fire station for twelve million dollars. So, giving that those districts are there and that this fire station will serve everyone of those districts we need to have the Plan Commission agree to those additional uses. If you do that, that will end my day of four successive meetings on the same subject. We had a meeting of the Redevelopment Commission, Redevelopment Authority, a special Town Council meeting prior to this meeting and then this is the last step of meetings in the process to the point where we can take the other steps that we have to take and advertise the process we are going through. That takes another 30 days off the calendar so I would ask you to consider approving the resolution tonight and we will add that to the materials that we need. Again, by statute we have to come to the Plan Commission to get this approval and that is why we are here tonight.
So, we already have the bids; we are ready to go, the land has been acquired. We have eight acres of land at the northern part of Airtech just before it turns and goes back to Ronald Reagan donated by the developers up there. We have also acquired, as you may recall from a previous public hearing, we did buy a lot in Clover Drive so we have the egress to Clover Drive near the U.S. 40 area so that we wouldn't have to go all the way back out to Ronald Reagan and north and then back west. The Plan Commission has already approved the site plan so we are in good shape that way. So, I would request that you approve Resolution No. 2009-01. I would be glad to answer any questions.
Mr. McPhail said I think it is the proper use for the TIF funds and I'm surprised that we have to go through this to do it.
Mr. Dunkin made a motion to approve Resolution No. 2009-01. Second by Mr. McPhail. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Satterfield – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Dunkin – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Gibbs – yes
6-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Daniel said I'm going to add an editorial comment here. I don't think you could find a community in the State of Indiana that ever financed a facility like this for less than 15 or 20 years. Five years to pay off a fire station like this is a remarkable piece of work by Plainfield and demonstrates how well this Town is run. Normally it is a 15-20 year bond issue that usually pays these facilities.
Mr. James said I'm going to skip ahead again under the Plan Commission invitees. Mr. Venkata Nattam representing Cambria Suites at 6040 Gateway Drive. We still have some unresolved issues as far as zoning compliance so that we can issue the certificate. These issues are the ground and rooftop mechanicals are not screened and we need to replace some dead landscaping.
Mr. Venkata Nattam from Cambria Suites said I have already replaced the ground mechanical (unintelligible) and all of the dead roots. What they are asking in the rooftop on the……I cannot do that one because of the (unintelligible). It's not too ugly but I need a waiver for the top for the mechanical because the roof is going to leak I try that one.
Mr. Gibbs said so you are saying that you can't screen it?
Mr. Venkata Nattam said they don't need to screen. It's not going to be too ugly to look outside but I do that one………the roof is going to be damaged and in the future there are going to be leaks. I had to make the holes to put the screens. It may not be damaged right now; in the future it's going to be damaged.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, what was showed in the original plans?
Mr. Venkata Nattam said that is not in the plan………(unintelligible) they are asking me to do this one.
Mr. James said during the development plan approval they didn't show any rooftop units but Mr. Venkata Nattam gave us a verbal agreement that they would be 100% screened.
Mr. McPhail said they need to get them screened.
Mr. Brandgard said just as a comment other businesses have screened the units without damaging the roof.
Mr. Venkata Nattam said (unintelligible) other hotels; they don't have any screens. (Unintelligible) ones they don't have any screens. You can see a lot of rooftops outside. Mine is only showing the very top (unintelligible). If you see from SR267, you can see……if you see in the road, you cannot see.
Mr. James said I took some pictures. That is looking to the south. From certain advantage points it can be seen.
Mr. Gibbs asked, can you zoom in on that?
Mr. James said that is from SR267. You can't see them.
Mr. Gibbs asked, is that a tree?
Mr. James said this is from SR267.
Mr. Gibbs asked, what is towards the back of the building on the roof?
Mr. Venkata Nattam said that one you won't see from the (unintelligible).
Mr. James said the ordinance requires it to be screened from the elevation view. If they don't have these on the elevations, we review them and make sure they are put on the elevation (inaudible) cross sections. So, they will show how they are going to be screened.
Mr. Brandgard said screened is not a good term; it should be hidden.
Mr. James said correct.
Mr. Brandgard said and the way that it is done is to bring that parapet wall up higher. You come back and do the screening like (inaudible). Personally yes you screen the units but you end up with something that is bad or worse than what you had (inaudible).
Mr. Venkata Nattam said if I put the screen, you still see the units.
Mr. Brandgard said you will see the screening; you won't see the units.
Mr. McPhail said it seems to me with that architecture of that tower they ought to be able to put something around that unit similar to what they have on top of that tower to screen the units that would blend in to me.
Mr. Venkata Nattam said the elevation wall is not big enough.
Mr. Brandgard asked, are you trying to make these yourself or are you working with an architect?
Mr. Venkata Nattam said I have to do it myself. (Unintelligible). If I do, they don't………nobody gives any warranty.
Mr. Gibbs said and Joe the other violations can you point those out?
Mr. James said he has a ground unit to the rear.
Mr. Venkata Nattam said (unintelligible).
Mr. James said and we have some dead landscaping that needs to be replaced.
Mr. Venkata Nattam said I did it. If you look from (unintelligible), it's not that ugly. We don't mind to do it (unintelligible) I can do it but it's not a big expense but 25 years on the roof he don't want to give any warranty.
Mr. Gibbs asked, you said if we want it done, you can do it?
Mr. Venkata Nattam said it is very hard to. We have to make the holes.
Mr. Gibbs said I thought you said it would cause damage.
Mr. Venkata Nattam said downstairs I can do, it doesn't matter to me. It's not (unintelligible).
Mr. Brandgard said you couldn't attach the screening to the frame of the units?
Mr. Venkata Nattam said no we cannot do it.
Mr. Dunkin asked, how big are those units Joe?
Mr. Venkata Nattam said like a four by ………
Mr. James said four by four.
Mr. Venkata Nattam said that is the only one you can see. The rest of them you don't see.
Mr. Gibbs asked, so what is the consensus of the board?
Mr. Brandgard said going back after the fact is always a problem. I've been out there many times and I don't find that they jump out at you I guess is what I'm saying. I've not seen them and I'm afraid the slat screening like we have required other places to do then you are really going to see it. I think you end up with something worse than what you have.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. Daniel said you should have a motion indicating no screening is going to be required.
Mr. McPhail said you would probably draw attention to it if you are going to screen it other than raising the parapet and that is not feasible at this time.
Mr. Brandgard said the other thing that you can do is maybe try to paint it so it blends in with the building.
Mr. Gibbs said since we had this at a previous meeting we stated we probably should make a motion here. If it is paint, then we need a motion on that.
Mr. Venkata Nattam said it is painted.
Mr. Brandgard said it is painted but what I was saying is paint it a different color so that it blends better.
Mr. James said they could match the primary color here at the tower. That will take the glare off of it too.
Mr. Venkata Nattam said we can paint it that color yes.
Mr. McPhail said I think if we can get it close to that grey color, it will probably blend in and you will hardly see it.
Mr. Daniel asked, did you arrive at a color?
Mr. Brandgard said grey.
Mr. McPhail said where it has a dull finish where it doesn't provide a glare. I imagine when the sun hits it, you can see it a lot more.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to request Cambria Suites to paint the brick mounted canopy units a grey that is consistent with the trim.
Mr. Daniel said and to the extent that they do that then no further screening would be required.
Mr. Kirchoff said that is my motion. Second by Mr. McPhail. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Satterfield – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Dunkin – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Gibbs – yes
6-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. James said the next item is the Nottinghill sidewalk improvement agreement. I'm going to let our Town Engineer, Tim Belcher explain this to you.
Mr. Belcher said it is something that we haven't had to do many of and I'm really happy for that in working with bonding companies with developments that have sort of had financial problems. But Nottinghill's original developer went bankrupt and the bonding company was left to complete the common walks. We have been working with them on an agreement to do that. Mr. Daniel worked with me on this agreement quite a bit and I'm sure he will help me some more tonight but essentially the ordinance that this board oversees, the subdivision and zoning, the requirements for walks comes out that ordinance. Because this agreement involves the transfer of funding to the Town I felt the Town Council needed to be involved in the written agreement also. So, Mel has helped us prepare an agreement after the bonding company drafted one. It essentially allows the Council to be in charge of receiving money, the work gets done, and essentially paying the money back out. I think that keeps us square with the State Board of Accounts and all of the people that we have deal with in that arena. But essentially this agreement would allow the bonding company to essentially complete all of the common walks that were done by the original developer in Nottinghill. Mel can help me but I'm not sure what action this board needs to take to either agree or disagree with this but essentially the direction that we are headed is to get these done and the Council has endorsed this. We have not signed it yet but the bonding company is waiting to make sure that everybody is okay with it before we go forward with anything.
Mr. Daniel said the agreement itself provides that the agreement will be entered into by the Town Council on behalf of the Plainfield Plan Commission and will be signed by the Town Council. I think it is appropriate for the commission without having to sign the agreement itself approve a motion approving the agreement so we would have a record that the Plan Commission approves it.
Mr. Belcher said so if you have any questions about what is in the agreement, I would be glad to try to answer the non-legal questions and Mel can answer them if you do have legal questions.
Mr. Gibbs said when I read through here, I don't know that it specified just common areas for sidewalks. I thought it said sidewalks particularly when it was 90% full or past three years was all sidewalks.
Mr. Belcher asked, are you reading the bonds themselves or the agreement?
Mr. Gibbs said the agreement.
Mr. Belcher said because I know that the bonding company is understanding of this and without going through each line maybe the lines you saw are they intending to complete the common walks? Under the Subdivision Control Ordinance it is true that they could be accountable for all of the lot walks also and in the past and the way that we have administered the ordinance so far we typically have not required, until a home was built, for a walk to be built on that lot because of the typical problem of a walk being torn up during the construction of the home. So, in an unofficial fashion the builders have taken care of all the lot walks and the bonding companies have essentially been left and the developers do the common walks. So, in the practical sense that is how it has been working but I would agree through the way that this was written they are in a sense getting out of a requirement that we could hold them to if we felt there was a risk that the walks would not be built on the lots.
Mr. Gibbs said that's how I read it; that they would be responsible for all sidewalks, 90% of the homes.
Mr. Belcher said and I think that is the way it was initially set up and the risk is there and that's why I have spoken to the builder who is building all of the homes in that subdivision and made sure there was an understanding on that. Of course, they have built every walk with every home that has been built and intend to continue to do that.
Mr. Kirchoff said paragraph six says the installation of sidewalks on individual lots should be (inaudible) homeowner and builder for each lot. This contract is for common areas.
Mr. Brandgard said (inaudible).
Mr. Belcher said you are probably reading…………
Mr. Gibbs said went into the bond.
Mr. Belcher said you are absolutely right and this agreement modifies …………
Mr. Daniel said the agreement itself is just for the common area.
Mr. Belcher said you are absolutely right. That paragraph is in there for that reason. The other sort of limiting issue here is the sidewalk bonds themselves have a maximum in there and when those bids go out if those numbers come back higher than those maximums, I'm sure the bonding company is going to say that their obligation is to the premium that we received or the risk that we took. I'm not sure what that is going to come back. I think they are going to come in lower than the bonding amounts but we will see if we get to that point. We may have another issue to deal with but I don't think that is going to be a problem. We have another topic tonight on sidewalks that may be after this discussion but essentially that very point that you just made is something that we would like to talk to the board about in how we address that as we move forward with not just Nottinghill but all projects in Plainfield.
Mr. Brandgard said just as a side comment this is probably almost the first that we have seen going back to the bond holder to get something from them. (Inaudible). It is not a perfect solution but it is certainly better (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail said I don't know how many hours I have spent on this and I know Tim and Don has had a lot of time that they have spent working on this thing. I think Tim has done a real good job to get to this point. I really believe if we go back to the bonding company and tell them we are going to hold them responsible for those lots, we will spend more in legal fees going after them than this. I hate to say that but I think this is probably as good of a deal as we are going to get. Don't you Tim?
Mr. Belcher said actually in some sense the developer who bought the development from the one who is going out of business continued to pay the premium. If they had not, we probably would be in worse shape because they retained that responsibility even after the first developer went belly up, which is something they normally stop paying everything. I think one of them recognized the importance of continuing that premium because this day might come where we need these walks built. So, it is not perfect, I agree and I think they are getting out of some of it but that is one of the inducements I think for them to be as easy to work with as they have been so far to go ahead and do this if you agree with it and go ahead and get them built. It ends up ultimately getting everything done that we need done.
Mr. McGillem said I think one thing too that you might want to recognize out there if you are not familiar with the area, if you put sidewalks in those lots out there with the size of those lots and with the drives that come in, you have 50% of the walks that you are putting in that is going to be taken back out just in order to get the drives in.
Mr. McPhail said I will say this; the developer was the builder when we bonded that.
Mr. Gibbs asked, is the board ready to make a motion?
Mr. McPhail made a motion that the Town Council approve this agreement with the bonding company.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, is that the wording we want to use?
Mr. Daniel said the fact the Plan Commission is recommending approval solidifies the deal yes.
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 – yes
Mr. Gibbs – yes
6-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. James said our next item deals with sidewalks and the surety required for sidewalks to make sure that these sidewalks are built to Town standards. We thought this would be an appropriate time to discuss this after talking about what happened with Nottinghill. This has already been brought to the Town Council last month. Mr. Lambert who is the developer for Rockingham and Avalon proposed this declaration of restricted covenants regarding the construction of sidewalks. Right now I believe a bond is required for all of the sidewalks in the development and paying the premiums in the slow economy can be a tough deal right now. Also, doing a letter of credit impacts financing available to the developers so right now the Subdivision Control Ordinance only provides for two forms of surety. That is either a bond for all sidewalks or doing a letter of credit. So, the restricted covenants is not a method that is allowed by Subdivision Control Ordinance right now. So, I wanted to bring this up and see if you wanted us to take a look at it and maybe come up with some proposed amendments to the Subdivision Control Ordinance to either by saying that the bonds are just required for the common areas, for sidewalks in common areas and not for all lots or another way is we could allow these restricted covenants. Tim may have some more comments.
Mr. Belcher said partly because I think of what we just discussed and partly just our own administration of these developments we have gotten to where we don't even allow someone to get a final plat recorded until we have done an inspection and all of the roads are done and the common walks are completed now. That is typically what we do now, which in the past we had not. We had allowed bonds to be posted like we did for Nottinghill if the developer wanted to get to the planning as quickly as possible and start selling lots. Because that is the key for every developer is how soon can I sell a lot? So, we have learned from some of these problems and the problem that we just talked about and said you know what? Get the common walks done and then we will talk about a plat. That has motivated developers up to now, all of them whether individuals like Mr. Lambert who owns Avalon. He has all of his common walks and paths done. They are in and there are no bonds and there is no need for bonds because they are there. Quite frankly I think that is the policy that we should implement in the ordinance. I think that is the best way to go and the issue to me is really how far do we go on the lot walks now? Do we allow that to be something that we either put under the covenants that Joe described to you or try to retain some bond, which seems to go on and on because building those walks early before a home is built on it is counterproductive and quite frankly is a waste of resources for everybody.
Again, Don Lambert is a very good developer; we have others who aren't good. We have to think of all of them when we consider this and when you guys consider this but it seems like with our building department and the Zoning Ordinance we could create the right issues. Maybe the covenants are part of that but we have a certificate of occupancy in a home and we have different ways to force that sidewalk to get built when a home is constructed. I think we can get to a place where we maybe don't need to carry a bond that we again have to administer and have to pay premiums on over and over again. I'm not sure that has been that affective for lot walks. A home being built is typically the thing that is most affective for us getting done what we need to get done, which is assuring that walk is done at the time the home is being occupied. The only thing that has become a problem with that is seasonal type things; if it is the middle of winter and they need to put something in. Maybe we have given them a little bit of a break or a temporary certificate of occupancy for three months or something until good weather came in. Things like people don't occupy homes without their driveways typically. We rarely have that problem so we typically connect that sidewalk issue with the driveway and say hey you need the driveway don't you? So, build the walk too. So, we have a lot of ways to get to that without having to have a bond pulled for those lot walks.
I think we can come to a good place if you are interested in going there. It really comes from one developer's request, not a lot of developers, but one requesting that we get away from bonding the lot walks. That is really where this started and I think it has some merit and I don't think it really puts us as a Town in a bad position. But certainly that is for you guys to decide and we will go with however you would like. I think we can come up with another method. Possibly a covenant, possibly ordinances and maybe change the building code ordinance too. We could come after someone who decides not to do the right thing or try to flush out these different conditions that we might have on sidewalks on a lot.
Mr. McPhail said my only concern is once a developer may have a subdivision that has two or three really stinking lots on it and I would think maybe after 90% of the lots have been sold that any remaining at that point that the developer ought to go back and put those sidewalks so he has continuity.
Mr. Belcher said that is something that has come up and we had even thought about the situation where many times in the custom home area a person buys two lots because they want more space. They will build their home on one lot so how do you assure that they get the one on the other lot? We don't want that gap created so I think we have to work through those issues and figure out a way to deal with them. I think in Walnut Hills there is maybe one lot in there that still doesn't have a walk on it and those kinds of things we will have to think through in how do we make sure that doesn't happen. Maybe it is just a much lower amount on the developer to carry a tenth of what he is carrying instead of a 100% of the lot cost.
Mr. McPhail said because you can get down there and have a couple of lots that are not going to sell.
Mr. Belcher said absolutely, corner lots and double frontage lots are another issue. Many times the builder will say hey I built my walk; it's on the front of my lot. We're saying there is a lot of frontage over here on the back that goes along the county road and there is no walk on there. So, we need to define what common walk is very clearly if we go this route and make sure that the builders and developers know who is responsible for the lot and we know.
Mr. Carlucci said (inaudible).
Mr. Brandgard said I think you are in the right direction. (Inaudible). A declaration of restrictive covenants when I first heard of that (inaudible) but after I read through this that makes sense along with our control.
Mr. McPhail said that worked in my subdivision. I was getting ready to build and the homeowners tried to get me to put a sidewalk in a couple of months before. I started them off but I had owned the lot three years before I built them.
Mr. Belcher said the covenants, part of item two where it talks about three years, is that the right number of years or not? Even if we wrote it so it would be something that the Plan Commission could extend but no one else could extend. That way you would have to come to them and ask permission to go more than three years.
Mr. Gibbs said or you could do it by percentage of lots. Does any of that solve the situation that you brought though Kent where you have a homeowner that bought two lots?
Mr. McPhail said I think they ought to put a sidewalk on all of them.
Mr. Brandgard said (inaudible).
Mr. Belcher said item three on there did deal with that because I told Don before he had his attorney prepare this that was one of the issues that we were concerned about. So, they wrote something in item three if an owner has adjoining lots, that he has to install them all. We could have that in our ordinance too like Robin said to back it up. The covenants; if someone in the neighborhood wants to enforce it, then we would have the ability to.
Mr. Gibbs asked, do we need a motion?
Mr. Daniel said no just consent.
Mr. Belcher said from the Staff's standpoint if you feel like we are heading the right direction, we will keep going and come back with something more official.
Mr. Gibbs said it looks like you have everybody's consent.
Mr. James said our next item is the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. In the memo I gave you an example of some of the proposed amendments. Number one would be to amend Article 5.5 regarding legal nonconforming buildings with regards to the Gateway Corridor standards, development standards. If the building is not used for six months or more, then in order to reuse it, they must comply with the gateway standards.
The next one would be we would add that to the legal nonconforming article to make sure that it is legally covered in that section.
The next one would be to prevent certain uses along the Gateway Corridor. I provided three examples; the discount retailer, antique mall or flea market. I provided proposed definitions for each. They would have to have a gross floor area of at least 50,000 square feet. This would exclude like Gilley's. I think they have 38,000 square feet out there so this wouldn't apply to them. In case something were to happen to them, the building was destroyed over two-thirds of its market value or something like that, then they could still rebuild.
Some other proposed amendments; regards setbacks, accessory uses, especially in Residential Districts where right now you can build an accessory building in front of the primary use building, which would be the house as long as it complies with the front yard setback. By adding this stipulation then the accessory building would have to have the same setback as the primary use building or as the house.
The other proposed amendments deal with the sign ordinance. Right now we don't prohibit roof signs; we just define them. So, by adding this it would prohibit roof signs. The other two deal with incidental signs. Right now in the Industrial District the maximum height is only four feet and we received some complaints from some of the warehouses that it is not high enough. The truck drivers can't see them. So, by increasing the six feet that will put them more at their eye level and hopefully they will be able to see them and go in the right direction. But they would still be limited to six square feet, the size of the sign.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, six square feet?
Mr. James said six square feet, two by three. That's the size that they are allowed now.
Mr. Carlucci said (inaudible).
Mr. Kirchoff said six feet tall.
Mr. Brandgard said if you are raising it up two feet, I think you may want to look at the rest of the dimensions to make sure it stays in proportion.
Mr. James said I was thinking more of a pole sign, just one pole but that is a good point.
Mr. Carlucci said otherwise the message is going to be so small they aren't going to see that either.
Mr. Kirchoff said I just think six square feet on a six foot sign is going to (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail said they are not very big. They are basically directional signs. But still some of them are pretty small.
Mr. James said some of them are more like the size of a traffic control sign.
Mr. Brandgard said (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail said they need to be (inaudible) too.
Ms. Sprague said this is six foot.
Mr. Kirchoff said but that is not six foot tall.
Ms. Sprague said up there it is.
Mr. McPhail said it's over six foot, the top of it.
Ms. Sprague said this is just the direction sign. It says “loading that way.
Mr. James said “shipping and receiving. We can reduce the size of the sign.
Ms. Sprague said because there is a part in there for loading signs. If it is for loading or parking (inaudible) allowed 48 square feet, which is four foot tall and eight foot wide. It's a little bigger than this. (Inaudible).
Mr. James said we will come up with some options. The next proposed sign amendment would be for menu boards. Right now we just allow one menu board for a fast food drive-thru restaurant. We may get three new fast food restaurants here in the near future. We know we are going to get one; Hardy's they have already submitted for a rebuild and the other two we probably are going to get a Taco Bell down by Cambridge Way at the interchange just south of the Woodfire Grille. And then Jack in the Box has called us about the Daum lot at Clarks Creek and Main Street.
Mr. McPhail asked, where is the Jack in the Box located?
Mr. James said the northeast corner of Clarks Creek and Main Street. Hardy's has already filed for a variance to have two many boards.
Mr. McPhail said they have two now.
Mr. James said they could and McDonald's may have two also, which is in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. They could be grandfathered too.
Mr. Carlucci said maybe you say yes maybe that is a better idea and on the other hand everyone I go through has all sorts of things on the ground. Everyone has something else there so I don't know what you gain from the menu. You say okay now you have more menu boards and they are still sticking all of their special signs out everywhere on their property. I don't think the menu boards in of themselves create a problem. The best drive-up in Town is the existing Taco Bell because they have the big area in the back that they landscaped and it is nice. When you go through there, it is very nice but I have a problem when you open another menu board and they will jump up with more “come in and get coffee, etc. the whole nine yards so you have more signage everywhere. It is just a thought.
Mr. McGillem said one thing from the internal traffic control I know when the ordinance was being written and these menu boards were something that was really kicked around a lot as far as whether you have one or two menu boards, it was decided to restrict everything to one menu board. But if you have a situation like Taco Bell, Wendy's, I think from the standpoint of traffic control with all of the different items that you have today from the standpoint of value meals, etc. that a double menu board moves traffic through a lot quicker than a single board will. If you get the second menu back far enough and you have a far enough lead time, it gives people an opportunity to make up their mind what they want in advance usually by at least two cars in advance of when you have to put your order in and it clears things out. If you go into Taco Bell, they have a big line there but there are many times that the lines extends all the way and cuts off the back drive there by the farm store. I think if you could move that line quicker, it would be an advantage traffic wise.
Mr. Satterfield said it reduces stress if you have a carload of grandkids too.
Mr. Brandgard said I'm not big on signs but I think two menu boards are better than one but I don't know. Number one I hardly do drive-ins. But that is probably one of the reasons trying to figure out what I want.
Mr. Kirchoff said we are seeing them everywhere else in other states.
Mr. Satterfield said I agree with Rich it would be nice if you could limit it to certain things but if you do that, you have to police it too.
Mr. Carlucci said that is a separate issue. That is an enforcement issue.
Mr. Satterfield said that's what I mean.
Mr. McPhail said if you give them another menu board, they shouldn't have all of these other stuff around.
Mr. Carlucci said (inaudible). The problem is these are national firms (inaudible). They tell me to put it out so I put it out.
Mr. James asked, do you think they should be the same size or should it be subordinate? Do you have a preference?
Mr. Brandgard said same size.
Mr. James asked, any comments about the Gateway Corridor amendments?
Mr. Satterfield said I have a question on the prohibited uses like the ad “shop at Gilley's. Would that be prohibited now to build something like that?
Mr. James said no it wouldn't be prohibited because it is less than 50,000 square feet.
Mr. Satterfield said I'm just using that one as an example because I'm familiar with it and see it everyday but if you wanted to build something like that today, you couldn't build it?
Mr. James said yes under 50,000 square feet.
Mr. Satterfield said as long as it is under 50,000?
Mr. James said yes.
Mr. Satterfield said so it's conforming now and it would be conforming if he would sell it as long as it didn't go over 50,000 square feet?
Mr. James said right.
Mr. McPhail asked, did I read in here where it has to be a certain size before you upgrade if it hasn't been used?
Mr. James said yes. I just threw 20,000 square feet in there.
Mr. McPhail said I think regardless what size it is if it has been nonconforming and it hasn't been used for six months, they have to upgrade it.
Mr. Gibbs said I would agree.
Mr. Carlucci said we are trying to get them back through the process.
Mr. McPhail said yes to upgrade that facade. I don't think we should eliminate any size building.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail said particularly along U.S. 40 we have some small buildings and some of them need to be torn down. In fact, I'm watching for one. That's where we got rid of the tattoo and all of that. That building needs to be wiped out of there.
Mr. Kirchoff said I think there is a wonderful redevelopment opportunity in that strip through there.
Mr. McPhail said absolutely.
Mr. Kirchoff said I told my wife that someday somebody will come through and redevelop all of that. That will be a plus for the community.
Mr. Brandgard said the animal clinic did a good job starting off.
Mr. Kirchoff said yes he did.
Mr. Satterfield said I'm still confused; on number two it says one example that would be a prohibited use would be a discount retailer. Where does it mention what size it has to be?
Mr. James said under definitions.
Mr. Satterfield said in the last sentence in the first paragraph “discontinued for six months if the use of the building is 20,000 square feet or more.
Mr. James said that was different. That was the architectural standard, it is not the permitted use. We'll make the changes and then notice it for a public hearing at the July meeting.
I have one more item. I didn't put it in the agenda. Jill put together the executive housing trend report. We looked at some PUDs in Fishers to maybe get some idea of what these PUDs have in them that make them attractive for executive homes. She compared three PUDs, Hamilton Proper is by far the most exclusive and is an executive style home development. It has the low-density, the large lot size and the amenities that you would like to have for executive homes. They have a championship golf course. But I think the main common thread for all three of these are the fact that they are PUDs, they're master plan communities, they have low-density, they have large lot sizes and they have lots of open space. I think those are elements that we need to look for when we consider executive type developments.
Mr. Satterfield asked, which one is on 126th Street? Is that Gray's?
Mr. James said the golf course is.
Mr. McPhail said you are right; Hamilton Proper is very high scale.
Mr. James said that is very, very high end.
Mr. Gibbs asked, when did you say the next one was coming in?
Mr. James said hopefully soon. That is all that we have for tonight.
Mr. Brandgard said I have a question (inaudible). The signs going up, M/I Homes (inaudible) part of the approval process. I was told that (inaudible).
Ms. Sprague said (inaudible).
Mr. James said as long as they meet the development standards.
Mr. Brandgard said my thought (inaudible) $140,000.00 up for houses and they are $140,000.00 (inaudible) doesn't mean (inaudible). If you check it out, let me know if I'm right or wrong. I thought that we approved it based on what they said they were going to build out there.
Mr. McPhail said I had one of the homeowners call me and I said as far as I know they have to meet all of those standards. They went to talk to the people at M/I Homes and M/I Homes told them they were aware that they had to meet those building standards in that subdivision. At least that is what they told me and in fact I remember having a tussle with Jeff Roberts over a couple of issues when he built in there. He didn't want to meet a couple of the things and we had to get him to do it.
Mr. James said you think they were approved for certain elevations or models or just standards?
Mr. Brandgard said (inaudible).
Mr. James said they have to submit a residential ILP and Jill checks them that they comply with the design standards.
Mr. Brandgard said (inaudible).
Mr. McGillem said I have had some complaints out there associated with that also and some of them are coming through Jeff Robert's building in there supposedly. The advertisement that they put up on their sign like Robin indicated were $140,000.00, which you can't build a home in there for $140,000.00. The individuals that have built or that Jeff is dealing with right now with products to build in there essentially indicating that you have to have this amount in the thing are coming back and saying how come M/I Homes can build for $140,000.00? So, I think there is some misleading advertisement that is put on the signs leading into the development, which is hurting the sales or people who are interested in the development associated with it.
Mr. James said we will contact M/I Homes and get it straightened out.
Mr. Gibbs asked, do you need direction on this 3530 Hunt Street?
Mr. James said I met with Mr. Shouse and I told him what the issues were. He has been having items out for sale in his yard and I think he has a lot of legal nonconforming items on the property. He has a fence.
Mr. Carlucci said we have gone there before. We have taken him to court before.
Mr. McPhail said at least once.
Mr. Carlucci said at least once and you basically need (inaudible) and take a bunch of pictures. I don't think anybody lives there. I think it's just full of stuff.
Mr. James said he led me to believe that he lived there.
Mr. McPhail said he may but he has to worm his way in if he does.
Mr. James said I told him he has to put everything back behind the fence and keep it behind the fence.
Mr. Carlucci said be careful there because the fact that you can put a fence and put all that junk that he has in there is not residential………
Mr. James said it's legal nonconforming. Were all of those items there before the current standards went into the place?
Mr. Carlucci said we have already taken him to court on this once (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail said he's cleaned it up once.
Mr. James said I will let him know.
Mr. Carlucci said it's a revolving door over there. I bet every other weekend he's selling stuff out of that front yard.
Mr. Brandgard said (inaudible).
Mr. Kirchoff asked, where is it?
Mr. Carlucci said on the street at the very end.
Mr. Daniel said I think it's next to the last house on the west side.
Mr. McPhail said it's north of Discount Tire. It's where we just put the sewers.
Mr. James said he's just north of the Habitat homes.
Mr. Kirchoff said the plans are to break out two houses this month.
Mr. McPhail asked, do you have somebody going in the one that got built?
Mr. Kirchoff said no.
Mr. Carlucci said I will go out there with you.
Mr. James said we will pay him another visit then.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. McPhail made a motion to adjourn. Second by Mr. Satterfield. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned.
___________________________________
Mr. Dennis Gibbs, President
