Employment Opportunities Event Calendar
Pay EMS Bill Pay Utility Bill
Town Logo

Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 2013

Meeting Minutes

01-02-2013 Plan Commission Meeting Canceled
01-16-2013 Plan Commission

January 16, 2013 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes

Greg Volk Steve Hastings Attorney Tim Kuiper
Mike Ryan Steve Kozel Kenn Kraus
Tom Redar   Steve Kil
Mike Forbes    

CALL TO ORDER:

Mr. Greg Volk called the study session of January 16, 2013, to order at 7:02 p.m.

ROLL CALL:

Roll call was taken with the following Commissioners present: Greg Volk, Tom Ryan, Tom Redar, Mike Forbes, Steve Hastings and Steve Kozel. Staff members present: Kenn Kraus and Town Manager, Steve Kil. Attorney Rex Sherrard was also present.

NEW BUSINESS:

A. MCDONALDS/EENIGENBURG – CONTINUED REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Volk stated that the Board would continue to review the McDonalds/Eenigenburg development.

Attorney Patrick Lyp appeared before the Board on behalf of McDonalds and JDE, LLC. He introduced the following individuals who were also involved in the McDonalds/JDE, LLC development. The individuals were as follows: Mr. Gary Torrenga, Torrenga Engineering; Mr. Maurice King and Mr. Al Daniels of McDonalds Corporation; and Mr. Nick Georgiu, architect.

Attorney Lyp submitted a plan of the proposed development to the Board. He stated that he has been working on this process with Mr. Steve Kil. Attorney Lyp stated that the development will be a very aggressive process in order to get the matter resolved.

Attorney Lyp noted that the developer is aware that they will need variances and have to appear before the BZA to work on these matters. He stated that they are presently working on the vacation of one road and the dedication of another road behind Mr. Eenigenburg’s property. He stated that the developer, McDonalds Corporation, cannot proceed until the road issue is taken care of and will not proceed until the issue is resolved. Attorney Lyp stated that they are presently working out the details on the road.

Attorney Lyp stated that the appropriate commitments will be made so that the Town is comfortable with the road being put in prior to the completion of the project or shortly thereafter.

Attorney Lyp turned the floor over to Mr. Gary Torrenga.

Mr. Torrenga, Torrenga Engineering, Munster, Indiana, appeared before the Board, on behalf of McDonalds Corporation, to explain the development and answer any questions the Board had. He remarked that this has been a long process. He stated that “Mr. Eenigenburg’s engineering as had been submitted and has had been reviewed still stands.”

Mr. Torrenga stated that McDonalds requested that their lot be made a part of Eenigenburg’s Second Addition. He noted that all of the McDonalds infrastructure has been discussed. Mr. Torrenga explained that Eenigenburg’s Second Addition, instead of now having three lots, (the three lots on the northern most side of 97th Lane) have an additional fourth lot, Lot 4, on the south side of 97th Lane. The McDonalds will be located in Lot 4, in the same way as it was presented to the Board previously.

Mr. Torrenga stated that none of the engineering facts have changed. He stated that all of the water will go to east to the detention pond on the east end of the property just west of the railroad. He stated that the sanitary sewers will flow the same way. He stated that the sanitary sewers will provide potable water, and in the case of McDonalds, fire suppression and water in the same way.

Mr. Torrenga stated that he is here tonight as the link between Eenigenburg’s and McDonalds. He stated that he would attempt to answer any questions regarding Eenigenburg’s and his work on it. He stated that if the questions are related to the architecture of the McDonalds or Eenigenburg’s there were experts present to answer any questions.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Torrenga stated that the only real change made to the plans since September, 2012, is that McDonalds has been added to Eenigenburg’s Second Addition, as the southernmost lot. He stated that this is the only change.

Mr. Forbes, referring to C2 of the McDonalds drawings, noted that the entrance to McDonalds right off of Route 41, has an enlarged turn radius that widens 97th Lane. He asked for the purpose of the enlarged turn radius. Mr. Daniels stated that the enlarged turn radius was to accommodate the McDonalds delivery trucks. He stated that the trucks will come around the front of the building and turn and come along the south side of the building for offloading of product.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kozel asked about the size of the delivery trucks. Mr. Daniels responded that the delivery truck is a 40’ trailer truck. Mr. Kozel noted that there were a lot of tight spaces in the drawing. Mr. Daniels concurred.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Daniels stated that there is a truck overlay to show that the delivery truck is able to navigate around the lot. The time of deliveries were discussed. The safest routes for the delivery trucks were discussed. Mr. Forbes expressed some concerns with the delivery trucks impeding traffic on Route 41. Mr. Daniels stated he would review the delivery routes.

Mr. Forbes asked Mr. Kraus about the storm water review. Mr. Kraus stated that he had reviewed the development pretty closely back in September, 2012, including the storage volume, calculations, water and sewer connections and the frontage road that was going to be located to the east of the new Eenigenburg building. Mr. Kraus stated, at the time, he was pretty satisfied. Mr. Kraus stated with the addition of Lot 4, he would like to check the plan again, but did not foresee any problems.

(General discussion ensued.)

The parking was discussed. Mr. Daniels stated that McDonalds would always like more parking but would take all they could get. The handicapped parking space was discussed. Mr. Daniels stated he would review the handicapped parking. Mr. Kil remarked that it appears that the ADA parking requirement was met.

Mr. Forbes asked the developer if they had a list of waivers that will be requested. He noted that the front of the building was less than 60 feet. Mr. Kil noted that the developer is aware of the two zoning districts, one being the Route 41 Overlay District. Mr. Kil stated that the developer meets the exterior building material requirements, but not the eight exterior corner requirements.

Mr. Kil commented that the building is over the 60 foot building line, which was previously discussed. He stated if the building was pushed back it would move the drive-thru boards to the front of the building. Mr. Kil stated that he indicated early on that he did not want the drive-thru boards dominating the front of the building. Mr. Kil stated that locating the drive-thrus at the back of the building will make for a more pleasant street scape. Mr. Kil explained it is for this reason that the building line was less than 60 feet.

Mr. Daniels submitted a rendering of the building for the Board’s review. He stated that he believes the building does meet the eight exterior corner requirement.

(General discussion ensued.)

The LED lighting was discussed. Mr. Kil stated that the Board was pleased with the light plan at the Dyer McDonalds. Mr. Daniels stated that he had done a review of the records and that the contractor who did the lighting at the Dyer McDonalds was out of business. Mr. Daniels stated that the photometric plan submitted by McDonalds does meet the Town’s requirements. He mentioned that the building itself will be brighter than the Dyer McDonalds.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Daniels cited that Hobart McDonalds on Route 30 on the south side of the mall is the same sized building as the one being built in St. John. He stated that the Board could get a feel for what the outside lighting of the building will look like at night if they look at the Hobart store. Mr. Daniels showed the Board the type of bricks that would be used on the building. Mr. Forbes remarked that it is going to be a nice looking building.

Mr. Torrenga stated that the storm sewer that comes from McDonalds was initially going to be attached to the east/west trunk line on 97th Lane west of its present position. It was determined in the drainage calculations that it was better for it to be tied into the next manhole to the east where the storm sewer was a larger size. Mr. Torrenga stated, other than this, there were no substantial changes.

Mr. Volk noted signage being located at the southwest corner. Mr. Daniels concurred. He asked if this sign would be the main sign for the restaurant. Mr. Daniels concurred. Mr. Volk asked about an existing sign “Quality Water - Eenigenburg.” Mr. Daniels stated, to his understanding, the sign would be eliminated and moved to another side. Mr. Forbes asked about the “Storage Inn” sign.

Mr. Georgiu explained that drawings were submitted that reflect placement of signs for Lots 1 and 2. Mr. Forbes asked again if the existing signs on corner of 97th Lane and Route 41 would be removed. Mr. Georgiu stated that he could not answer that question. Mr. Georgiu stated that the intent is for there to be a new monument sign for the water store’s new location.

Mr. Kil asked, as part of the whole development, could the Board assume that all of the outside signs currently in existence would be eliminated down Route 41. Mr. Georgiu concurred. Mr. Kil reiterated that all of the old signs would be eliminated and each business would get one new sign. Mr. Forbes stated that he wanted to be sure that this is what was going to happen with the signs. Mr. Georgiu stated that he has never had a discussion about the sign on the corner by Stracks; he stated he assumed it would be gone. Mr. Kil remarked that the BZA grants variances, but never for two signs.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Georgiou remarked that obviously neither business would want signs that conflicted from a visibility standpoint. Mr. Torrenga remarked that the sign program for both businesses is to establish the identity of which lot each business is located on. Mr. Torrenga stated that they key to the signs is being able to change them for advertising purposes. Mr. Forbes concurred with Mr. Torrenga in that once customers know where a business is located the sign is immaterial. Mr. Forbes stated he is not a fan of digital reader board signs.

(General discussion ensued.)

Attorney Lyp summarized the issues before the Board, concerning the truck delivery and the turn off of Route 41; submission of a waiver list; nine foot parking spaces in lieu of 10 foot parking spaces and the photometric plan. Attorney Lyp commented that the developer is committing to the Plan Commission tonight there will be two signs, one for McDonalds and one for the water company, each on their own lot.

Mr. Forbes asked about Earl Drive. Attorney Lyp stated that his understanding is that Mr. Daniels will attempt to secure a delivery schedule for Mr. Forbes. Attorney Lyp stated that the product deliveries are once a day, predominantly in the morning.

Mr. Forbes asked if there was still discussion going on with Mr. Eenigenburg about the extension of Earl Drive. Attorney Lyp stated the discussion entails the logistics of how and when Earl Drive will go in, and not if it will go in. Attorney Lyp stated, as they committed to the Plan Commission, the road must go in and will go in. Mr. Kil commented that once primary approval is granted all public improvements can go in including the frontage road, detention basin and utilities. Mr. Kil stated that the developer could address the issue globally as “all public improvements.” Mr. Forbes, Mr. Volk and Mr. Kozel concurred.

Mr. Torrenga asked the Board if they had any questions about Eenigenburg’s development. Mr. Forbes asked about the “pseudo pork chop.” Mr. Torrenga stated he has had conversations with an INDOT representative. He stated that INDOT has approved a left turn in for southbound traffic and a right turn in for northbound traffic. Mr. Torrenga stated that a left hand turn for southbound traffic is prohibited.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Torrenga stated that once Eenigenburg’s business is finished with the Plan Commission that they will submit a permit for approval of the ingress/egress. Mr. Torrenga stated this layout is based on personal interviews and recommendations from Mr. John McFadden of INDOT.

Mr. Kraus asked about the Rule 5 permit. He asked whether the permits would be applied for separately by McDonalds and the water company, or whether the permit would be applied for through the four lot subdivision. Mr. Torrenga stated that a Rule 5 applications and drawings were done separately by McDonalds and Eenigenburg’s and he requested that they be reviewed separately. Mr. Kil concurred.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil asked Mr. Georgiu where the trash enclosure would be located. Mr. Georgiu stated that there are no plans for a trash enclosure located outside Eenigenburg’s at the present time, but he would verify that.

Mr. Forbes remarked that the whole parking area on the Eenigenburg side appeared to have no curb and gutter. Mr. Torrenga concurred. Mr. Torrenga explained that the storm sewer will run from the north side of the existing building through Earl Drive, picking up two catch basins in the middle of Earl Drive halfway between 97th Lane and the end of Earl Drive on the north, continue east beyond and through Lot 2 to the east end of Lot 2, and then tie back into the storm sewer. Mr. Torrenga stated that this explanation dovetails with the explanation he gave to Mr. Kraus earlier that the farther east one goes on the existing storm sewer the bigger the storm sewer gets.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Torrenga stated all of the storm water would remain on the property until it is directed to the detention pond.

Mr. Volk asked if the end of the detention pond on the site would be enlarged. Mr. Torrenga stated that the northernmost 100 feet of the detention pond was never excavated. Mr. Torrenga stated that there is 110 foot of east/west drainage and detention easement on the east end of the St. John Industrial Park as it sits right now. Mr. Torrenga stated that his plat reflects that they will extend the 110 feet easement to the north end of Eenigenburg’s Second Addition.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil asked Mr. Torrenga if Lot 2 would be able to accommodate construction of a new building and its detention requirements. Mr. Torrenga stated that he took a C Factor which would accommodate almost anything that a person wanted to build there within the boundaries of the developmental ordinance. Mr. Torrenga stated there could be an expansion. He stated that Lot 3 was also factored into his calculations with maximum usage.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Volk asked about building elevations for the McDonalds. Mr. Geogiu stated elevations had been submitted. Mr. Georgiu stated he has no further elevations because this is a preliminary submittal. Mr. Georgiu stated that additional elevations would be included in the rest of the civil engineering package. Mr. Georgiu stated he would have some additional preliminary elevations available to forward to Mr. Kil in a couple of weeks. Mr. Kil stated that the February 6, 2013, meeting would be a target date to get this information submitted.

Mr. Volk asked about the lighting plan. Mr. Georgiu stated that he has no lighting plan at the present time but he is well aware of the Dark Skies Ordinance.

Mr. Forbes recommended that if Eenigenburg is going to have parking lot lights to try and the same type McDonalds is using so they will blend well. Mr. Georgiu stated he would be happy to coordinate on the lighting aspect with McDonalds.

Mr. Forbes noted on C3.0 of the drawing it states “Road to be built by Town of St. John.” Mr. Georgiu stated that he would defer to Attorney Lyp’s comments that this issue is being worked out.

Mr. Volk noted “Outdoor Sales.” Mr. Georgiu stated he would put together a list of developmental variances that have been discussed with Mr. Kil. The variances include outdoor sales, side yard encroachment and signage. He stated Eenigenburg would be going before the BZA on these issues.

Mr. Torrenga thanked the Board. The Board had no further questions. Mr. Forbes stated that the Board would take a short break.

(The meeting recessed at 8:15 p.m.)

(The meeting was called back to order at 8:25 p.m.)

B. GATES OF ST. JOHN – UNITS 10e, 10F, 10G – FINAL PLAT REVIEW
Mr. Kil informed the Board that all of the infrastructure is in, sewer, water and streets. He asked Mr. Redar to update the Board on the Gates of St. John, Units 10E, 10F and 10G. Mr. Redar said there is egress/ingress off of Parrish Avenue into the Gates of St. John.

Mr. Forbes stated he is reviewing 10E. Mr. Redar stated that 10E has had 103rd Street extended to Parrish Avenue. Mr. Redar stated that 10E and 10G encompass all of the lots on 103rd Street up to Red Oak Drive.

Mr. Redar stated it is very straightforward. Mr. Forbes asked if 10G was two lots. Mr. Kil stated that all of the writing in bold on the drawings are not platted.

Mr. Redar stated there is an existing house on Lot 206. Mr. Kil stated that the developer stated he made a mistake on the platting.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Redar stated that 10F is located directly west of the Crown Point Christian School. He stated that there is a portion of West 106th Avenue which currently has four residences. He stated that West 106th was extended and Douglas Drive was included and it runs north and south.

(General discussion ensued.)

The final surfaced roads were discussed. Mr. Kraus explained that structurally these roads are stronger with the final coat on and should hold up better now than before. The drainage issues were discussed.

Mr. Kil stated that the developer is in the process of acquiring maintenance bonds. Mr. Kil stated he strongly believes that the streets should be final surfaced right away since it is taking so long to build out a subdivision now. He stated it that the Board should take a long look at this issue.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes asked how long road repairs on St. John Road should be “nurtured” along. Mr. Forbes stated this road, by far, is the worst stretch of road in Town. Mr. Kil stated that 101st is tied to Unit 4 in Renaissance and belongs to Mr. Terpstra. Mr. Kil stated that nothing is moving in Renaissance. Mr. Forbes stated that this matter should be watched carefully.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes stated he has a couple more questions on the Gates. He asked if Mr. Kil had heard anything more from the retirement community. Mr. Kil stated he has not heard anything.

Mr. Forbes asked if Mr. Lotton was thinking about rezoning a portion along Route 231 from residential to commercial. Mr. Kil stated he is in the process of redesigning a commercial section on Route 231 to present to the Board.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil had no further comment. Mr. Kozel had no further comment. Mr. Redar had no further comment. Mr. Hastings had no further comment.

Mr. Volk asked about the status of the dumpster enclosures. Mr. Kil stated he would get an update.

Mr. Volk asked if the Town was within their percentage rate for multifamily units. Mr. Volk stated that he believed that multifamily units was supposed to comprise 8% of the Town’s residences. Mr. Kil stated that he has no reason to believe that the Town is not in compliance.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Volk announced that he will not be reappointed to the Plan Commission in 2013. He stated that a majority of the Town Council has determined that Councilman should not serve on the Board. He stated that the Council believes Councilmen influence the Board. Mr. Volk commented he and Mr. Forbes do not agree with the determination. Mr. Volk stated he believes, as an elected official, it is prudent that Councilmen serve on the Board. He stated that he will still attend the meetings.

OLD BUSINESS:

There was no Old Business.

OPEN THE FLOOR FOR PUBLIC COMMENT:

There was no public comment.

ADJOURNMENT:

Mr. Volk adjourned the meeting.

(The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.)

A TRUE COPY

_____________________________________
Susan E. Wright, Recording Secretary
St. John Plan Commission

02-06-2013 Plan Commission

February 6, 2013 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes

Tom Ryan, President Mike Forbes Attorney Tim Kuiper
Steve Hastings, Vice-President Derwin Nietzel Kenn Kraus
Steve Kozel, Secretary   Steve Kil
Tom Redar    

CALL TO ORDER:

Mr. Forbes called the regular meeting of February 6, 2013, to order at 7:02 p.m.

(The Pledge of Allegiance was said.)

ROLL CALL:

Roll call was taken with the following Commissioners present: Steve Hastings, Steve Kozel, Tom Redar, Mike Forbes and Derwin Neitzel. Tom Ryan was absent. Staff members present: Kenn Kraus and Town Manager, Steve Kil. Attorneys Tim Kuiper and Dave Austgen were also present. Town Council liaison, Greg Volk, was also present.

ELECTION OF OFFICERS:

Mr. Forbes stated the election of officers was the first item on the agenda. He nominated Mr. Tom Ryan for the position of President for calendar year 2013. Mr. Forbes asked for any other nominations. There were no other nominations. He closed the floor to nominations. Mr. Forbes asked all those in favor to signify by saying aye. Mr. Forbes – aye. Mr. Redar – aye. Mr. Neitzel – aye. Mr. Hastings – aye. Mr. Kozel – aye. The motion was carried by voice vote (5/0).

Mr. Forbes nominated Mr. Steve Hastings to the position of Vice-President of the Plan Commission for calendar year 2013. He asked for any other nominations. There were no other nominations. He closed the floor to nominations. Mr. Forbes asked all those in favor to signify by saying aye. Mr. Forbes – aye. Mr. Redar – aye. Mr. Neitzel – aye. Mr. Hastings – aye. Mr. Kozel – aye. The motion was carried by voice vote (5/0).

Mr. Forbes nominated Mr. Steve Kozel for the position of Secretary to the Plan Commission for calendar year 2013. He asked for any other nominations. There were no other nominations. He closed the floor to nominations. Mr. Forbes asked all those in favor to signify by saying aye. Mr. Forbes – aye. Mr. Redar – aye. Mr. Neitzel – aye. Mr. Hastings – aye. Mr. Kozel – aye. The motion was carried by voice vote (5/0).

Mr. Forbes stated that the Plan Commission must make one appointment to the Board of Zoning Appeals. He stated that Mr. Tom Ryan currently fulfills that duty. He asked the Board for any nominations. There were no nominations. Mr. Forbes made the nomination to reappoint Mr. Tom Ryan a member of the Board of Zoning Appeals for 2013. Mr. Forbes again asked if there were any other nominations. There were no other nominations. He closed the floor to nominations. Mr. Forbes asked all those in favor to signify by saying aye. Mr. Forbes – aye. Mr. Redar – aye. Mr. Neitzel – aye. Mr. Hastings – aye. Mr. Kozel – aye. The motion was carried by voice vote (5/0).

Mr. Forbes stated he would entertain a motion to retain Beth Wright as recording secretary. “So moved,” by Mr. Kozel. The motion was seconded by Mr. Redar. The motion was unanimously carried by voice vote (4/0).

In the absence of Plan Commission President Mr. Tom Ryan, Mr. Steve Hastings, Vice President, chaired the remainder of the meeting.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: NO JANUARY MEETING

Mr. Hastings noted that there were no minutes submitted for approval.

NEW BUSINESS:

A. TOWN OF ST. JOHN LIGHTING ORDINANCE – PUBLIC HEARING
Mr. Hastings stated that the next item on the agenda was a public hearing for the Town of St. John Lighting Ordinance. Mr. Forbes asked Attorney Kuiper if the Proofs of Publication were in order for the public hearing. Attorney Kuiper stated that publications were made at least 10 days in advance in both The Times and the Post-Tribune so the public hearing could be properly held at tonight’s meeting.

Attorney Kuiper informed the Board that there was one change made to the proposed ordinance. Attorney Kuiper stated that he, Mr. Volk and Mr. Kil reviewed the remainder of the ordinance for any conflicts since large, comprehensive changes were being made to the lighting provisions. Attorney Kuiper stated that one conflict was discovered in Section I3, Section 8.2 Town Center Overlay District. Attorney Kuiper stated that the conflict was resolved by removing the conflicting verbiage. Other than the one minor change, Attorney Kuiper informed the Board that the proposed ordinance is consistent with what was previously reviewed and recommended by the Board for the public hearing.

Mr. Hastings asked for any comments from the Board. Mr. Forbes commented that this ordinance has been a work in progress for well over 2 ½ years. He stated that although the proposed ordinance may not adhere completely to the spirit of the Dark Skies Ordinance it will make many developments in Town more palatable to the eye. He stated that the proposed ordinance will address glare and the excessive lighting in many of the developments.

Mr. Hastings concurred with Mr. Forbes comments. Mr. Hastings stated that some of the changes that the Town has made with the lighting has helped quite a bit already. He opined that it will be nice to look up at the beautiful stars. He stated that he believes that implementing the ordinance will only improve things. There were no further comments from the Board.

Mr. Hastings opened the Public Hearing. He called for public comment. There was no public comment. He closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back before the Board. He asked for any final comments from the Board. There were no further comments from the Board.

Mr. Volk addressed the Board. He thanked the Board for all of their hard work in creating the ordinance. He opined that this is a very necessary addition to the Town’s zoning ordinance.

Mr. Hastings stated he would entertain a motion. Mr. Forbes made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 2013-1 and send a favorable recommendation to the Town Council. Mr. Kozel seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously carried by voice vote (5/0).

B. MCDONALDS-EENIGENBURG – FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON MARCH 6, 2013
Mr. Hastings noted that McDonalds/Eenigenburg, a four lot subdivision, was next on the agenda and seeking permission from the Board to advertise for public hearing on March 6, 2013.

Attorney Patrick Lyp appeared before the Board on behalf of the property owner JDE, LLC and McDonalds. He stated that one of the goals of this project was to build a McDonalds Restaurant. He stated that the McDonalds will be located on the corner of 97th Lane and U.S. Route 41. He noted that the Petitioner was here tonight to seek permission to advertise for a public hearing on this matter for March 6, 2013.

Attorney Lyp stated that the developer is aware that they will need several waivers and certain variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals. He stated that Mr. Kil was provided with a list of the required waivers and variances. He stated that he was made aware of additional variances that must be submitted to the BZA, and he stated these variances will be added to the list.

Attorney Lyp stated that the developer is also well aware that there is a portion of the frontage road that needs to be vacated. He stated that the developer is seeking the permission of the Town Council to vacate this portion of frontage road. In addition, the developer is aware that an access road is required and they are currently working with the owner of the property to finalize the construction road towards the back of the property.

Attorney Lyp stated it is the goal of the developer to demolish the property to the south where the McDonalds restaurant will be constructed and the property to the north will be remodeled for the Eenigenburg water business.

Attorney Lyp stated that a proposed truck route/diagram (off of U.S. Route 41) for the McDonalds delivery trucks has been submitted.

Attorney Lyp stated that a lighting package that reflects how the lighting on the exterior of the McDonalds will look has been submitted to the Board.

Attorney Lyp stated that an application for the development’s sign will be submitted to the Board of Zoning Appeals along with a request for a variance. He stated that this information will be forwarded to the Plan Commission.

Attorney Lyp stated that Mr. Al Daniels, representing McDonalds Corporation, along with Mr. Nick Georgiou, representing JDE, LLC were present tonight to answer any questions.

Attorney Lyp requested that the Board set this matter for Public Hearing on March 6, 2013.

Mr. Kil noted that the Board members received a large volume of information tonight. He stated it was provided so that they could review it well in advance of the study session scheduled for February 20, 2013.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes stated that he appreciated having the information submitted to him well in advance of the meeting. He asked if the front façade of the building would be more illuminated than the McDonalds in Merrillville and Hobart.

Mr. Al Daniels stated that the lot lighting emulates the Dyer McDonalds lighting. Mr. Daniels stated that the lighting on the building will look like that at the Hobart and Merrillville location.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes noted that the public hearing would be for a replat. Mr. Kil stated that the public hearing would be for primary approval and anticipated that the site plan approval would also be granted. Mr. Kil stated that these approvals are usually done simultaneously when a development comes in.

Mr. Forbes noted that the McDonalds site plan and the Eenigenburg site plan are separate. Mr. Kil stated the public hearing and the primary plat would be for the entire subdivision, both McDonalds and Eenigenburg. Mr. Kil stated that the site plan approval would be granted independently. He stated that there would be separate site plan reviews for McDonalds and Eenigenburg Quality Water.

(General discussion ensued.)

Attorney Lyp stated that once Mr. Kil delineated the list that was provided to the Board containing waivers and variances the sooner Petitioner (McDonalds) would be able to appear before the BZA. Mr. Kil stated that the Petitioner should plan to attend the BZA meeting on March 25, 2013.

(General discussion ensued.)

Attorney Austgen remarked that the Eenigenburg site plan and the McDonalds site plan are not one and the same. He stated that the plat will be one for the division of lots. Mr. Kraus stated he would be reviewing Eenigenburg Second Addition and the public improvements that are required for the subdivision. He stated that he is not sure he will be able to segregate the public improvement/subdivision from the site plan. Mr. Krause explained that he will be able to segregate the public improvements as far as calculating the developmental fees. He stated that the water, sewer and detention are all included on one set of engineering plans.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes stated that he questioned the lack of curbing on the Eenigenburg site plan at the last meeting. Since that time, he has discussed this issue with Mr. Kil and Mr. Kraus. He stated that he would like to discuss this lack of curbing on the Eenigenburg site at the study session. Mr. Georgiou stated he would convey this information to the owner.

Mr. Kil stated that during this discussion on the curb, they were having difficulty identifying any commercial establishment in Town that does not have curbing. Mr. Kil stated that all commercial establishments contain curbing to contain runoff. Mr. Forbes added that it also protects the edges of the parking lot.

Mr. Forbes asked Mr. Georgiou if he would have a list of waivers prepared by the study session. Mr. Georgiou replied that the list would be ready by that time.

Mr. Hastings asked the Board for any other comments or questions. The Board had no further comment. Mr. Hastings stated he would entertain a motion for authorization for a public hearing. Mr. Forbes made a motion to grant permission to McDonalds/Eenigenburg, a four lot subdivision, (Eenigenburg’s Second Addition) to advertise for a public hearing on March 6, 2013. Mr. Kozel seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously carried by voice vote (4/0).

C. GATES OF ST. JOHN – UNITS 10E, 10F AND 10G – FINAL PLAT APPROVAL
Mr. John Lotton, developer of the Gates of St. John, appeared before the Board seeking final plat approval for Units 10E, 10F and 10G. Mr. Hastings asked for any comments from the Board.

Mr. Kil stated that what was submitted was exactly what the Board saw at the study session. Mr. Kraus reviewed the site plan. Mr. Kraus stated that he has required changes as follows: that the surveyor place a stamp on the first sheet as it was only on the second sheet, one unit that was missing in course and distance, which was added, and a change in ownership. Mr. Lotton concurred.

Mr. Forbes noted there was no letter of credit. Mr. Kil noted that the development was improved and that there were no outstanding fees.

Mr. Hastings stated he would entertain a motion for final plat approval on the Gates of St. John, Units 10E, 10F and 10G. Mr. Forbes made motion to grant final plat approval for the Gates of St. John, Units 10E, 10F and 10G, with incorporation of the findings of fact on all three units. Mr. Kozel seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously carried by voice vote (4/0).

Mr. Lotton addressed the Board about a replat of Pod 16. He stated that he was scheduled for the study session of February 13, [sic] 2013. He stated he would like to request a public hearing for March 6, 2013, for the replat of Pod 16.

Mr. Forbes stated he would be very uncomfortable granting permission to advertise for a public hearing without having seen any documentation. He stated at this time he would not be in favor of authorizing a public hearing.

Mr. Lotton asked permission of the Board to inform them what he is proposing. He stated that the replat would address three issues. He stated the first issue would be to clean up the well site. He stated that the existing water treatment plant is on a smaller lot. He stated he was going to clean up the water treatment lot and another lot and convert it into one large lot. Mr. Lotton explained that a former well site used to be located on the north side of Pod 16. He stated that he was going to incorporate this property to the school, and also convey over approximately two-tenths of an acre to Crown Point Christian for an addition.

Mr. Kil explained that Crown Point Christian School was planning on doing an addition, and the addition would cross the property lines. Mr. Kil stated that he explained to Mr. Lotton that the addition could not cross property lines and the lot lines would have to be redrawn in order for the school’s addition to take place. Mr. Kil stated that this replat would clean up the property lines and make sure everything was platted properly. Mr. Kil explained that no engineering is required.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Lotton submitted drawings to the Board. He explained his proposal on the drawing for the Board.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kozel asked what the intention was for Lot 1425A in the future. Mr. Lotton explained that the original plan for the development was for a church to be built on Lot 1425A, with a church and the school utilizing the same parking area. He stated that he has not found the right church to build there, but he’s looking.

Mr. Forbes asked what the school’s schedule is for building. Mr. Lotton stated that he believes it is the school’s intention to have children in the new classrooms by the fall. Mr. Kil remarked it is not a very big addition.

Mr. Forbes stated, based upon the information that was presented by Mr. Lotton, he would retract his previous statement. He stated that this is a simple, straightforward project and it affects nobody except the school. Mr. Forbes stated he was okay with the replat. Mr. Kozel concurred.

Mr. Forbes made a motion to authorize a public hearing for the replat of the Gates of St. John, Unit 16, for the March 16, 2013, meeting. Mr. Kozel seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously carried by voice vote (4/0).

OLD BUSINESS:

There was no Old Business.

OPEN THE FLOOR FOR PUBLIC COMMENT:

Mr. Hastings called for public comment. There was no public comment.

ADJOURNMENT:

Mr. Forbes made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Kozel seconded the motion.

(The meeting was adjourned at 8:42 p.m.)

A TRUE COPY

_____________________________________
Susan E. Wright, Recording Secretary
St. John Plan Commission

02-20-2013 Plan Commission

February 20, 2013 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes

Tom Ryan, President Mike Forbes Attorney Tim Kuiper
Steve Hastings, Vice-President Derwin Nietzel Kenn Kraus
Steve Kozel, Secretary   Steve Kil
Tom Redar    

CALL TO ORDER:

Mr. Steve Hastings, Vice-President, called the study session of February 20, 2013, to order at 7:04 p.m.

ROLL CALL:

Roll call was taken with the following Commissioners present: Steve Hastings, Steve Kozel, Tom Redar, Mike Forbes and Derwin Neitzel. Tom Ryan was absent. Staff members present: Kenn Kraus and Town Manager, Steve Kil. Attorney Dave Austgen was also present.

NEW BUSINESS:

A. GATES OF ST. JOHN – UNIT 16 – REPLAT – JOHN LOTTON
Mr. John Lotton appeared before the Board seeking replat of Unit 16 in the Gates of St. John subdivision. He stated he was present to answer any questions the Board may have on the replat of Unit 16. Mr. Kozel asked if anything had changed. Mr. Lotton stated that the replat encompassed three things, a small piece of land, eliminating the well site to the north and replatting the water treatment plant and well site.

Mr. Kraus stated he reviewed the plan. He stated that Lot 1426A should have language dedicating the lot to the Town. Mr. Lotton concurred. Mr. Kraus asked if there were restrictive covenants. Mr. Lotton stated that there are restrictive covenants that have already been recorded on the original Lot 16. Mr. Lotton stated that the restrictive covenants encompass the entire development.

(General discussion ensued.)

Attorney Austgen suggested that Mr. Lotton include the incorporation language, by reference, of the previously adopted covenants to this plat to ensure continuity. Mr. Lotton concurred.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Hastings asked for additional comments. There were no further comments. Mr. Forbes stated that the matter is set for public hearing at the March 6, 2013, meeting.

B. MCDONALDS-EENIGENBURG – 9769 WICKER AVENUE – CONTINUED REVIEW OF PRIMARY PLAT
Attorney Ethan Lowe, covering for Attorney Patrick Lyp, appeared before the Board on behalf of the property owner, JDE, LLC, and McDonalds Corporation for the continued review of the primary plat, site plan and engineering.

Attorney Lowe stated that a McDonald restaurant is being proposed at the intersection of U.S. Route 41 and 97th Lane. Attorney Lowe stated that Maurice King, project manager, and Al Daniels, engineer, for the McDonalds development were present to answer any questions that the Board may have.

Mr. Kraus noted that Lot 3 has no frontage on to the dedicated street. Mr. Kil stated that there is no objection to this, but they wanted to make everyone aware that there is no access from Lot 3 on to a dedicated street.

(Mr. Kil exits room.)

Mr. Kil reentered meeting with site plans.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes noted that Lot 2 is shown to be a parking lot on the drawings. He pointed out ingress/egress to the lot. Attorney Austgen stated that Lot 2 could be platted as a right of way with a covenant to run with Lot 3 for Lot 3 to maintain it.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes stated that the drawing reflects that Lot 2 is designated as parking for the existing buildings contained on Lot 2. Attorney Austgen explained to the Board that Mr. Kil and Mr. Kraus reviewed Lot 2 in the context of a waiver from the Town’s design criteria requirement that the lot be fronted on a public right of way. Attorney Austgen stated that Lot 2 lot does not have to be fronted on a public right of way if the Board grants a waiver.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Austgen stated that the Lot 2 issue is really is only a technical difference. He stated that the Town’s ordinance has a strict frontage requirement on a public right of way. Attorney Austgen stated that if the Board allows access into Lot 2 by the language of the easement they would waiving the requirement for a public right of way. Mr. Kraus noted if it were a public right of way, the Town would have to maintain it.

(General discussion ensued.)

Attorney Austgen stated that if the Town wanted to have a tidy plat this language should be embedded into the plat. Mr. Kil noted once the parcel is platted and dedicated it is final, the ingress/egress easement would be for the use of anybody, especially those wishing to access Lot 3.

(General discussion ensued.)

Attorney Austgen remarked that while the discussion was still on accesses… he informed Mr. Kil that he had finalized the Notice of Public Hearing for the vacation of the two frontage parcels on U.S. Route 41. He stated that the vacation of the two frontage parcels was slated for public hearings before the Town Council on March 28, 2013.

Mr. Kil asked if there was any further language that should to be added to the final plat (by Mr. Torrenga) related to Lot 3. Attorney Austgen stated that the record should reflect an articulated waiver so there is no misinterpretation or confusion. Attorney Austgen stated all of this could be accomplished by the Board, on the public record, so it is clear that the waiver was acted upon. Attorney Austgen reminded the Board that they have exclusive jurisdiction over the waivers.

(General discussion ensued.)

Attorney Austgen stated for purposes of the public hearing, to be conducted in two weeks, the developer should submit all information to the planners a week in advance. He stated that this would enable the agenda to be prepared properly and the planners to be prepared. Attorney Austgen stated that public meeting action is required.

Attorney Austgen asked Mr. Kraus if he could tell the planners, if, on the plat itself as presented, all of the subdivision control ordinance requirements have been met. Mr. Kraus stated that he would need to do further review to ascertain if the sidewalk waiver from McDonalds includes the other three lots.

Mr. Kraus stated that he had just received a site plan for Eenigenburg today, but has not yet had time to review it in its entirety. He stated that there was some issue about the lack of curb around the parking lot. He stated that the site plan he received today reflected that roll curbs have been added, but not barrier curbs.

(General discussion ensued.)

Attorney Austgen noted that the McDonalds application, as it pertains to site improvements, would stand alone as the Eenigenburg application for site plan improvements would stand alone.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil stated that his understanding is that the plat would be tied together but the site plan and variances for McDonalds would be one issue and the site plan and variances for Eenigenburg would be a separate issue due to differing uses. Mr. Kraus asked about the building setbacks. Mr. Kil stated that the parcel would be platted in anticipation of the variances.

(General discussion ensued.)

Attorney Austgen stated that plat approval would necessarily be conditioned upon the Board Zoning Appeals actions that are required, by the road vacation to be considered by the Town Council and the waivers that accompany each portion of the plat. Attorney Austgen stated that the Board must be very careful in the approval process to ensure that the conditions fall into proper sequence.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kraus stated, to his knowledge, the plat for Eenigenburg would need waivers from the sidewalk and waiver for the frontage for Lot 3. He stated that the sanitary sewer is already in place with an adjustment to be made to a service line, the engineering for storm drainage is acceptable, the water line is already in place, the streetlights are already in place and there is a plan in place to increase the size of the detention basin.

Mr. Kraus stated as far as he knew all of the engineering concerns have all been taken care of for the subdivision. He stated that as far as the Eenigenburg site plan, it looks as though the curbs have been taken care of.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Georgiou addressed the Board about the lighting on the Eenigenburg site. He stated that since the Dark Skies Ordinance has not officially passed he has been referring to the Town of Dyer’s lighting guidelines. He stated that he has conferred with the lighting designer about wall packs that were added on to the Eenigenburg site. He stated that the addition of this lighting that has generated a 2.0 foot candle anomaly and the designer is investigating it. Mr. Georgiou stated that the designer is aware of the 0.5 foot candle requirement on the east side.

Mr. Kil stated that light trespass from one commercial parcel to another is not a big deal because it’s all commercial. Mr. Forbes stated, due to the new lighting standards, glare should be cut down; he stated he would be especially concerned if there was light/glare that spilled out on to U.S. Route 41.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Georgiou stated that a side yard setback is another waiver that might be needed on the Eenigenburg site. He stated that the existing building encroaches on the side yard setback. Mr. Kil noted that this encroachment is on the existing building. Mr. Georgiou asked if the setback would have to be addressed as a waiver. Attorney Austgen stated that this would be considered a legal, nonconforming use as long as the footprint did not change.

Mr. Kraus stated developmental fees had not been discussed. He stated that he has calculated a rough estimate on construction costs for some of the public improvements of approximately $160,000. He stated that the developmental fee would be two percent (2%) of the construction costs. Mr. Kraus stated that he would like to talk to Mr. Gary Torrenga to ascertain if Torrenga has calculated the construction costs for the job and, if so, supply him with a cost estimate for just the public portions of the subdivision.

Attorney Austgen stated that Mr. Daniels usually does this. He asked Mr. Daniels if he had calculated construction costs. Mr. Daniels stated that he had estimated costs for McDonalds only.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil stated that the developmental fee would be approximately $3,200. Mr. Kraus reiterated he made some pretty rough estimates.

Mr. Kraus stated that the he had just received the new Eenigenburg site plan by PDF today. He stated he took a quick look at it. Mr. Kraus stated he had a conversation with Mr. Torrenga related to the Eenigenburg site plan. He stated there have been no changes to the drainage plan at all; a roll curb was added to the parking area, not a barrier curb. Mr. Kraus stated he believes the roll curb will fulfill its purpose by demarcating the end of the parking lot, prevent the edges of the parking lot from crumbling and facilitate the drainage.

Mr. Kraus stated that as far as the Eenigenburg site plan, he has no objection to the floor plan or the elevations that were proposed. He stated that Eenigenburg had submitted a lighting plan, but he has not yet had an opportunity to review it.

Mr. Forbes asked Mr. Kraus if the Eenigenburg site plan included roll curbing around the small landscaped areas in the middle of the parking lot. Mr. Kraus stated that roll curbing was included around the landscaped areas.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes stated that he did not have an updated copy of the site plan. Mr. Georgiou stated he just received the site plan on this date. Mr. Forbes asked if Lot 2 was going to be curbed. Mr. Georgiou stated it would not be installed. Mr. Forbes stated that the site plan should reflect that Lot 2 will include curbing for whenever it is installed.

Mr. Forbes noted that the site plan that the Board will be considering for approval contains a parking area on Lot 2; he stated that the parking area should not be included on the site plan just so there is no confusion.

(General discussion ensued.)

Attorney Austgen stated the parking lot on Lot 2 as reflected on the site plan must be removed. Mr. Kraus stated that Torrenga Engineering could use dash lines on Lot 2 to reflect potential future use. Mr. Kraus explained that if the developer was planning on building a parking lot on Lot 2 right now, he would have to come in for site plan approval for Lot 2.

Mr. Georgiou stated that the developer does not intend to build a parking lot at the present time. Mr. Georgiou stated he asked Mr. Torrenga to remove the parking lot from the site plan and was given some explanation as to why it was not omitted. Mr. Kil stated it would not be approved at this time. Mr. Georgiou stated he would verify with Mr. Eenigenburg whether or not he intended to build a parking lot on Lot 2.

Curb cuts were discussed and ingress/egress were discussed.

Mr. Forbes asked if the paved area on Lot 2 is a part of the drainage system. Mr. Kraus explained that a storm sewer does run through Lot 2, and the grading in the area is conducive to collecting the water into the storm sewer system and then conducting the water to the detention basin. Mr. Kraus explained that the lot needs to be drained to the storm sewer. He stated as it is designed now the water is fed into the inlets in the middle of the “parking lot.” He stated that as long as the parcel is graded and sloped to drain to the inlets it could be a “parking lot” or a grassy field.

Mr. Kil explained, like any other development, the detention basin and the storm sewer is sized to take the storm water from each lot in its developed state. He stated the site plan is being approved on the assumption that, at some point, there will be a building and parking lot on Lot 2 as well as Lot 3. Mr. Kil explained that a potential future user of Lot 2 will not have to re-engineer everything.

Attorney Austgen stated that the Lot 2 issue could be taken care of at the public hearing. He stated that the Plan Commission can deny approval of the Lot 2 site plan as submitted. Attorney Austgen informed Mr. Georgiou it would be easier if the site plan was clean.

Mr. Kil noted most of the materials being used on the Eenigenburg building are brick and he has no problem with them. He stated masonry block is reflected on the lower half of the building, he stated this masonry block has to be split face architectural block. Mr. Georgiou stated he understood.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes noted that a trash enclosure was now included on the Eenigenburg site plan with access off of Earl Drive. Mr. Georgiou acknowledged this statement to be true.

Mr. Forbes stated that there are parking spots directly up against the open sales area. He noted there is a gap between the parking stalls and the outside sales area. He asked whether or not a barrier curb should be set in place here. Mr. Kraus stated that precast parking stop would be acceptable. Mr. Forbes stated that there would definitely need to be something there to prevent a vehicle for entering the sales area.

Mr. Kraus stated that he has not yet had time to review the Eenigenburg Water landscaping plan.

Mr. Forbes stated he went review the Team Toyota pork chop road design in Schererville that Mr. Torrenga had mentioned to the Board. He stated the design is huge. Mr. Forbes stated that there are significant differences in the road characteristics when comparing the Schererville area to St. John. Mr. Forbes stated that he has also reviewed the proposed site of the pork chop for St. John. Mr. Forbes stated, for one, St. John does not have the benefit of an additional turn lane that Schererville does. Mr. Forbes stated he thinks the proposed site in St. John does not have enough distance between the businesses to support this type of entrance. He stated he is adamantly opposed to this road cut and cannot believe INDOT is in favor of this or thought it was a good idea.

Mr. Forbes stated he intends to measure the distances at both locations before the public hearing.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes asked if INDOT had approved this design. Mr. Georgiou stated his understanding from Mr. Torrenga was that INDOT had approved this concept.

Mr. Kraus opined that he does not think INDOT cares one way or the other how the Plan Commission votes on the design; he stated he believes INDOT bases their decisions on their own research. Mr. Kil stated that INDOT has a policy in that they will not disallow a road cut, usually, for a parcel of property. He stated that INDOT, in the past, by denying someone access to their property, the property was rendered useless and INDOT had to buy it.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil opined that this may be one of the reasons that INDOT allowed this design. Mr. Forbes stated the proposed road cut is an accident waiting to happen and he does not support it.

Mr. Forbes asked, for clarification purposes, if, for preliminary plat the Board would have a list of waivers solely for the plat, a list of waivers for McDonalds site plan and a list of waivers for Eenigenburg Water site plan. Attorney Austgen stated that the waivers would be acted on before the plat.

Mr. Kil stated that the matters will be listed as separate items on the agenda and will be sequenced in order. Attorney Austgen reiterated that a list needs to be developed laying out the sequence and the items that the Board will be asked to act upon. Attorney Austgen stated that the list needs to be submitted at least one week in advance.

Mr. Forbes asked if it would be too much trouble to change the name of the second 97th Lane on the plat. Attorney Austgen stated that if the second 97th Lane was not contained within the parcel being platted it would take a separate process to the Town Council.

(General discussion ensued.)

Attorney Austgen stated that it appears it would be easier to change the south 97th Lane as it would cause less business disruption.

Mr. Forbes noted that McDonalds has presented most of their information to the Board. He stated that the double sign boards seem to make traffic flow faster. He asked if the McDonalds truck delivery is timed so as not to arrive during peak business hours. Mr. Daniels stated that they try, but there is no guarantee. Mr. Daniels stated that there is a longstanding rule that the delivery truck does not arrive from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. He stated that sometimes the delivery time arrival during peak hours is unavoidable.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Daniels stated McDonalds is using a cart delivery system at the present time. He described the cart delivery system wherein a pallet stacked with product is pulled off of the delivery truck, ramped down and walked into the store. Mr. Daniels stated that the cart delivery system has allowed McDonalds to avoid parking lot congestion and drive-thru congestion. Mr. Daniels stated that the only time this delivery system may be disrupted is during inclement weather.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Daniels stated that the cart delivery system has significantly reduced the time the delivery trucks are on the lot. Mr. Daniels stated that convenience to the McDonalds customers is of the utmost importance.

Mr. Forbes stated he had previously expressed concern about the routes the delivery trucks would take. He stated that he hopes that McDonalds will be attentive to any interruptions in traffic flow on U.S. Route 41.

(General discussion ensued.)

The traffic route of the McDonalds delivery trucks was discussed.

Mr. Kraus stated almost all of the items on his checklist have been addressed.

Mr. Kraus explained the datum problem between the McDonalds lot and the Torrenga lots was a 1.8 foot difference. He stated that there will be a note on both sets of plans to correct the datum problem. Mr. Kraus stated that he requested that both engineers place this note on their drawings. Parking spaces for McDonalds was discussed.

(General discussion ensued.)

Attorney Austgen stated that there will be comments made on the Eenigenburg Site plan that was just received. Mr. Kraus stated he will generate a review letter for the Eenigenburg site plan.

Mr. Hastings called for any additional comment. There was no further comment.

OLD BUSINESS:

There was no Old Business.

OPEN THE FLOOR FOR PUBLIC COMMENT:

Mr. Hastings called for public comment. There was no public comment.

ADJOURNMENT:

Mr. Hastings adjourned the meeting.

(The meeting was adjourned at 8:24 p.m.)

A TRUE COPY

_____________________________________
Susan E. Wright, Recording Secretary
St. John Plan Commission

03-06-2013 Plan Commission

March 6, 2013 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes

Tom Ryan, President Mike Forbes Attorney Tim Kuiper
Steve Hastings, Vice-President Derwin Nietzel Kenn Kraus
Steve Kozel, Secretary   Steve Kil
Tom Redar    

CALL TO ORDER:

Mr. Steve Kozel, Plan Commission Secretary, chaired the regular Plan Commission meeting of March 6, 2013; he called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.

(The Pledge of Allegiance was said.)

ROLL CALL:

Roll call was taken with the following Commissioners present: Steve Kozel, Tom Redar, Mike Forbes and Derwin Nietzel. Tom Ryan was absent. Steve Hastings was absent. Staff members present: Kenn Kraus and Town Manager, Steve Kil. Attorney Tim Kuiper was also present. Rex Sherrard was present. Town Council liaison, Greg Volk was also present.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: FEBRUARY 6, 2013

Mr. Kozel stated the first thing on the agenda was approval of the minutes for February 6, 2013. Mr. Forbes made a motion to approve the minutes of February 6, 2013. Mr. Nietzel seconded the motion. The motion was passed by voice vote (4/0).

Mr. Kraus pointed out a correction on the Study Session minutes, on page 10, second to last paragraph where it says 1.8 datum, it should be 1.18 datum.

NEW BUSINESS:

A. GATES OF ST. JOHN – UNIT 16 – PUBLIC HEARING JOHN LOTTON

Mr. Kozel noted that the first item on the agenda was a public hearing for the Gates of St. John, Unit 16. Attorney Kuiper informed the Board that the notices and publications for a public hearing were timely published for tonight’s public hearing on the Gates of St. John, Unit 16.

Mr. John Lotton, developer of the Gates of St. John, appeared before the Board stating he was present to answer any questions the Plan Commission or the public may have related to the primary re-plat of Unit 16.

Mr. Kozel asked the Board if they had any comments. Mr. Forbes stated that the matter is straightforward, and he had no questions. Mr. Kil stated that all of the language is on the plat.

Mr. Kozel opened the public hearing. Mr. Kozel called for public comment. There was no public comment. Mr. Kozel closed the public hearing and brought the matter back before the Board. He, again, asked the Board for any comments. There was no comment from the Board.

Mr. Kozel stated he would entertain a motion. Mr. Forbes made a motion to grant primary approval for the replat of Unit 16, of the Gates of St. John. Mr. Redar seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously carried by voice vote (4/0).

Mr. Kil stated that this replat was a very simple matter. He asked the Board if they would consider suspending the rules and grant final approval for Unit 16, in the Gates of St. John. Mr. Forbes explained that there is a requirement in the Plan Commission’s rules that between the granting of primary plat approval and final plat approval thirty (30) days must pass. Mr. Forbes stated that, typically, before granting final plat there loose ends need to be addressed.

Mr. Forbes stated, in the case of Unit 16, the Board is looking at the final plat, since all that is being done is moving some property lines. He stated that there are no changes planned for Unit 16. He asked if there were any outstanding fees. Mr. Kraus explained that all of the fees have been paid. Attorney Kuiper stated that this is a unique situation where waiving the thirty day period between granting primary and final plat may be appropriate.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes made a motion that the thirty (30) day period between granting preliminary and final plat be suspended for Unit 16, in the Gates of St. John. Mr. Redar seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously carried by voice vote (4/0).

Mr. Forbes made a motion to grant final plat approval for Unit 16, in the Gates of St. John. Mr. Nietzel seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously carried by voice vote (4/0).

B. MCDONALDS-EENIGENBURG – FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION -9769 WICKER AVENUE – PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE FOR PUBLIC HEARING

Attorney Patrick Lyp, appeared before the Board on behalf of the property owner, JDE, LLC, and McDonalds Corporation. He stated that timely publication was not made for a public hearing set for this date. He stated that he has discussed with Mr. Kil the possibility of a special meeting of the Plan Commission being held on March 20, 2013, prior to the study session.

Attorney Lyp stated that the Petitioner is prepared to move forward in terms of the site plan. Attorney Lyp stated due to the timing of the notices, and in anticipation of the Board’s authorizing a special hearing to be held on March 20, 2013, he has submitted a publication to both newspapers. Attorney Lyp stated he has not sent out the notices yet but will do so in the event the Board authorizes a special meeting on March 20, 2013.

Mr. Kil recommended that the Board schedule a special meeting prior to the study session on March 20, 2013.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes stated that since there are no objections from the Board, he would make a motion for the Plan Commission to hold a special meeting on March 20, 2013, prior to the study session. He stated that the March 20, 2013, special meeting the Plan Commission will give the Board an opportunity to grant permission for the public hearing to be held for the McDonalds/Eenigenburg four lot subdivision. Mr. Redar seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously carried by voice vote (4/0). Attorney Lyp thanked the Board for their consideration.

Mr. Kil stated that a list of waivers has been submitted. Mr. Forbes asked if the list of waivers was for McDonalds. Attorney Lyp stated that the list of waivers submitted was for the entire plat. He stated that the waivers being sought are broken down by lots.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes stated, for clarification, since no public hearing took place there would be no site plan approval even though it is reflected on the agenda. He stated that he would like to discuss a few items on the development.

Mr. Kozel asked if there were any comments regarding the McDonalds site plan or the Eenigenburg site plan. Mr. Kil stated that most of the time, primary approval and site plan approval are granted simultaneously. Mr. Forbes asked when the Board of Zoning Appeals would meet. Mr. Kil stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals will meet on March 25, 2013, and the Town Council is slated to consider the vacation of the right of way on March 28, 2013.

Mr. Forbes stated he had nothing further he wanted to discuss on McDonalds, but he wanted to address the road cut on the Eenigenburg plan. Mr. Forbes stated that at the last meeting he brought up the road cut on the Eenigenburg site. He stated that due to the weather, he was not able to take measurements. He stated that he used Google Earth and compared the Schererville road cut with the road cut being proposed by Eenigenburg Water.

Mr. Forbes submitted two pictures for the Board’s review. He stated the scale measurement used is 1000 feet. He stated that he marked on the first picture reflecting Woodhollow Drive, from center of Woodhollow Drive to just before the road cut where the pork chop is located by the Toyota dealer. He stated that the road cut is actually just past the 1000’ measurement mark. He noted continuing south to the next road cut, which is a right in, it’s approximately 500’. He stated that there are no other road cuts in between these two existing road cuts.

Mr. Forbes pointed out on road cut being proposed by Eenigenburg Water, that from the center line of the 97th Avenue that goes into Strack & Van Til’s and measuring out the 1000’, there are already four existing road cuts. He stated that the road cut being proposed by Eenigenburg Water will make this the fifth road cut all within the 1000’.

Mr. Forbes stated that the Plan Commission has been trying to avoid this type of road cut on U.S. Route 41 for years. Mr. Forbes stated that the reason for the extension of Earl Drive is precisely to keep the traffic off of U.S. Route 41 in order to facilitate smooth traffic flow.

Mr. Forbes opined that this proposed road cut, the left in/right out, is wrong and unsafe. He noted that Mr. Kil stated at a previous meeting that INDOT will probably approve the proposed road cut. Mr. Forbes stated “if INDOT approves it, let INDOT approve it.”

Mr. Forbes stated that he does not believe it is right for the Plan Commission to approve it. He reiterated that the proposed road cut is unsafe, needless, and way too close to Al’s Auto Body. He stated he can see no reason for the proposed road cut to be put in the Eenigenburg parcel.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes stated that the frontage road should eliminate the necessity for most of the road cuts especially as to future development. He stated that he does not see any harm in the proposed road not being there. He stated that if the road cut were denied, it would not prevent Mr. Eenigenburg from operating his business. Mr. Forbes stated that he has never supported the “pork chop” road cuts, even though at, times, INDOT has turned over the Board’s wishes. He stated that the proposed road cut is actually a “pork chop and a half.”

Mr. Forbes stated that he would not share in the responsibility of approving the proposed road cut into the Eenigenburg parcel. Mr. Kraus asked whether or not the proposed road cut could be installed if the Plan Commission denied it but INDOT approved the road cut.

(General discussion ensued.)

Attorney Kuiper stated that the Plan Commission has the authority to prevent this proposed road cut. He opined that INDOT likes to see approval from the local body (Plan Commission) to the road cut, full access, or whatever type of entrance is being proposed. He stated that INDOT will review the proposed road cut subject to the Town’s rules and regulations, state highways, traffic count and other things and then render a decision as to whether or not it is appropriate.

Attorney Kuiper stated that, typically, INDOT will wait for a local body to grant or deny approval so as not to waste their time. Attorney Kuiper informed the Plan Commission that they are still in control as they still have the site plan. He stated if the Plan Commission denies the proposed road cut to Eenigenburg Water, INDOT cannot supersede the local body’s decision.

Mr. Forbes noted that the Eenigenburg parcel has two accesses off of the second 97th Lane, one in front the building and one directly into the side of the building. Mr. Forbes pointed out that from Earl Drive Eenigenburg Water has access into the parking lot from two spots, one for his drive-thru where his proposed outdoor sales will be located, and then another entrance into his parking lot. Mr. Forbes opined that there is complete traffic flow.

Mr. Forbes stated that Eenigenburg Water has not been inhibited in the operation of the business at this location because he has never had a direct road cut right onto U.S. Route 41. Mr. Forbes opined that Eenginburg’s customers will be in a much safer place without the road cut.

Mr. Georgiou appeared before the Board, representing Eenigenburg Water. He stated that he has requested from Torrenga Engineering verification of the status of the INDOT permit application. Mr. Georgiou stated when he receives this information, he will submit it to the Board. Mr. Georgiou stated that he acknowledged the Board’s comments, but he stated that his client is requesting the curb cut. Mr. Georgiou stated he would consult with his client.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes asked about the lighting plan for Eenigenburg. Mr. Georgiou explained the changes are being made to the lighting plan in order to adhere with the Town’s lighting requirements. Mr. Forbes requested another drawing reflecting the lighting plan.

Mr. Kil requested that the language on the site plan reading “Road to be built by Town of St. John,” be removed from the plat.

Mr. Forbes asked about the Eenigenburg Water landscaping plan. He asked if the landscaping reflected in the plans submitted two weeks ago was the extent of the landscaping proposed for Eenigenburg Water. Mr. Georgiou stated, at this point in time, this is the extent of the proposed landscaping.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes asked Mr. Kraus if the proposed landscaping plan for Eenigenburg Water complies with the Town’s landscaping requirements. Mr. Kraus estimated that the landscaping is probably 85 to 90% compliant with the Town’s landscaping requirements. Mr. Kraus stated that no irrigation is included in the landscaping plan, and this is the biggest omission. Mr. Forbes stated that the Eenigenburg landscaping plan should either comply with the Town’s requirements or a waiver should be requested.

Mr. Kozel stated he also has an issue with the proposed road cut/pork chop for the Eenigenburg site. He stated that the proposed road cut will be too hazardous. Mr. Kozel stated that he’s lived in St. John for 35 years and he has not seen any problems with the present ingress/egress at this site. Mr. Kozel opined that granting the proposed road cut will create an issue where accidents will happen. Mr. Kozel opined that Eenigenburg’s proposed road cut should be adjusted.

Mr. Kozel asked if there were any further comments.

Mr. Redar concurred in that he did not care for the proposed road cut for the Eenigenburg site, and that the road cut should be adjusted. Mr. Redar stated that there are occasions where vehicle stacking occurs even now when a vehicle is attempting to turn on to 97th.

Mr. Nietzel concurred that Eenigenburg’s proposed road cut is not necessary.

Mr. Forbes asked if the Board was in agreement in that the proposed road cut/pork chop should be removed.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes stated that the Board is in opposition to the proposed driveway cut, whatever the configuration.

Mr. Forbes stated that Mr. Georgiou will have to relay the Board’s stance on the driveway cut to his client, Mr. Eenigenburg. Mr. Georgiou stated he has taken notes.

Mr. Forbes made a motion to defer the public hearing for McDonalds/Eenigenburg to the March 20, 2013, Special Plan Commission Meeting. Mr. Redar seconded the motion. The motion was carried by voice vote (4/0).

OLD BUSINESS:

There was no Old Business.

OPEN THE FLOOR FOR PUBLIC COMMENT:

Mr. Fred Barr appeared before the Board to ask a few questions on the proposed McDonalds/Eenigenburg development. He stated he was in favor of the project. He stated his business is located in back of this development. He asked the Board how the work would proceed, which project would be first, McDonalds or Eenigenburg Water. He asked if he should make any plans for any semi-truck deliveries to his business. Mr. Kil stated that 97th will not be obstructed at any time.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Georgiou stated that it is very clear that the Eenigenburg relocation has to occur before the existing store can be demolished so McDonalds can construct their store. Mr. Georgiou stated that the Eenigenburg Water will be the first construction to occur. Mr. Georgiou stated if all of the approvals are granted, he expects to have a building permit in hand and start construction immediately.

Mr. Barr asked for a copy of the site plan. Mr. Kil gave Mr. Barr a copy of the site plan for his review.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Barr thanked the Board for their time.

ADJOURNMENT:

Mr. Kozel called for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Forbes made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Redar seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously carried by voice vote (4/0).

(The meeting was adjourned at 7:36 p.m.)

A TRUE COPY

_____________________________________
Susan E. Wright, Recording Secretary
St. John Plan Commission

03-20-2013 Plan Commission Special Meeting

March 20, 2013 Plan Commission Special Meeting Minutes

Tom Ryan, President Mike Forbes Attorney Tim Kuiper
Steve Hastings, Vice-President Derwin Nietzel Kenn Kraus
Steve Kozel, Secretary   Steve Kil
Tom Redar    

CALL TO ORDER:

Mr. Tom Ryan called to order the Plan Commission special meeting of March 20, 2013, at 7:04 p.m.

(The Pledge of Allegiance was said.)

ROLL CALL:

Roll call was taken with the following Commissioners present: Tom Ryan, Steve Hastings, Steve Kozel, Tom Redar, Mike Forbes and Derwin Nietzel. Staff members present: Kenn Kraus and Town Manager, Steve Kil. Attorney Dave Austgen was also present. Rex Sherrard was present. Town Council liaison, Greg Volk was also present. Chief Frego was present.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MARCH 6, 2013

Mr. Ryan stated the first thing on the agenda for the Board’s consideration was the minutes for March 6, 2013. Mr. Kozel made a motion to approve the minutes of March 6, 2013. Mr. Forbes seconded the motion. The motion was passed by voice vote (6/0).

NEW BUSINESS:

A. MCDONALDS-EENIGENBURG – FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION -9769 WICKER AVENUE – PUBLIC HEARING
Mr. Ryan stated that the next item on the agenda for the Board’s consideration is McDonalds/Eenigenburg, a four lot subdivision, set for a public hearing. Attorney Austgen stated, for the record, the Proofs of Publication are in evidence and in order. He stated that the public hearing could be properly conducted.

Attorney Patrick Lyp, appeared before the Board on behalf of the property owner, JDE, LLC, and McDonalds Corporation. He stated that Mr. Gary Torrenga, engineer for the parcel, was passing out the proposed final plat to the Board for their consideration on primary subdivision approval. Attorney Lyp stated that all of the comments or questions that have been raised over the last couple of meetings have been addressed.

Attorney Lyp stated that the plat the Board is currently reviewing is a proposed four lot subdivision, Eenigenburg’s Second Addition. He stated that Petitioner has complied with all of the Town’s requirements as to the proposed platting of the four lot subdivision. He stated that the Petitioner has attempted to incorporate all of the questions and concerns of the Plan Commission with the exception of the road cut. Attorney Lyp stated that Mr. Torrenga and Mr. Georgiou will address the issue of the road cut with the Board.

Attorney Lyp stated that the Board had previously received a copy of the Petitioner’s proposed waivers; he stated the final copy of the proposed waivers was sent to Mr. Steve Kil on March 7, 2013. He explained that the waivers are delineated by lots, Lot 4, McDonalds, Lot 1, Eenigenburg’s Water, and with some applicable to the entire subdivision.

Attorney Lyp stated that the Petitioner is aware of the requirement related to Earl Drive. He stated that an agreement with the property owner to finalize the agreement on Earl Drive is still being worked on. He stated that Petitioner is aware and recognizes that prior to any final approval, the Town requires an appropriate written commitment concerning the installation of Earl Drive.

Mr. Forbes asked Mr. Kraus if he had had the opportunity to review the plans that were submitted to the Board by Mr. Torrenga at the beginning of the meeting. Mr. Kraus stated that he has reviewed this particular plan. He stated that he issued a letter of review for Eenigenburg Second Edition, primary plat review, dated March 18, 2013.

Mr. Kraus stated that there were four issues to be addressed. Two issues were related to fees. Mr. Kraus stated that there is an inlet near the southwest corner of the detention basin that is not in an easement which is located on private property not owned by Mr. Eenigenburg. He stated that the Petitioner will either need to get an agreement to install the inlet or not put the inlet in. Mr. Kraus explained if the inlet is not installed there is a possibility of a six inch deep puddle for a while. He explained that the water gets trapped in this location because work on the basin is going to raise the bank right in the inlet area by a couple of inches. He explained that water in this area will have to make its way around the south side and out.

Mr. Forbes asked if the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan was complete. Mr. Kraus stated that he has received parts of the SWYPPP plan all along, but just received the entire SWYPPP brochure yesterday. He stated that this plan is a 50 page document and he has not had a chance to complete his review. He stated that from what he has reviewed, it appears to be complete.

Mr. Forbes asked if the developmental fee had been paid. Mr. Kraus stated it had not been paid. Mr. Forbes stated that there is a developmental fee in the amount of $4,240, and the SWYPPP plan fee is $320.48.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil stated that these fees are typically paid when the plan is approved for final plat. Attorney Lyp stated that this matter would be taken care of.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes stated that all of the points in Mr. Kraus’s letter of March 18, 2013, had been addressed.

Mr. Ryan asked the Board members if they had any other comments. There was no further comment from the Board.

Mr. Ryan stated he would open the public hearing. He called for public comment. There was no public comment. He closed the public hearing and brought the matter back before the Board.

Mr. Forbes stated that the last time the Eenigenburg site plan was discussed by the Board, there were only four members present at the meeting. Mr. Forbes stated that those four members agreed that the proposed road cut was not in the best interests of the Town. Mr. Forbes asked his fellow Board members if their opinion on the road cut had changed. Mr. Kozel stated his opinion had not changed. Mr. Hastings commented that he has been by the parcel where the location of proposed road cut is and he said “it’s awful tight to that light. And I can just see somebody pulling out there and getting whacked. I don’t see how that’s going to work.”

Mr. Forbes offered that a “no access easement” be added to the plat along U.S. Route 41 to make known the Board’s position on this matter. He opined that the Board would be making a firm statement that they are opposed to this road cut on to U.S. Route 41. He stated he would like this to be included on the final plat. Mr. Forbes stated that he thinks it is important that the Board adds the “No Access Easement.” Mr. Kozel concurred.

Attorney Austgen summarized the Board preferences as follows: “five foot, no access across the entire frontage on 41.” Mr. Forbes concurred. Mr. Forbes stated the “no access easement” would apply to both Lot One and Lot Four. Mr. Kil summarized the Board’s recommendation as, “just utility and no access easement.” Mr. Forbes asked if creating a “no access easement” would prevent someone from putting utilities in that same easement. Attorney Austgen stated it would not; he stated that the Board would just be adding another condition to the “right of use or the restriction on use...”

(General discussion ensued.)

Attorney Lyp asked the Board what was the practical benefit of a “no access easement” since it could not be done without the Town’s approval anyway. Attorney Austgen explained that it was policy call.

Mr. Gary Torrenga appeared before the Board on behalf of Mr. John Eenigenburg. He noted that the subject and the vote the Board will be considering shortly concerned Eenigenburg’s four lots. Mr. Torrenga stated that the subject that the Board was currently discussing was a site plan question which is an item further down on the agenda. He stated that he would like an opportunity to say something about the proposed road cut before the Board took action on it.

Mr. Torrenga informed the Board that plans were prepared for the State Highway Department for the road cut. He stated that Mr. Eenigenburg asked him to prepare the site “the way they were always going to be from his initial meeting with the INDOT representative from the Gary sub district.” He stated the plan was to include a left in/right in off of Indianapolis Boulevard, which would allow southbound and northbound traffic to turn into the business. The plan also included a right out on to U.S. Route 41.

Mr. Torrenga stated he was not present at the last meeting. He stated,”Mr. Eenigenburg’s business, in his estimation, cannot operate on that site without this access.” Mr. Torrenga stated that Mr. Eenigenburg’s worry is that there will be a great number of people attempting to exit and enter for the McDonalds as opposed to just coming in, going through his drive-thru, picking up their water and continuing on their way.

Mr. Torrenga stated that the drawings submitted to the Board reflect the left in/right in/right out. He stated, as a part of the access, Route 41 will be widened to make a full 12 foot deceleration/acceleration lane through this stretch. He stated that anybody that wanted to enter Eenigenburg’s Water will not be in the travel lanes of Route 41. He stated that when a vehicle comes out onto Route 41, the proximity of the light actually helps the issue.

Mr. Torrenga stated that access to Eenigenburg Water would be acceptable for his operations were it only right in/right out. Mr. Torrenga stated that the Petitioner is willing to compromise and make the proposed driveway a right in/right out.

Mr. Torrenga reiterated that Mr. Eenigenburg feels that the proposed access is critical to his business operations. Mr. Torrenga stated “I don’t know where he’ll go if that is utterly and flatly denied this evening.” He stated that he did not mean to imply any sense of a threat. Mr. Torrenga stated that Mr. Eenigenburg feels the access is critically important to his operation so much so that he could go broke without at least a right in/right out.

Mr. Torrenga asked the Board to carefully consider this proposed access point in their deliberations. He noted that there is no high speed traffic in this area. He reiterated that there will be a full lane on the side of the road for the proposed access area which will be approximately six feet wider.

Mr. Torrenga stated that the Petitioner is requesting, at minimum, a right in/right out. He stated that the plans reflect the “left in” but it would be a very easy modification to remove this from the plans. Mr. Torrenga stated that the angles of the right in/right out could be laid out at very extreme angles so that the proposed access point could not be abused.

Mr. Torrenga stated he is not aware of any place along Indianapolis Boulevard, (a considerable number engineered by Torrenga Engineering) where these types of access points (right in/right out) have ever caused a problem. He opined that if people are going to be dangerous at a light, if people are going to be dangerous at an unsignaled intersection they will be just as dangerous at the proposed access point. He opined that the proposed access point would actually help the traffic flow by cutting down on the problem of people coming in and out on 97th Lane. Mr. Torrenga asked the Board to “reconsider what you’re considering doing and allow a right in/right out.”

Mr. Ryan asked if the Board members had any further comments.

Mr. Kozel opined that what is presently (access) at Eenigenburg’s seems to be working; people are getting in, getting their product and getting out.

Mr.Torrenga replied that this is due to the circular traffic pattern which allows people to come in from the north and south. Mr. Torrenga stated that when the McDonalds opens the circular traffic pattern will be substantially changed without being able to enter or exit on to Route 41. He stated this would basically be a private entrance that would service Eenigenburg Water more than anything else.

Mr. Torrenga stated that although there are not thousands of people coming to Eenigenburg Water every day, the proposed access point would be the preferred route of Eenigenburg Water customers. Mr.Torrenga reiterated that he does not see any traffic problem at all or danger related to the proposed access site. Mr. Torrenga stated that Mr. Eenigenburg would have his own access for people wanting water. He reiterated that Mr. Eenigenburg feels that this proposed access site is “absolutely critical to the success of his business if moved onto Lot One.”

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kozel noted that the frontage would be cut down, if this access point was allowed on Lot Four. Mr. Torrenga stated it would not affect the frontage at all. He pointed out on the plan how the access point would work.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes stated he did not see Mr. Torrenga’s argument. He stated there is clearly a circular pattern on the new parcel with the exception that there will not be a drive lane solely on his property. Mr. Forbes stated that customers could come in to the front of the building off of northern 97th Avenue and access the front of the building. Mr. Forbes stated that he was not even sure which way the traffic flow was going to go for Eenigenburg’s outdoor sales area. Mr. Forbes stated, either way Mr. Eenigenburg goes, an individual would be able to come in off of Earl Drive, go into the pick-up area and exit out 97th Lane onto Route 41, a circular pattern around the building. He pointed out other possible alternative routes that could be used by Eenigenburg Water customers at the new location. Mr. Forbes reiterated that there will be a circular pattern that is the mirror image of the traffic pattern presently being used at Eenigenburg Water. Mr. Forbes stated that there is no difference in the access or traffic pattern for Mr. Eenigenburg’s business.

Mr. Torrenga reiterated that Mr. Eenigenburg believes the proposed access point “is absolutely critical to his business.” He stated that in representing Mr. Eenigenburg’ site plan review, he would have made this argument at that point. Mr. Torrenga stated that this “might be a very important point, if you will.” He stated he realizes that the parcel was at the subdivision approval point, but he asked the Board to hesitate from declaring a “no access easement across there” before the Board got to the Eenigenburg site plan review.

Mr. Forbes asked Attorney Austgen, in light of the discussion with Petitioner’s representative, would it be a fair and accurate statement to say that the Board is about to be accused of having an adverse effect on the Eenigenburg Water business. Attorney Austgen stated that this appears to be the thrust of the commentary. Attorney Austgen stated that the Board does not have a traffic study and they don’t have detailed technical evidence of a problem.

Attorney Austgen stated he appreciated Mr. Torrenga’s advocacy on behalf of Mr. Eenigenburg; however, the Board’s considerations are public health and safety. He stated that the Board must consider proper access, ingress/egress, circular traffic patterns, the safety of the Town’s citizens and the business’ customers, the compatibility of that parcel against adjacent parcels and the development of the area in its entirety because the Town has anticipated future commercial development activity commercially north of this re-platted subdivision. He stated that the Board expects and has discussed that there will be anticipated commercial east of this development.

Attorney Austgen stated that this one proposed platted lot is not the only consideration. He stated that the Board has planning considerations which they are duty bound to consider and follow. He stated this was the purpose for all of the dialogue the Board had in the planning meetings leading up to the public hearings.

Mr. Torrenga addressed Mr. Forbes stating he agreed entirely with Mr. Austgen. He asked that the Board make the issue of a driveway a site plan approval issue. He stated that if there is a problem with Eenigenburg’s site plan this evening not to make it a condition of the subdivision approval itself because it should not adversely affect McDonalds. Mr. Torrenga stated he can’t remember how many times he’s gone through “release of no access” agreements. Mr. Torrenga stated that the State does not like no access easements as it causes a fight years down the road when someone else wants to develop the property. He stated this is a title problem, a development problem in the future not only for the individual who wants to develop the property but for the State, for the Town, for everybody. Mr. Torrenga requested that the question of the access on to Lot One be handled during site plan review of Lot One rather than during the approval of the subdivision itself. He stated that this approval or lack of approval should not adversely affect what McDonalds wants to do.

Mr. Forbes stated that the “no access easement” has abosolutely no effect on McDonalds.

Mr. Torrenga asked for a separation of the access point and have it be taken up by the Board in their review of Eenigenburg’s Water site plan.

Mr. Kozel noted that this is a four lot subdivision; he stated that the Board should generalize and apply it to both.

(General discussion ensued.)

Attorney Austgen stated that this issue would be a logical item to include on a plat because it will only be platted one time. He stated that the grant of easement or the grant of no access easement could be on the face of the Mylar itself in the approval and the recordation/public notice process. He stated that the Board is able to choose the time for the decision, the direction or the requirement either at the plat stage or at the site plan stage. Attorney Austgen stated from his perspective as the Board’s attorney, having the no access easement on the plat makes sense, but it can be added to the plat by the site plan considerations and requirements.

Attorney Lyp added that he realizes that the developer’s time schedule is not a part of the Board’s consideration. He stated he suspects that the Board’s decision may cause a delay in terms of having to rework the subdivision aspect of the development with the current property owner. He requested that the Board, if their lawyer stated it is appropriate, look at this issue as it relates to the access onto Indianapolis Boulevard on a site specific basis.

Attorney Austgen noted that the other protection to the Town and the Plan Commission is that the access to Route 41 is exactly that, and control of the INDOT drive permit. He stated that the Board’s actions here are important and relevant to the consideration when INDOT does its technical review of the drive permit. He stated that the Town and INDOT have “co-jurisdiction.”

Mr. Ryan noted that INDOT has the final say. Attorney Austgen stated INDOT does have the final say; however, if the Board’s site plan approval does not include a cut/access it would not matter how many paper approvals they had the site plan would not permit the access to be built.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes stated he could not agree to the proposed road cut with all of his concerns about the access and the safety onto Route 41. He stated if the Board wanted to continue the discussion under the Eenigenburg site plan review he was agreeable. Mr. Kozel concurred.

Mr. Forbes stated that he had no more comments on the preliminary plat. Mr. Ryan stated with no other questions or comments from the Board, he would entertain a motion.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes noted a four page list of waivers was received by the Board. Mr. Forbes stated he wanted to clarify that the Plan Commission would be addressing, for the preliminary plat approval for Lot Four, McDonalds, Waiver Number One, Waiver Number Two and Waiver Number Three. Mr. Kil noted that the two things before the Board for their consideration were the waivers and the agreement for the installation of the frontage road, Earl Drive. Mr. Forbes concurred that the Board’s approval would be contingent upon the final language of Earl Drive. Mr. Kil stated this agreement regarding the installation of Earl Drive, would be required for final plat approval. Mr. Forbes made a motion to grant Waiver Number One, Number Two and Number Three for the four lot preliminary plat subdivision of the McDonalds/Eenigenburg, Second Addition, per the document entitled McDonalds/St. John, L/C 013-1176. Mr. Kozel seconded the motion. Mr. Ryan requested a roll call vote. Mr. Kozel – yes. Mr. Nietzel – yes. Mr. Forbes – yes. Mr. Hastings – yes. Mr. Redar – yes. Mr. Ryan – yes. The motion was unanimously carried by roll call vote (6/0).

“Lot # 4 (McDonalds)
  1. Zoning Ordinance 1483, Chapter 3, Section F;
    Minimum Lot Area for the US 41 Overlay District is two (2) acres, but only 0.96 acre is available for the proposed Lot.

    Lot Width for the US 41 Overlay District is 50% depth. Proposed Lot width is 181.5 feet at widest and depth is 278 feet at center for ratio of 65%.

    Minimum Ground Floor Area for the US 41 Overlay District is 15,000 square feet, but the proposed building is 4,324 square feet.

  2. Zoning Ordinance 1483, Chapter 12
    Parking space requirement in Section B for “Establishment for sale and consumption on premises of beverages, food or refreshments” is “One (1) for each seventy-five feet of net floor area or one (1) for each (2) persons allowed...” The proposed number of parking spaces is thirty-four (34) based on floor plan with sixty-eight seats and no more than 2,550 square feet of net floor area, exclusive of vestibules, wash rooms, refrigeration and mechanical spaces.

    The table in Section C on page 7 shows Maneuvering Lane width of 24 ft., Parking space Width of 10 ft. and Parking Space Length of 20 ft. for angled parking between 54º to 74º. The proposed off-street parking layout includes spaces nine by twenty feet (9’x20’), angled at sixty degrees (60º), with one-way drive lanes twenty feet (20’) wide where parking is on one side, and thirty feet (30’) wide with parking both sides.

    The pedestrian path required in Section E is provided from the southeast building corner south to line up with east end of center median in 97th Lane connecting to the Target/Strack & Van Til shopping center, and by walk adjacent to curb along the south and west property lines.

    Loading berth requirement in Section F will be met by closing a drive-thru order lane for unloading supplies during off peak hours.

  3. Zoning Ordinance 1483, Chapter 13:
    Landscape screening requirements will be met except F.5 a). Due to the irregular lot shape, location and road way on all four (4’) sides, and eight foot (8’) wide yard on all sides is not possible.

    The thirty feet (30’) wide Greenbelt requirement for US 41 Overlay District in Section 0.1 is not possible for the same reasons. The proposed Greenbelt along US 41 (Wicker Avenue) averages twelve feet (12’) wide, plus approximately five feet (5’) between the proposed walk and west property line, for the entire length. This is wider than the existing grass strip, and approximates the average width of those to the north and south.

    The ten foot (10’) wide Planting Strip requirement adjacent to Collector Street for US 41 Overlay District in Section 0.2 is not possible after the parking requirements are met. The average Planting Strip width on the north is three feet (3’), eight feet (8’) on the east and five feet (5’) on the south.

    The planting Adjacent to Buildings requirements in Section 0.3 for the US 41 Overlay District will be met as follows: the area between the drive-thru lanes and west building wall averages fifteen feet (15’) in depth, the area between the east building wall and the curb is approximately fourteen feet (14’) feet in depth, but the north side of the building is pavement and walk, and drive-through pick-up lane is adjacent to the south building wall.

    Section 0.4 Planting within Parking Lots will be provided in curbed spaces at the east side of the northwest driveway, both sides of the trash corral, and both sides of the southeast driveway.

    Section 0.5, side and rear yard planting was addressed above. Section 0.6 Greenbelt Buffers was addressed above, because the proposed greenbelt extends to the north and south property lines.

    The Total Landscaping Area is 20% percent of the total lot area.”

Mr. Forbes made a motion to grant approval for preliminary plat for Eenigenburg Second Addition, contingent upon the following actions: receipt of the fees, language and commitment to the extension of Earl Drive between Lots One and Two, BZA action for various variance requests and the Town Council granting the public way vacation.

Attorney Austgen informed the Board that he has drafted the Public Way Vacation Ordinance to be a reciprocal document in that the ordinance will be adopted but it will require all of the other approvals to occur before it becomes effective.

Attorney Lyp asked the Board to clarify whether or not the waiver requests were addressed as relating to the JDE portion of the subdivision; he asked if what was read was applicable to McDonalds or all of the requested waivers. Mr. Forbes stated they were site specific. Attorney Lyp stated that the Petitioner was looking for waivers specific to the site but as part of the Subdivision Control Ordinance and not the zoning code.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes made a motion to amend his previous motion and include additional waivers. His motion included the previous three waivers, Number One, Two and Three in addition to the following from the document that he previously referenced, entitled McDonalds/St. John, L/C 013-1176,

Lot # 1 (McDonalds)
  1. Zoning Ordinance 1483, Chapter 3, Section F;
    Minimum Lot Area for the US 41 Overlay District is two (2) acres, but only 0.96 acre is available for the proposed Lot.

    Lot Width for the US 41 Overlay District is 50% depth. Proposed Lot width is 181.5 feet at widest and depth is 278 feet at center for ratio of 65%.

    Minimum Ground Floor Area for the US 41 Overlay District is 15,000 square feet, but the proposed building is 4,324 square feet.

  2. Zoning Ordinance 1483, Chapter 12:
    Parking space requirement in Section B for “Establishment for sale and consumption on premises of beverages, food or refreshments” is “One (1) for each seventy-five feet of net floor area or one (1) for each (2) persons allowed…” The proposed number of parking spaces is thirty-four (34) based on floor plan with sixty-eight seats and no more than 2,550 square feet of net floor area, exclusive of vestibules, wash rooms, refrigeration and mechanical spaces.

    The table in Section C on page 7 shows Maneuvering Lane width of 24 ft., Parking space Width of 10 ft. and Parking Space Length of 20 ft. for angled parking between 54º to 74º. The proposed off-street parking layout includes spaces nine by twenty feet (9’x20’), angled at sixty degrees (60º), with one-way drive lanes twenty feet (20’) wide where parking is on one side, and thirty feet (30’) wide with parking both sides.

    The pedestrian path required in Section E is provided from the southeast building corner south to line up with east end of center median in 97th Lane connecting to the Target/Strack & Van Til shopping center, and by walk adjacent to curb along the south and west property lines.

    Loading berth requirement in Section F will be met by closing a drive-thru order lane for unloading supplies during off peak hours.

  3. Zoning Ordinance 1483, Chapter 13
    Landscape screening requirements will be met except F.5 a). Due to the irregular lot shape, location and road way on all four (4’) sides, and eight foot (8’) wide yard on all sides is not possible. The thirty feet (30’) wide Greenbelt requirement for US 41 Overlay District in This is wider than the existing grass strip, and approximates the average width of those to the north and south.

    The ten foot (10’) wide Planting Strip requirement adjacent to Collector Street for US 41 Overlay District in Section 0.2 is not possible after the parking requirements are met. The average Planting Strip width on the north is three feet (3’), eight feet (8’) on the east and five feet (5’) on the south.

    The planting Adjacent to Buildings requirements in Section 0.3 for the US 41 Overlay District will be met as follows: the area between the drive-thru lanes and west building wall averages fifteen feet (15’) in depth, the area between the east building wall and the curb is approximately fourteen feet (14’) feet in depth, but the north side of the building is pavement and walk, and drive-through pick-up lane is adjacent to the south building wall.

    Section 0.4 Planting within Parking Lots will be provided in curbed spaces at the east side of the northwest driveway, both sides of the trash corral, and both sides of the southeast driveway.

    Section 0.5, side and rear yard planting was addressed above. Section 0.6 Greenbelt Buffers was addressed above, because the proposed greenbelt extends to the north and south property lines.

    The Total Landscaping Area is 20% percent of the total lot area.”

The following were added to Mr. Forbes motion:

Lot #1 (JDE, LLC)
  1. Zoning Ordinance 1483, Chapter 8.4:
    Section E.1: Minimum Lot Area for US 41 Overlay District is two (2) acres, but only 0.93 acre is available for the proposed Lot.

    Section F.1: No sidewalk is provided and no bicycle access;

    Section F.2: 45’ rear yard is not provided and 15’ side yard is not provided due to existing building being renovated and to remain which encroaches;

    Section F.5: Minimum Ground Floor Area for US 41 Overlay District is 15,000 square feet, but the proposed building is 8,110 square feet.

    Section G.2: Sidewalk at Route 41 frontage is not provided and parking provided at front of building;

    Section G.2.b: Bicycle parking is not provided;

    Section H.2: Landscaping is being provided as submitted, along Route 41, north property line, and within parking lot as shown on plan;

    Section 1.1: Site Lighting is being provided as submitted;

    Section K.6(b): Overall renderings not submitted. Previous rendered elevation presented for similar design of new building addition as requested;

    Section 0.2: Loading to be provided parallel to north side of building in drive through lane and perpendicular to Route 41 and set back.

  2. Zoning Ordinance 1483, Chapter 13
    Section 0.1: Route 41 Greenbelt not provided per this section, but as per Landscape Plan submitted;

    Section 0.2: Perimeter greenbelt at south and east sides not provided as existing building and vehicle access to remain. This is the pedestrian path along the south side of the building and up to the entrance on the west side of the building. See Landscape Plan for areas provided.

Lot #2 (JDE, LLC)

Zoning Ordinance 1483, Chapter 8.4:
Section E.1: Minimum Lot Area for US 41 Overlay District is two (2) Acres, but only 1.145 acres is available for the proposed lot;

Section F.2: Front yard is not met as existing building to remain, which encroaches;

Section F.5: Minimum Ground Floor Area for the US 41 Overlay District is 15,000 square feet, but the proposed building is 5,316 square feet;

Site development improvements for Lot 2 are not being requested and/or presented with the exception of having to install the required grading, drainage, and utilities through this lot to accommodate improvements on Lots 1 and 4 as submitted.

LOT #3 (JDE, LLC)
  1. Zoning Ordinance 1483, Chapter 8.4:

    Section E.1: Minimum Lot Area for the US 41 Overlay District is two (2) acres, but only 1.239 acres is available for the proposed Lot.

    Frontage for Lot 3 to be provided with an ingress/egress easement from 97th Lane.

    Site development improvements for Lot 3 are not being requested and/or presented with the exception of having to install the required grading, drainage and utilities through this lot to accommodate improvements on Lots 1 and four as submitted.”

Mr. Kozel seconded the motion. Mr. Ryan requested a roll call vote. Mr. Forbes – yes. Mr. Kozel – yes. Mr. Redar - yes. Mr. Nietzel – yes. Mr. Hastings – yes. Mr. Ryan – yes. The motion was unanimously carried by roll call vote (6/0).

Mr. Forbes stated that his previous motion for granting preliminary plat approval for McDonalds/Eenigenburg, Second Addition, a four lot subdivision with all of the contingencies still stands. He incorporated the findings of fact, by reference. Mr. Kozel seconded the motion. Mr. Ryan requested a roll call vote. Mr. Forbes – yes. Mr. Kozel – yes. Mr. Redar - yes. Mr. Nietzel – yes. Mr. Hastings – yes. Mr. Ryan – yes. The motion was unanimously carried by roll call vote (6/0).

Attorney Lyp stated that the second thing he had to present to the Board is the McDonalds site plan for their review and approval. He stated that the Board should have the most recent version of the site plan. Attorney Lyp stated that the Petitioner has incorporated all of the requests as related to the lighting and ingress/egress for the delivery of product. He also requested that the Board incorporate the appropriate approved waivers that went along with this site plan.

Mr. Forbes noted that all of the waivers have been discussed and he did not see any problem. He stated, for sake of clarity, the appropriate site plan waivers be listed with the site plan approval. He read, as pertaining to Lot 4, McDonalds, the following waivers, Numbers 1, 2 and 3. Addressed in the plat: minimum lot , lot width and minimum ground floor; addressed in the site plan: parking spaces, maneuvering lane, pedestrian path, loading berth, landscape screening, 30’ wide greenbelt, 10’ wide planting strip, planting adjacent to building, planting within parking lot, side and rear plantings, greenbelt buffer and total landscaping.

Mr. Forbes noted that the waivers have been previously granted.

Attorney Austgen asked if Mr. Kraus had reviewed the site plan. Mr. Kraus stated that he had reviewed the site plan. Mr. Forbes noted that there is a McDonalds site plan review letter from Mr. Kraus. Mr. Kraus indicated that the site plan was satisfactory.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil explained the fees related to the building permit are a system development fee for water and for sewer, and a sewage treatment capacity fee which basically is the Wastewater Treatment plant expansion fee. He stated the fees are based on water consumption. He stated the fees are calculated by estimating the water usage of a new building, such as McDonalds.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Ryan stated he would entertain a motion for McDonalds developmental site plan. Mr. Forbes made a motion to approve the McDonalds site plan with the following contingencies: receipt of the $900 developmental fee and the Town Council granting the vacation of the public way. Mr. Kozel seconded the motion. Mr. Ryan requested a roll call vote. Mr. Forbes – yes. Mr. Kozel – yes. Mr. Redar - yes. Mr. Nietzel – yes. Mr. Hastings – yes. Mr. Ryan – yes. The motion was unanimously carried by roll call vote (6/0).

Mr. Forbes amended his motion for the McDonalds site plan approval to include the site plan waivers for McDonalds as listed previously. Mr. Kozel seconded the motion. Mr. Ryan requested a roll call vote. Mr. Forbes – yes. Mr. Kozel – yes. Mr. Redar - yes. Mr. Nietzel – yes. Mr. Hastings – yes. Mr. Ryan – yes. The motion was unanimously carried by roll call vote (6/0).

Attorney Lyp stated that the third issue before the Board is the JDE site plan. He stated Mr. Georgiou, the site architect would present this issue. Mr. Georgiou stated that relative to the site plan and the waivers an additional waiver was added which related to the irrigation requirement.

Mr. Kil stated that the Eenigenburg site plan lighting does not comply exactly with the Town’s required lighting standards. He stated that the foot candles are too high. He stated Eenigenburg Water will abut a commercial district and should not be an issue. Mr. Georgiou stated that the Petitioner is planning to revise and adjust the lighting plan to meet the requirements.

Mr. Forbes stated that he wanted to make sure everyone was referring to the same set of plans. He stated that Mr. Kraus referenced the February 26, 2013, plans in his letter. Mr. Forbes stated that at one of the previous meetings he saw a set of plans briefly that did not look at all like the plans that he now has. Mr. Kraus stated that the February 26, 2013, are the most recent plans.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Georgiou stated that there are several sheets submitted that are not dated; he stated he was referring to detail sheets. Mr. Kraus noted that February 26, 2013, date refers to the Torrenga plans with supplementary plans submitted for irrigation, landscaping and lighting.

Mr. Forbes noted the two outstanding details for Eenigenburg site plan were the requests for the irrigation waiver and the road cut . He stated he has a problem with this request for the irrigation waiver because maintenance of new landscaping is important. He stated that Lake Central High School requested this same waiver and did not receive it. He noted oftentimes landscaping is not cared for properly and it dies off.

Mr. Georgiou stated as far as the road cut onto Route 41, Mr. Torrenga can revisit this issue. He stated he was retained by Mr. Eenigenburg almost a year ago and has been involved in the design of the building and working with Mr. Torrenga. He stated he realizes this project has been a long process. Mr. Georgiou stated they have mitigated many issues in an attempt to bring the project to the point it is today.

Mr. Georgiou stated that Mr. Torrenga, Mr. Eenigenburg and himself had a long conference call about where they were in the project and what has been resolved. He stated that most of the access to Eenigenburg Water currently comes off of 97th Lane. He stated Mr. Eenigenburg strongly believes that 97th Lane will be the primary entrance only for McDonalds, and in terms of the traffic that will be generated by McDonalds this will have a great impact on his business on the 97th Lane only.

Mr. Georgiou acknowledged there is the Earl Drive access in the back. He stated he personally uses Mr. Eenigenburg’s service and he comes in off of 97th Lane because there’s no traffic there. He stated that Mr. Eenigenburg feels that the consideration for a right in/right out for a driveway curb cut to his business is essential. Mr. Georgiou acknowledged that there are multiple accesses off of 97th Lane and off of Earl Drive, but Mr. Eenigenburg has a serious concern about the traffic that will be generated by McDonalds that will impact his customers.

Mr. Torrenga commented that he has stated his case and did not have much more to say. Attorney Lyp stated that the only additional information that he wanted to impart to the Plan Commission was that McDonalds anticipated approximately 1,400 customers a day. He stated that he could certainly envision a situation where someone coming off of Route 41 onto 97th where previously they had a clear shot to the business will now potentially have to deal with the patrons of McDonalds restaurant. He asked that the Board take the proposed road cut under consideration.

Attorney Lyp stated that from McDonalds perspective, they are looking to break ground as soon as possible. He stated the road cut appears to be a very important issue to a local business owner in terms of access. Attorney Lyp stated that usually a business owner knows more about their business than any consultant, third party or expert. He stated, at a minimum, McDonalds, to be located at the south, will certainly have a decent to a high amount of traffic coming in on a daily basis, which he believes may affect some of the Eenigenburg customers coming to his business.

Mr. Kozel stated he is still not comfortable with the proposed road cut. He stated that it seems like if people are going to McDonalds they’re probably going to buy the water too. Mr. Kozel stated the area has Strack & Van Til and a lot of other stores around and people will be doing a lot of business in a central area. He stated that is the idea of a “shopping center.” Mr. Kozel stated that a traffic pattern is needed for people to safely enter and exit. He stated that he believes the road cut is an “accident waiting to happen.”

(General discussion ensued.)

Attorney Lyp commented that there will be higher traffic once the McDonalds goes in. He stated that he does not think it would be unreasonable for a business owner to believe that the amount of potential traffic in that particular area it will affect his business. Attorney Lyp stated, from McDonalds perspective, they would like to “break ground yesterday.” He stated that if the proposed road cut is going to be an impediment they are concerned about it.

Mr. Torrenga stated he cannot overstate the case of how important it is to John Eenigenburg that the proposed access point be granted. He stated with all of the traffic coming in and out of McDonalds and the traffic light people need a place to get in. He stated he’s been at Eenigenburg Water many times when customers come to get water --- they’re in, they’re out. Mr. Torrenga stated that he does not know that a customer will return if they have to wait in line for a long time.

Mr. Torrenga stated there is no question that without the right in/right out, Eenigenburg Water will suffer.

Mr. Kozel commented that the proposed road cut is still a safety issue. Mr. Torrenga stated that he does not see the proposed road cut as being a safety issue or a traffic issue.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Torrenga stated that the INDOT inspector did not see a problem. He stated he doesn’t believe the proposed road cut to be a practical issue, he stated it’s a “perceived issue.” He stated as a perceived issue, it may not be the right move to block access and hurt Mr. Eenigenburg’s business.

Mr. Forbes stated it is more than a perceived issue. He stated when the left in/right in/right out was first presented by Mr. Torrenga, he referenced the road cut in Schererville located by the Toyota dealership. Mr. Forbes stated that there is a distinct difference of the layout of Route 41 in Schererville and the Route 41 area of St. John. Mr. Forbes stated that there five driveways located within 1000’ of the proposed road cut in St. John.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes stated that the proposed road cut is far too close to an intersection, whether it’s the intersection with a stop light or the intersection of the second 97th Drive. He stated that there is too much going on in this area. Mr. Forbes stated, in his opinion, there are far too many road cuts in this area. He stated that as long as he has been on the Plan Commission the Board has been working to cut down on access to Route 41 from parcels in support of a frontage road system. He stated that this is exactly why the Earl Drive extension is being discussed. He stated that one can drive now from Alsip Nursery to potentially (soon) behind the Eenigenburg parcel without going onto Route 41.

Mr. Forbes reiterated that for as long as he has been a Plan Commission member he has been striving to get the frontage road system in place and limiting access to Route 41 is part of that plan. He stated that if everyone is granted a road cut there would be no need for a frontage road system.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes reiterated his concerns about safety and access to Route 41 still stands. He stated that access to Mr. Eenigenburg’s proposed parcel is exactly mirrored, the traffic flow will be exactly the same as at his existing location.

Attorney Lyp asked the Plan Commission to defer their decision on the road cut until the next meeting. He stated that on hearing both sides, the parties would like more time to cogitate on this issue of the proposed road cut.

Mr. Forbes asked if the parties believed they could effectively address this issue at the next Plan Commission meeting. Attorney Lyp stated he believed so. Mr. Forbes, by request of the Petitioner, made a motion to defer decision on the Eenigenburg site plan. Mr. Kozel seconded the motion. Mr. Ryan requested a roll call vote. Mr. Forbes – yes. Mr. Kozel – yes. Mr. Redar - yes. Mr. Nietzel – yes. Mr. Hastings – yes. Mr. Ryan – yes. The motion was unanimously carried by roll call vote (6/0).

The Eenigenburg site plan will be placed on the April 3, 2013, agenda.

OLD BUSINESS:

There was no Old Business.

OPEN THE FLOOR FOR PUBLIC COMMENT:

Mr. Fred Barr, 11050 West 97th Lane. He stated his business is located behind Eenigenburg’s. He stated there was a lot of discussion about the proposed road cut. He stated that there was also discussion about the road cut at the last meeting. He asked how the discussion developed since Mr. Torrenga was absent from the last meeting.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Barr noted Mr. Torrenga was adamant about the road cut. He stated he does not understand why he would be absent if he felt so strongly about this situation. Mr. Forbes stated that the continuance was a minor bump in the road for McDonalds but they will still be able to move forward.

Mr. Barr stated that it sounded as though if the road cut is not approved there will be some repercussion from Mr. Eenigenburg. Mr. Kil stated that McDonalds can start putting in public improvements immediately.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Barr thanked the Board for their time.

Mr. Ryan called for additional public comment. There was no further public comment.

ADJOURNMENT:

Mr. Ryan called for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Forbes made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Kozel seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously carried by voice vote (6/0).

(The meeting was adjourned at 8:39 p.m.)

A TRUE COPY

_____________________________________
Susan E. Wright, Recording Secretary
St. John Plan Commission

03-20-2013 Plan Commission Study Session

March 20, 2013 Plan Commission Study Session Meeting Minutes

Tom Ryan, President Mike Forbes Attorney Tim Kuiper
Steve Hastings, Vice-President Derwin Nietzel Kenn Kraus
Steve Kozel, Secretary   Steve Kil
Tom Redar    

CALL TO ORDER:

Mr. Ryan called the study session of March 20, 2013, to order at 8:39 p.m.

ROLL CALL:

Roll call was taken at the Special Meeting preceding the study session.

NEW BUSINESS:

A. LAKE CENTRAL SCHOOL CORPORATION – SITE PLAN REVIEW RELATED TO THE SPORTS LIGHTING AT CLARK MIDDLE SCHOOL
Tom Neff, Schmidt Associates, appeared before the Board, on behalf of Petitioner, Lake Central School Corporation. He stated that the Petitioner wanted to revisit where it left off last year regarding the track field at Clark Middle School. Mr. Neff explained that last year Petitioner received approval for the track which has now been constructed. He stated that track construction includes the track and field, bleachers and a press box.

Mr. Neff stated that the second phase of the Petitioner's Clark Middle School project includes appearing before the Board with regard to the track's lighting. He stated that this matter was deferred last year one reason being that the Board was in the process of developing a lighting ordinance. Mr. Neff had a PowerPoint presentation for the Board.

Mr. Neff stated that the proposed lighting plan for the Clark Middle School track meets the Town's lighting ordinance. He stated that the Town's lighting ordinance calls for approximately 30 foot candles for an athletic field which is what is what is depicted in Petitioner's proposed lighting plan for Clark Middle School track.

Mr. Neff explained that last year the track project called for 50 foot candles, but the foot candles at the Clark Middle School track have been reduced to 30. He presented a lighting plan that was produced by Musco. He explained that there are 30 foot candles on the track field that begin and drop off at the perimeter. He stated that the track drops to “almost two foot candles on the perimeter of that track.”

Mr. Neff stated that the lighting is mostly concentrated on the field itself. He stated that at the perimeter of the track the foot candles are zero. He stated that Petitioner can supply a photometric image that reflects a 10x10 grid reflecting zero at the edge.

Mr. Neff showed the Board a photometric animation image of the Clark Middle School field that was produced by using Google Earth. Mr. Neff explained that by the time one gets to the landscaping the landscaping is almost out of the lighting condition. He stated that the landscaping will actually help to further eliminate the light.

Mr. Neff also presented a picture supplied by Musco of a similar application (not the Clark Middle School field). He stated that the field was similar to Clark Middle School with the same type of lighting. He stated that there is very little illumination at the ends of the track. He stated that the 30 foot candles are mostly concentrated in the middle of the field.

Mr. Neff showed the Board a picture drawing of the lighting fixtures. He stated last year there was discussion about lighting cut off. Mr. Neff stated that last year at this time fixtures with light cut off for athletic fields were not available but since that time they have become available. He stated a number of improvements have been made in lighting technology. He stated that the cut off allows that the lighting will be focused where it needs to go.

Mr. Neff stated that by reducing the number of foot candles to 30, there are only 36 fixtures. He stated that the height of the fixtures on some of the poles was also reduced. He stated that this type of configuration allows for a more concentrated distribution of light.

Mr. Neff complimented the Board on the new lighting ordinance. He stated that the IHSAA recommendation for a field with under 2,000 seats is foot candle displacement of 30. He stated that Petitioner's field has approximately 1,200 seats. He stated that this is the appropriate number of foot candles for the Clark Middle School field.

Mr. Forbes asked, for clarification purposes, if it would be 36 fixtures per standard. Mr. Neff stated it would be 36 total fixtures. Mr. Forbes asked if between the four poles there would be a total of 36. Mr. Neff concurred.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Neff informed the Board that during the course of a year, the lighting efficiencies have improved. Mr. Forbes stated that lighting technology has changed from what was previously used by the Town. He stated that this technology makes it easier to comply with the Town's ordinance. Mr. Neff stated that reducing the foot candles also reduces the wattage and saves energy.

Mr. Hastings asked Petitioner if the bleachers would have lighting. Mr. Neff replied that there would just be overflow light on the bleachers. Mr. Neff stated that there will be fluorescent lights in the press box, but no lighting on the outside of the press box.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Hastings asked if any track events would take place at night. Mr. Neff deferred to Mr. Verraco. Mr. Verraco stated that all of the track meets take place at 4:30 p.m. with the exception of the Relay for Life, which Lake Central School Corporation hosts every year. This year the Relay for Life will not take place at Clark Middle School.

Mr. Ryan asked the height from which the photograph was taken. Mr. Neff admitted he did not know. He stated that the photograph was supplied by the lighting fixture manufacturer to illustrate the light dispersion and the cut off capability of the lights.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes commented, going back to the ordinance, that the Board followed the recommended standards on lighting. He stated that the Town does not want to impede the safety of the players. Mr. Neff opined that the intention of the photograph was to reflect how dramatic the light cut off is. Mr. Neff stated the picture was probably taken when the lights were being aimed. Mr. Kil remarked that the lights do come pre-aimed, but they do have to be tweaked.

Mr. Forbes stated that the Board cannot take action on this matter on this date. He asked Mr. Neff to make copies of the two photometric plans that he has and submit them to the Board. Mr. Neff stated he would deliver the photometric plans to the Board. Mr. Neff stated that the Board would receive an additional plan that contains all of the numbers and a 10x10 grid.

Mr. Neff stated that Petitioner wanted to present the proposed plan to the Board so they could answer any questions, and prove that the proposed lighting plan is in compliance with the Town's ordinance.

Mr. Forbes stated that there are agreements in place (boy's baseball and girls' softball) in order to control the lights. He stated that the lighting schedule is 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and 10:30 p.m. on weekends excluding the potential Relay for Life. He asked if this light schedule would be an issue. Mr. Ledyard stated that the light schedule would not pose a problem as their games start at 6:00 p.m. Mr. Forbes stated that the Board would like to work within these time parameters for the people who live in the surrounding area.

Mr. Neff thanked the Board for their time. The matter was scheduled for the next regular meeting on April 3, 2013.

Mr. Volk stated that previously the Board had discussed the number of events scheduled for the Clark Middle School track, and it was a sticking point. Mr. Forbes stated that many of the concerns the Board had should be addressed with the lighting plan proposed on this date. Mr. Forbes noted, as a courtesy, the Town should be notified by Petitioner if there was going to be a tournament or any other special event.

*************

Attorney Austgen stated he would like to have a discussion with the Board about frontage roads and access cuts. He stated that the Board's discussion earlier tonight about the right in/right out, the number of road cuts and setbacks is a really important planning consideration.

Attorney Austgen stated he would like to remind the Board what can happen if the Plan Commission does not keep a tight pattern and practice and a set of customs on how the Board will consider highway cuts. He stated earlier it was mentioned that somebody at INDOT had checked off on Eenigenburg's proposed road cut. Attorney Austgen stated that the inference was that some individual had called Mr. John McFadden and had a discussion with him.

Attorney Austgen noted that Mr. McFadden is not an engineer, nor is he the individual that performs the permit reviews. He stated Mr. McFadden is merely a local representative of INDOT.

Attorney Austgen told the Board that the road cut issue could get out of control quickly if the Board does not keep it in check. He explained that the Town of Schererville faced this exact situation (road cuts) in the early 1980’s. He asked the Board to visualize Route 41 from Route 30 south (in Schererville). He stated on the east side of Route 41 nearly immediately from Teibel's Restaurant going south every business has a road cut to this day. He stated that most of the west side of Route 41 south of Route 30 (businesses and residences) also have road cuts. He stated that these numerous road cuts are a burden.

Mr. Austgen stated that this situation spurred Schererville to develop its comprehensive plan and zoning ordinances to require a frontage road concept. He stated that the frontage road concept was implemented in order to eliminate the road cuts because they were so close together and also due to the increased traffic flow that occurs because of the road cuts.

Attorney Austgen stated that as this Board is balancing whether or not they will consider a road cut they should be looking at the bigger picture, in the context of future development, how many business cuts will be allowed, and how a road cut will be controlled for public safety purposes. He stated that in all certainty there will be future business development north of the Eenigenburg Water business. He opined that how the Plan Commission handles Eenigenburg's proposed road cut will drive how future business development will be handled.

Attorney Austgen noted that Earl Drive is a tremendously important infrastructure. He stated that Earl Drive is critical to the development of the Town. He noted that a vehicle being able to travel all the way from Alsip Nursery on internal roads versus Route 41 is important. He stated that the internal roads like Earl Drive take vehicles off of the major highway.

Attorney Austgen stated he is not surprised at Mr. Torrenga's stance on the proposed road cut. He stated that the Plan Commission has an opportunity to set a table, set a tone, set a pattern, set a practice on proposed road cuts. Mr. Ryan commented that this is his position exactly, that this is the reason for the frontage road.

Attorney Austgen noted that there are no traffic studies on the Eenigenburg's proposed road cut. He stated that Torrenga Engineering did not submit a traffic study. He stated that the right in/right out road cut that Eenigenburg is proposing is less than 400 feet from the traffic signal light. Attorney Austgen stated that INDOT has their own set of standards. He stated that the proposed road cut technically does not meet the setback criteria of being at least 400 feet from the controlled traffic signal (per INDOT criteria).

Attorney Austgen opined that it is to be expected that traffic will grow, and traffic volume will increase. He recommended that the Board members think about these issues before the next meeting. He stated that Petitioner’s representatives will infer that Eenigenburg’s business will not survive, or Eenigenburg Water will face economic disaster. He stated that no evidence was presented by Petitioner as to whether or not the Eenigenburg Water business will be affected by denying the road cut. He stated that Eenigenburg's engineer and architect inferred that the business will be affected but, again, they presented no evidence. Attorney Austgen stated that the proposed road cut is not a valid consideration for a land use approval process.

Mr. Kozel commented that Mr. Eenigenburg is the individual who either sold or will sell the parcel to McDonalds. Attorney Austgen reiterated that there has been no traffic study presented; he stated there is no empirical evidence only observations.

Mr. Kraus stated that INDOT is very reluctant to take away driveways that are already in existence. He stated that even if they are being combined, as in this case, with the adjacent lot, INDOT does not like taking access away from a lot if it is already in existence. Mr. Kraus stated, in this case, Eenigenburg already has a road cut although it is only gravel. Mr. Kraus stated that, in their minds, they are just going to improve the gravel drive way to an asphalt drive way.

Attorney Austgen stated that Petitioner is not taking into consideration the global and comprehensive planning activity, site improvement and development.

Mr. Kraus stated that he believes Mr. Torrenga showed him the entire new site plan which included the existing drive. Attorney Austen stated that INDOT could issue the permit, and INDOT may issue the permit. Mr. Forbes concurred. Mr. Forbes stated that even if INDOT does issue the permit for the road cut, he does not think that the Plan Commission should support it.

Mr. Forbes reiterated that he has safety concerns and he cannot possibly be a part of the approval of the proposed road cut. He stated that regardless of whether the Board approves the road cut or not, INDOT can always say yes. He stated he does not think the Town will fight INDOT over it. Mr. Forbes stated that he sincerely hopes that INDOT reviews the proposed road cut and minimizes the cut as much as possible. Mr. Forbes stated that the proposed “left-in” is absolutely wrong. He stated that Route 41 traffic will be cutting across the highway into the Eenigenburg parcel at this location. Mr. Forbes stated that the “left-in” is the worse part of the proposed road cut.

(General discussion ensued.)

Attorney Austgen stated that the Board will find very few commercial parcels in Town that have 270 degrees of access; he stated that there will be public access on three sides on Eenigenburg's parcel. Mr. Forbes stated that there are numerous ways for Mr. Eenigenburg to configure the traffic flow in and out of the parcel without the proposed road cut.

Mr. Forbes stated that the Board had an opportunity, through development, to install Earl Drive. He stated that Earl Drive starts at Alsip Nursery and runs to the present Eenigenburg parcel. He stated potentially, through development, Earl Drive could go past Standard Lumber and potentially behind Pascale's Pizza into the lot of the Hallmark store. Mr. Forbes stated that Earl Drive will probably not go much further than that because of congestion. Mr. Forbes opined that the frontage road concept should be fully supported.

Attorney Austgen asked if there was a frontage road mandate in the Town's Comprehensive Plan where the frontage roads must be implemented if possible. Mr. Forbes stated he is not sure how detailed the frontage road concept was laid out in the Town's Comprehensive Plan.

(General discussion ensued.)

Attorney Austgen stated that the lessons learned in Schererville from what happened south of Route 30 were applied going north of Route 30; he stated there is a significant difference. Attorney Austgen stated that there are large stretches of commercial district on Route 41 north of Route 30 that have frontage road for vehicle passage.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes talked about the frontage road system on the west side of Route 41. Mr. Forbes stated the frontage road system is not an unusual or unheard of concept in St. John. He stated that for as long as he has been on the Plan Commission the frontage road system has been one of the goals.

Attorney Austgen stated that the Board should probably discuss what Mr. Barr brought up in his comments. Mr. Barr asked the Board about the impact. Attorney Austgen suggested that the road cut might be the deal killer. He stated that the Plan Commission has been in a battle since September trying to get this project to this point. Attorney Austgen recommended that while the Board is evaluating things to keep in mind that there is always the possibility of an adverse reaction from Mr. Eenigenburg.

Mr. Nietzel stated that he totally disagrees with pork chops. He stated, on a daily basis, as he drives up and down Route 41, he observes vehicles turning left across two lanes of traffic and having to turn more than 90 degrees to get into the pork chop. He opined that the pork chops are not working.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil asked what exactly INDOT has approved to date. Attorney Austgen replied that INDOT has not approved anything yet. He stated that if INDOT had approved anything related to the access point Petitioner would certainly have entered it into the record. Mr. Kil stated that Mr. Torrenga is still working on a permit and that the proposed access point has been applied for but is not yet granted. Mr. Kraus stated that he was told that John McFadden gave Mr. Torrenga a verbal okay.

Mr. Forbes asked if it would be appropriate for the Board to contact INDOT and voice their concerns over the Eenigenburg Water proposed road cut. Attorney Austgen stated that it would be appropriate for the Board to have communications with INDOT to relay their concerns about the integrity of the highway, safety considerations and a myriad of other concerns.

(General discussion ensued.)

Attorney Austgen opined that INDOT will most likely approve the proposed road cut because of the existing gravel road cut. He stated that Petitioner will incorporate improvements to provide for the road cut. Mr. Kil stated that a deceleration lane has been extended across the entire front lot. Attorney Austgen stated that there is a lot of “illogic” to the proposed road cut.

Mr. Kil stated, in retrospect, he does not have the latest (February 26, 2013) site plan from Torrenga Engineering with the proposed amendments. Mr. Forbes stated that he asked earlier in the meeting if everyone was looking at the same site plan. Mr. Forbes stated Mr. Torrenga had a set of drawings in his hand and he gave them to him (Mr. Forbes) and then took them back. Mr. Forbes stated that there is another set of Eenigenburg site plans that the Board has not seen yet. Mr. Kraus stated that Mr. Torrenga indicated that these were the plans that were given to INDOT.

Mr. Forbes reiterated that there is another set of plans. Mr. Kil stated that he does not think the Board has been given the final set of plans.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil stated “road to be built by the Town of St. John” is still on the plans that were submitted to the Board. He stated that Petitioner was asked to remove the verbiage ‘road to be built by the Town of St. John,” several times from the plat.

Mr. Forbes stated after the Petitioner has gone through the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting they should be able to hand the Plan Commission a set of plans that reflect the entire picture.

Mr. Forbes stated it would be nice for the Board to see the final picture. Mr. Kraus stated that he has seen a site plan with all of the notes corrected on it. Mr. Forbes and Mr. Kil stated that they have not seen these plans. Mr. Kil stated that Petitioner should have handed the Board a final site plan at this meeting. Mr. Forbes stated that the final site plan should have been submitted a week ago.

Mr. Kil stated he would e-mail a request for the final site plan so that the Board could review the same.

Mr. Volk noted that the Lake Central light plan presentation was “much more pleasant” than what was previously proposed. He stated that the lighting standards had been met before. He stated that the reason the Board did not approve the light plan before is because they would not commit to an events schedule.

Mr. Volk noted that Petitioner did not bring the events schedule up in their presentation tonight. He stated that part of the Board's concern previously was that they are going to lease the field for a revenue stream. Mr. Volk stated if the Petitioner is not given an events schedule for the number of nights they can have the lights on that the lights will be on every night. He stated this is the reason that the Board did not approve the lighting plan previously.

Mr. Volk stated he believes that the Petitioner will lease the field to the private leagues. He stated that this issue is something the Board may want to consider. Mr. Volk stated that it is not only going to be the lights that bother the neighbors, it will also be the traffic. He stated 93rd is jammed up on nights when there are events at the school.

OLD BUSINESS:

There was no Old Business.

OPEN THE FLOOR FOR PUBLIC COMMENT:

There was no public comment.

ADJOURNMENT:

Mr. Ryan adjourned the meeting.

(The meeting was adjourned at 9:27 p.m.)

A TRUE COPY

_____________________________________
Susan E. Wright, Recording Secretary
St. John Plan Commission

04-03-2013 Plan Commission

April 17, 2013 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes

Tom Ryan, President Mike Forbes Attorney Tim Kuiper
Steve Hastings, Vice-President Derwin Nietzel Kenn Kraus
Steve Kozel, Secretary   Steve Kil
Tom Redar    

CALL TO ORDER:

Mr. Tom Ryan called the regular Plan Commission meeting of April 3, 2013, to order at 7:00 p.m.

The Pledge of Allegiance was said.

ROLL CALL:

Roll call was taken by Recording Secretary, Susan E. Wright, with the following Commissioners present: Tom Ryan, Steve Hastings, Steve Kozel, Tom Redar, Mike Forbes and Derwin Nietzel. Staff members present: Town Manager, Steve Kil was present. Attorney Timothy Kuiper was also present. Town Council liaison, Greg Volk was also present. Kenn Kraus was absent.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MARCH 6, 2013 and MARCH 20, 2013

Mr. Ryan stated he would entertain a motion on the meeting minutes of March 6, 2013, and March 20, 2013, with any additions, deletions or amendments. Mr. Forbes made a motion to approve the meeting minutes of March 6, 2013, and March 20, 2013, as submitted. Mr. Kozel seconded the motion. Mr. Ryan requested a roll call vote. Steve Kozel – yes. Steve Hastings – yes. Tom Redar – yes. Derwin Nietzel – yes. Mike Forbes – yes. Tom Ryan – yes. The motion was unanimously passed by roll call vote (6/0).

NEW BUSINESS:

A. EENIGENBURG WATER – DEVELOPMENT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL
Mr. Ryan noted that there were no representatives present for Eenigenburg Water for review of the development and site plan.

Mr. Kil concurred. He stated that the record should reflect that the Petitioner’s attorney, Patrick Lyp, requested that Eenigenburg Water be deferred from the agenda of April 3, 2013, and scheduled for the April 17, 2013, meeting. Mr. Kil added that Petitioner is requesting that the Plan Commission schedule a special meeting to take place on April 17, 2013, prior to the Plan Commission study session.

Mr. Kil stated as of now, depending on the second item on the agenda (Lake Central High School) there would be the only two items on the Board’s agenda for April 17, 2013. Mr. Forbes wanted to know if Petitioner, McDonalds, was scheduled to be placed on the Plan Commission’s April 17, 2013, agenda.

Mr. Kil stated that McDonalds would be on the April 17, 2013, agenda. He stated that, at that time, the Board would be dealing with final plat approval for the entire subdivision, and reviewing the site plan for Eenigenburg Water. Mr. Forbes noted that this date coincides with the thirty (30) day requirement for McDonalds.

Mr. Kil recommended that the Board authorize a special meeting on April 17, 2013, for the aforementioned purposes. Mr. Forbes asked what reason was given by Eenigenburg when a deferral was requested on the site plan. Mr. Kil informed the Board that Petitioner stated that their site plan revisions are not complete. Mr. Forbes noted that it was Petitioner’s request for the deferral.

Mr. Kozel stated he would not be present on April 17, 2013; he will be out of town. Attorney Kuiper stated a motion would be in order to defer the Eenigenburg matter to a special meeting to be held on April 17, 2013, before the study session.

Mr. Ryan stated he would entertain a motion to defer the Eenigenburg site plan development and approval to a special meeting to be held on April 17, 2013, before the study session. Mr. Forbes made a motion to defer the Eenigenburg matter to the special meeting scheduled for April 17, 2013. Mr. Kozel seconded the motion. Mr. Ryan requested a roll call vote. Steve Kozel – yes. Steve Hastings – yes. Tom Redar – yes. Derwin Nietzel – yes. Mike Forbes – yes. Tom Ryan – yes. The motion was unanimously passed by roll call vote (6/0).

B. LCSC – SITE PLAN REVIEW RELATED TO THE SPORTS LIGHTING AT CLARK MIDDLE SCHOOL
Mr. Duane Dart, Schmidt Associates, appeared before the Board on behalf of Petitioner, Lake Central School Corporation, for site plan review related to the lighting at Clark Middle School. Mr. Dart stated that two weeks ago his colleague, Tom Neff, appeared before the Board with a presentation of the proposed lighting for the athletic field at Clark Middle School. Mr. Dart stated if the Board had any questions on this matter he would be happy to answer them. Mr. Dart stated if the Board had no questions, Petitioner was requesting approval of the proposed lighting plan.

Mr. Ryan asked Mr. Dart if he was familiar with the presentation given by Mr. Neff. Mr. Dart indicated that he was familiar with the lighting presentation. Mr. Dart stated that he believed the Board was in possession of copies of the presentation and some larger scale drawings.

Mr. Ryan showed one of the photographs submitted in the presentation to Mr. Dart. Mr. Dart indicated he was familiar with the photograph. Mr. Ryan asked at what height and angle the photograph was taken at. Mr. Dart stated he did not have that information.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Dart stated that the photograph being referred to was an example photograph supplied by Musco Lighting. Mr. Ryan referring to the same pamphlet asked, for clarification, if there were photographs of the proposed lighting shown at ground level and at a distance away from the field. Mr. Dart stated that there is a photograph that reflects zero at the property line. He explained that this means the lighting would be lesser farther away from the field.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes asked if the highest light was at ninety (90) feet. Mr. Dart explained that this was the height of the pole with the lights slightly above that. Mr. Dart explained that there are two rows of lights so the top row of lights may be a foot or two higher. Mr. Forbes asked if the ninety (90) foot poles would be located on the east side of the track. Mr. Dart explained that the tallest poles will be located by the bleachers, and the eighty (80) foot poles would be right along the side of the track on the opposite side.

Mr. Ryan noted that at the last meeting Petitioner was asked to provide a schedule for the use of the field to the Board. Mr. Dart deferred to Dr. Veracco. Mr. Veracco appeared before the Board to explain the field scheduling. He stated that he believed that this issue was addressed at the last meeting in terms of the Clark Middle School eighth grade team generally holding four home games there, and every other year potentially a scrimmage. Mr. Veracco stated that the field would be used part of the time for Grimmer School because they don’t have a field. He stated that the aforementioned is the predominant use of the field for middle school football.

Mr. Veracco stated that there is also a chance in the interim period (before the high school is completed) that the freshman team could play their games at Clark Middle School. He stated, again, this would be an eight game schedule with four home games.

Mr. Ryan stated he must have glossed way over this subject because he does not recall hearing any of the information presented by Mr. Veracco.

Mr. Veracco stated that he had expounded on this subject in the event of an all-night event. He stated that he had explained that the school corporation does host the Relay for Life. Mr. Veracco explained that this event is traveled around the district taking place in different towns. He stated that the likelihood of the Relay for Life event taking place at Clark Middle School would not be more than every third year. Mr. Veracco explained that there is a good chance that once the high school facilities project is finished, and based on the amenities that will be available there, it is likely many events will take place there.

Mr. Kozel asked if the only ones that will be using the Clark Middle School field will be the school or other schools within the Lake Central school system. Mr. Veracco stated Mr. Kozel’s query was not necessarily accurate because the school corporation does support the parochial schools by allowing parochial schools to use the field for practice. Mr. Veracco stated in terms of the lights, the lights are not run for their parochial friends. He stated that the lights are not even used for their own practices.

Mr. Ryan asked how often the school corporation’s students practiced. Mr. Veracco stated he would hate to commit to anything in terms of saying “never.” Mr. Veracco stated that the lights will only be used in the event of contests, “the contests I’ve already spoken to.” Mr. Ryan noted that the lights would not be on nightly for practices. Mr. Veracco stated “not like behind us here.”

Mr. Forbes asked, during the interim of construction, if the track team would be using the Clark Middle School field. Mr. Veracco concurred. Mr. Forbes asked if the field would be used by the track team for four or five meets. Mr. Veracco concurred.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kozel asked if, besides the 36-hour Relay for Life, there would be any other outside organizations that the school corporation would allow to lease/lend and/or use the field at Clark Middle School. Mr. Veracco responded by saying community members have a high priority for the school corporation. He stated that the school corporation wants to be a good community member and share the facility as much as possible.

Mr. Veracco stated he does not foresee any events but he will not say never. He stated that there is a cost to the school corporation to run the lights and their operating budget is extremely tight. He stated that the school corporation would be more likely to accommodate folks on a Sunday afternoon when it would be a minimal cost to use the facility.

Mr. Kozel asked if there would be any nighttime events. Mr. Veracco stated that there could be nighttime events but he promised that the school corporation would honor the Town’s ordinance. He said he does not envision many nighttime events. Mr. Kozel stated, down the road, if there were many events it could get a little bit out of hand and the Board would not have any control over it as far as having planned for extra events in advance. Mr. Veracco responded by saying he was not sure what Mr. Kozel was envisioning so he asked Mr. Kozel to explain.

Mr. Kozel stated that in the event the school corporation started leasing the Clark Middle School field more, or having more use of the school than what was originally discussed with the Plan Commission, the Plan Commission would not have any control over this.

Mr. Veracco stated that the facility is a track and football facility. He stated that other than a Relay for Life type activity and the track and football these would be the two main uses for the facility. He stated that the school corporation does not intend to use the lights for track meets. He stated that the football field will be used predominantly for the school corporation’s students.

Mr. Ryan stated, if and when the administration changes, and may have different ideas of how often the facility is used, and it changes drastically, the Plan Commission would have nothing to fall back on and no control unless the school corporation would submit a commitment as to how often the facility would be used. Mr. Veracco reiterated that the school corporation would honor the Town’s ordinance on lighting. He stated he is not sure how else to address this issue. Mr. Veracco stated he is not comfortable committing to something that he can’t foresee.

Attorney Cheryl Zic, counsel for Lake Central High School Corporation, appeared before the Board to address the issue being discussed. Ms. Zic stated that the Town does have a new lighting ordinance which contains specifics on times of use for athletic facilities. She stated that the Town has implemented an ordinance which encompasses the hours and days of use. Ms. Zic stated that she has seen no part of the Town’s lighting ordinance that addresses how many times a year the facility can be used.

Attorney Zic stated that the Petitioner understands what the Board is asking and Mr. Veracco is answering as best he can. She stated that the school corporation intends to honor the Town’s ordinance that was put in place for athletic fields. She stated that the school has a football and track team at the middle school along with a couple of charitable organizations that have permission to use the facilities. Ms. Zic stated “there is an Indiana statute that does require the school to make its facilities available to the public with its limitations like it always has.”

Attorney Zic stated beyond what she has said, she does not know what else to say except that the school corporation will honor the ordinance that the Town has put in place. Mr. Veracco stated that the preference is, when the high school project is done, to host more events there over Clark Middle School. He stated that the parking is better and there will be more amenities available.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kozel stated that the Board just wants to ensure that the situation does not escalate to where there is actually more activity going on at Clark Middle School than it can handle.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Volk stated where the confusion comes in is that the school corporation states they will comply with the ordinance; and Mr. Volk stated as far as light trespass goes and the Town’s request to turn the lights on and off at a certain time Petitioner is in compliance. He stated that this is a “special use request.” He explained that the Board is attempting to ensure that there is no overuse beyond what has been discussed because the Board will not have any control.

Mr. Volk stated since Petitioner is not certain how many events will take place there the Board could set a maximum number for a year. He stated if a maximum number was implemented this would give the Board something to fall back on.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Veracco asked why the Petitioner was being treated different than Babe Ruth baseball. Mr. Ryan stated that the Petitioner is talking about football (a different sport) at a different time of year, and he was also talking about something that does not exist.

Mr. Veracco stated that Petitioner will never use the lights for five months straight like the baseball fields that he frequents. Mr. Veracco stated he does not think he should have to be pinned down on a fixed number because the facilities do not belong to him or even Lake Central. He stated that this is a community facility and if somebody wants to utilize it and the school corporation does not lose money it will be made available to them. He asked the Board what number they had in mind.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Veracco asked of the Board if they were now referring to the use of the facility or the use of the lights. Mr. Ryan stated that the Board was referring to the use of the lights. Mr. Kozel reiterated that the Board’s concern is that down the road the lighting will be abused. Mr. Veracco reiterated that he does not feel comfortable being pinned down on this subject especially from what he sees going on already in Town. He stated that the school corporation will never reach anywhere near this number of evenings.

(General discussion ensued.)

Attorney Zic asked Attorney Kuiper to weigh in on this matter under the statute/ordinance. She asked why the Petitioner was being requested to limit the number of events when the ordinance itself does not provide for this. She stated that the ordinance provides for times on particular days.

Attorney Kuiper stated that he was not sure why the request was being made. He noted that the Petitioner is not willing to commit to a time or a number of events, which is not required under the Town’s ordinance or in the statute. Attorney Kuiper stated that Petitioner is required to comply with the Town’s lighting ordinance as it exists now. He stated that for purposes of the Board’s determination tonight they must ascertain whether or not the photometric site plan before them complies with the lighting ordinance requirements under the Town’s zoning ordinance. He stated it is this criteria that the Board must use to judge the site plan.

Mr. Kil agreed that the Town’s ordinance does have a schedule that requires certain times for the lighting to be turned on and turned off, and this is what all of the other sports adhere to. Mr. Forbes stated that he believes that the thought processes of the Board is with the intent to protect the neighbors from what is coming. Mr. Forbes stated he realizes what the Board wants to be done, but he does not think it can be done in this instance. Mr. Forbes opined that the Board does not have the grounds to place conditions on the facility.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Ryan asked the Board members if they had any more questions. There were no further questions or comments from the Board. Mr. Ryan stated he would entertain a motion regarding the site plan for the sports lighting at Clark Middle School. Mr. Redar made a motion to approve the site plan review for the Clark Middle School lighting. Mr. Hastings seconded the motion. Mr. Ryan requested a roll call vote. Steve Kozel – yes. Steve Hastings – yes. Tom Redar – yes. Derwin Nietzel – yes. Mike Forbes – yes. Tom Ryan – no. The motion was passed by roll call vote (5/1).

OLD BUSINESS:

Mr. Volk asked Mr. Kil or Mr. Redar for an update on the high school construction project. Mr. Kil stated he was not aware of any problems. Mr. Kil asked Mr. Ledyard if the school’s construction project was on time. Mr. Ledyard stated “Fall for Phase One.” Mr. Ledyard also related that the academic wing and the pool would be completed by November.

Mr. Ryan noted mud from the construction site being tracked onto Route 41. Mr. Redar stated that there is routinely a street sweeper that goes through the parking lot and along the site to keep it clean.

Mr. Ryan asked about the parts of White Oak that were crumbling would be fixed. Mr. Kil stated that he has held money for the repairs and will have someone else make the repairs.

OPEN THE FLOOR FOR PUBLIC COMMENT:

There was no public comment.

ADJOURNMENT:

Mr. Ryan stated he would entertain a motion to adjourn (The meeting was adjourned at 7:34 p.m.)

A TRUE COPY

_____________________________________
Susan E. Wright, Recording Secretary
St. John Plan Commission

04-17-2013 Plan Commission Special Meeting

April 17, 2013 Plan Commission Special Meeting Minutes

Tom Ryan, President Mike Forbes Attorney Tim Kuiper
Steve Hastings, Vice-President Derwin Nietzel Kenn Kraus
Steve Kozel, Secretary   Steve Kil
Tom Redar    

CALL TO ORDER:

Mr. Tom Ryan called to order the Plan Commission special meeting of April 17, 2013, at 7:01 p.m.

(The Pledge of Allegiance was said.)

ROLL CALL:

Roll call was taken by Recording Secretary, Susan E. Wright, with the following Commissioners present: Tom Ryan, Steve Hastings, Tom Redar, Mike Forbes and Derwin Nietzel. Steve Kozel was absent. Staff members present: Kenn Kraus and Steve Kil. Attorney Dave Austgen was also present. Rex Sherrard was present. Town Council liaison, Greg Volk was also present.

Mr. Kil added that Mr. Kozel had called him and asked him to notify the Board that he would not be present at tonight’s meeting.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MARCH 20, 2013, special meeting APRIL 3, 2013, regular meeting

Mr. Ryan stated he would entertain a motion to approve the minutes for the special meeting March 20, 2013, and the regular meeting of April 3, 2013, with any corrections or notations. Mr. Forbes made a motion to approve the March 20, 2013, and April 3, 2013, special and regular meeting minutes as posted. Mr. Hastings seconded the motion. The motion was passed by voice vote (5/0).

Mr. Ryan requested a roll call vote. Mr. Hastings – yes. Tom Redar – yes. Mike Forbes – yes. Derwin Nietzel – yes. Tom Ryan – yes. The motion was unanimously passed by roll call vote (5/0).

NEW BUSINESS:

A. MCDONALDS-EENIGENBURG – FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION FINAL PLAT APPROVAL
Mr. Ryan stated that the first order of business for the Board’s consideration is McDonalds/Eenigenburg, a four lot subdivision, set for final plat approval.

Attorney Patrick Lyp, appeared before the Board on behalf of the McDonalds Corporation and JDE, LLC, property owner.

Attorney Lyp extended appreciation on behalf of behalf of McDonalds and the property owner to the Board and the Town for taking time out of their busy schedules and holding the second special meeting on this project.

Attorney Lyp stated he submitted a final Mylar to Mr. Kil and Mr. Kraus in relation to the proposed subdivision. He stated that there were certain discussions at the least meeting concerning the road cuts on the property to the north. He again expressed appreciation on behalf of the Petitioners for what the Town has done in terms of studying the issue in question. Attorney Lyp stated that all parties agreed that the conclusion of the Town’s consultant would be determinative. He stated that the consultant’s conclusion was that the road cut was not in the best interest of the public safety on US Route 41. For this reason, the road cut was removed from the plat subdivision plan that is currently before the Board.

Attorney Lyp asked the Board if they had any questions on the plan that was currently before the Board.

Attorney Austgen addressed the Board and Attorney Lyp. Attorney Austgen stated there was a little confusion. He stated that there was a meeting held, not too long ago, in which the proposed road cut and its elimination was discussed. Attorney Austgen asked on behalf of everyone who has been involved in reviewing and monitoring this project where the site plan is that shows the cut has been eliminated. Attorney Austgen stated that Gary Torrenga, Torrenga Engineering, was at a meeting and he represented to the Board that he had a set of drawings that did not reflect the road cut, along with other sets of drawings of the site.

Mr. Georgiou stated that he had the plan in his hand. Mr. Georgiou stated he was representing Gary Torrenga. Mr. Kil noted this was the second item on the agenda.

Attorney Austgen noted that Attorney Lyp, representing both McDonalds and JDE, LLC, stated that there is no road cut and the Board has not seen the document yet. Mr. Ryan stated that the document is supposed to be presented well in advance of tonight’s meeting.

Mr. Georgiou asked if the Board could go back the agenda where the subdivision was first and JDE, LLC, site plan approval was second. Mr. Kil stated that there are two items on the agenda. The first item on the agenda is the actual subdivision plat approval, of which the Board has a copy. Mr. Kil stated that this was done in plenty of time and submitted ahead of time. Mr. Kil explained that the site plan that shows the road cut removed is Item Number B on the agenda.

Attorney Austgen stated that this was for public meeting action. Attorney Austgen, again, asked where the site plan was so that the Board could review it.

(General discussion ensued.)

Attorney Lyp explained that his goal was not to mix the issue. He stated he wanted to make the Plan Commission aware that their concerns had been addressed. Mr. Kil directed Mr. Georgiou to submit the Eenigenburg site plan to the Board. Mr. Georgiou complied.

Mr. Georgiou explained to the Board that the documents he just submitted were relative to the JDE site plan with the road cut removed.

(Board members examining documents.)

Mr. Ryan asked Mr. Kraus if he had opportunity to review the Eenigenburg site plan prior to this evening. Mr. Kraus stated that he had not had an opportunity to review the Eenigenburg site plan before tonight as Mr. Georgiou had just submitted it.

Mr. Kil stated that he and Mr. Kraus had an opportunity to review the final plat. Mr. Kil stated that the Eenigenburg site plan had just arrived. Mr. Kil stated, for the record, he wanted make sure that the Board members are aware that there are easements that bisect Lot Number 2. He stated that the easement matter on Lot 2 has been discussed repeatedly in staff meetings. Mr. Kil stated this issue has bothered him from the start of the project. He stated that everyone, including the owner, is aware of this.

Mr. Kil stated at a future date when someone comes in and purchases Lot 2, the owner will have to re-route all of the utilities. Mr. Kil opined that the lay out of the easements on Lot 2, pursuant to owner’s request, will render the lot completely useless and not a viable building site. Mr. Kil stated that “engineering wise” it will work. Mr. Kil reiterated that the easement lay out is being done at the owner’s request and certainly not on the advice or consent of the Town or the Town Manager. Mr. Kil opined, without question, that this is not the right way to lay out the easements. He stated that it will affect the salability of the property and the ability to construct a normal looking building on Lot 2.

(General discussion ensued.)

Attorney Austgen noted that if the owner wishes to render his own property effectively or constructively unbuildable it would legal.

Mr. Kil stated relative to the Eenigenburg site plan, the Board of Zoning Appeals had requested that the island be reconfigured to shield the outside storage location. He noted that the site plan does not reflect that the BZA’s request has been added.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil stated he does not see anything else on the site plan that appears to be a problem. He noted that the northern road cut has been eliminated, the traffic pattern is acceptable and the curbing is in place. Mr. Kil stated that the island reconfiguration is a very minor detail, but the BZA will ask why Petitioner did not add the requested shield/screening.

Mr. Forbes asked if the building was sitting crooked on the parcel. Mr. Kil acknowledged that the building is not parallel to US. Route 41. He stated that there will be a new, crooked building built around the old, crooked building. Again, Mr. Kil stated it won’t be noticed in the field.

Mr. Forbes stated he had asked some time ago about a barrier curb to be installed between the two islands to keep the parking from entering into the traffic lane. Mr. Kraus stated they could require precast parking bumpers. Mr. Forbes stated some barrier curb should be required in the event that somebody drives through this area whether intentionally or accidentally. Mr. Kil opined that 90 percent of Eenigenburg Water’s business was drive-thru. Mr. Georgiou concurred that a significant amount of the business was drive-thru.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Ryan asked Mr. Kraus what height he would require for the parking bumpers that would attach to the two islands. Mr. Kraus stated a 6” (six inch) barrier curb would be acceptable. Mr. Georgiou stated he did not understand the issue that would require a barrier curb at this location. Mr. Georgiou stated if the parking lot is striped appropriately there would be no need to install a barrier curb. Mr. Kil stated that Mr. Forbes had requested the barrier curb.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Sherrard pointed out to the Board that the existing sign, as drawn on the plan, encroaches into the 10’ (ten foot) utility easement along US Route 41. Mr. Kil stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals has directed the Petitioner to reduce the size of its signs and submit revised drawings at its next meeting on Monday, April 22, 2013. Mr. Georgiou stated that these plans were sitting on his desk and will be delivered to the Building & Planning Department tomorrow morning.

Mr. Hastings stated that he agreed with Mr. Forbes that there should be some type of barrier curb between the islands to keep someone from accidentally driving into another vehicle. Mr. Forbes stated, at a minimum, the seven spaces between the islands will require precast barrier curb.

Mr. Ryan asked if there were any further comments from the Board members. Mr. Kraus stated he did not think any of the fees had been paid yet. Attorney Lyp stated that he did not bring the checks with him but would deliver them as soon as possible. Attorney Lyp acknowledged that the checks would have to be delivered before anything would be signed by the Board.

Mr. Kraus informed the Board that there is an easement running through the middle of Lot 1 also. Mr. Kil noted that this was the owner’s lot; he stated that the same easement discussed earlier also bisects Lot 1 where Eenigenburg Water will be located. Mr. Kraus noted that a structure would not be permitted to be placed over the easement.

Attorney Lyp stated that at primary plat approval there as a series of conditions set forth by the Plan Commission. One of the conditions that McDonalds committed to was the installation of Earl Drive. He stated that the another of the conditions set forth by the Plan Commission was that no permit for occupancy would be issued by the Town unless the portion of Earl Drive on that particular parcel was completed. Attorney Lyp explained as things are planned right now, the water business will be completed first. Next, based upon McDonalds current agreement with the Town, Earl Drive on the north parcel would be installed, the old building would be demolished, and finally, Earl Drive on the southern parcel would be installed.

Attorney Lyp informed the Board that McDonalds would be the entity actually overseeing the installation of Earl Drive on both the north and south parcels. Attorney Lyp explained that in reviewing this matter with McDonalds and with the timing for their construction, this will present a practical difficulty. He stated that the difficulty is in terms of installing the road on the north parcel, having the demolition done, and then doing the road on the south parcel.

Attorney Lyp stated, ideally, when the road is installed McDonalds would like to do it all at the same time. He stated that what will probably happen is that in addition to Earl Drive being installed on the north and south, the parking lots for the McDonalds building will be installed as well. Attorney Lyp stated he can certainly appreciate the reason why the Town, the Plan Commission and the staff want Earl Drive installed before a permit for occupancy is granted. He states this is a good “noose” to have in terms of ensuring Earl Drive is installed.

Attorney Lyp stated he understands this is outside of the normal procedures of the Town, but McDonalds has proposed a performance bond to provide the Town with sufficient leverage to ensure Earl Drive is completed. Attorney Lyp appealed to the Plan Commission to consider any additional actions that McDonalds could take to assure the Town that Earl Drive will be constructed on both the north and south parcels, He stated McDonalds would prefer to install both portions of Earl Drive at the same time. He asked for any leeway that the Town could provide to McDonalds to allow them to install the north and south parcels of Earl Drive at the same time. He stated that allowing McDonalds to install the north and south portions of Earl Drive at the same time would be helpful to McDonalds from both a financial and a practical perspective.

Mr. Kil asked Mr. Al Daniels, McDonalds engineer, if he was proposing to put in the entire roadway system of Earl Drive at the same time that the crew is building the McDonalds. Mr. Daniels concurred. Mr. Kil stated he could see the wisdom in this logic.

Mr. Kil proposed that the occupancy of Lot 4, McDonalds, be tied into the construction of all of the roadways. Mr. Daniels stated, “I’m cool with that.” Attorney Lyp stated that McDonalds was in agreement with Mr. Kil’s proposal. Mr. Kil explained to the Board that McDonalds wants to install the entire Earl Drive and build the McDonalds when they have all of the equipment on site and in order to do it all at the same time.

Mr. Daniels stated the other reason is a logistics problem. He stated that there are utilities in the easement running down the center of Lot 4 that have to be relocated. Mr. Daniels explained that he is going to need time to get NIPSCO, Comcast and AT&T out to the site, which could take six or eight weeks depending on their availability. He stated if it takes as long to get the them out there as it has taken him to get estimates from them...

Mr. Kil stated if he understands what the McDonalds representatives are saying, instead of tying the construction of the frontage road to Lot 1 where Eenigenburg Water is located they want to get Eenigenburg built and out of the way. Mr. Kil explained that McDonalds is saying that they are willing to tie their own occupancy, McDonalds occupancy, to the construction of the frontage road, Earl Drive. Mr. Kil stated he doesn’t have a problem with the proposal.

Mr. Ryan asked if Mr. Eenigenburg would be operating his business while everyone else is in construction equipment. Mr. Kil stated that would be the case, yes. He stated that there is no alternative way to do it. Mr. Ryan opined that this is going to pose problems.

Mr. Daniels stated McDonalds would propose that Eenigenburg Water be granted a temporary occupancy permit until after Earl Drive is installed, and then at that time both businesses will get their full occupancy permits. Mr. Ryan stated that Eenigenburg’s business will have customers driving in and out during his business hours, and there will be heavy equipment and construction crews on site. Mr. Ryan stated he doesn’t know about the rest of the Board members, but it doesn’t sound like a good idea to him.

Mr. Daniels stated that that is going to happen anyway. Mr. Kil stated this is an unavoidable situation. The Eenigenburg Water business’ access during the construction of all of the frontage road system and the construction of McDonalds will be limited to 97th Lane. Mr. Ryan noted that if the north half of Earl Drive was installed, as requested, it would not be as big a problem. Mr. Kil stated they would still have the same issue.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil stated that the south portion is where the access to 97th Lane and the traffic signal is located; he stated that the north portion is the north road to nowhere at the present time. Mr. Kil stated at some point, this will become an issue no matter what happens. Mr. Ryan asked about Earl Drive being completed before an occupancy permit can be issued. Mr. Kil explained that the Town can issue Eenigenburg Water a temporary CO, and McDonalds no CO until Earl Drive is installed.

Mr. Kil stated that McDonalds is willing to tie their own occupancy into the construction of Earl Drive. Attorney Lyp stated that McDonalds is willing to assume this risk. Attorney Austgen stated that McDonalds almost does not have a choice by the nature of the relationship. Mr. Kil opined that McDonalds doesn’t have many options.

Mr. Daniels remarked it’s the chicken or the egg scenario. He stated from a construction point of view, it has been a logistical nightmare for him to try to figure this out. Mr. Daniels stated he finally decided it has to be done this way or he will not be able to construct the McDonalds building. He stated that he can’t get both of them done at the same time.

Attorney Ausgten noted that Attorney Lyp, on behalf of McDonalds, was asking for a concession of the Plan Commission from protocol and the Town’s code. Attorney Austgen stated that a surety of a performance bond is a little difficult to collect. Attorney Austgen asked if a Letter of Credit for 150% (one hundred and fifty percent) of the amount of the road installation costs being posted would satisfy the Plan Commission. He stated that there would be enough cash in the bank that the Town would be able to build Earl Drive with McDonalds money if McDonalds did not fulfill their commitment.

Attorney Lyp responded that that he hoped the promise of McDonalds would be sufficient; however, if the Plan Commission wants a Letter of Credit he does not think it is an unreasonable request. Mr. Kil stated he will know if McDonalds is going up and he will know if the road is being built at the same time because he will be monitoring the project.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Ryan stated the Letter of Credit sounds like a reasonable request. Attorney Austgen stated he thinks the Town will be protected if there is enough cash in the bank.

Attorney Lyp summarized that McDonalds is willing to commit to have 150% (one hundred and fifty percent) of the engineer’s estimate as to the cost of Earl Drive, both north and south, consistent with the Town’s request. He stated that there would be a modification made to the written commitment, as was discussed this evening, whether a temporary CO would be granted. Mr. Kil stated a temporary occupancy permit is usually for a period of six months. Attorney Lyp stated he would work out the logistics with Attorney Austgen.

Mr. Daniels stated McDonalds construction will take approximately ninety (90) days. Attorney Lyp stated that the project will be completed in approximately 180 days. Mr. Kil stated 180 days is a fair amount of time.

Mr. Hastings noted the configuration of Eenigenburg’s traffic pattern. He asked how it they planned to get the customers to the water store and back out. Mr. Georgiou stated that there would have to be a temporary turn-around.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil stated that Mr. Georgiou represented that it will take approximately three (3) months to get Eenigenburg’s building and site completed. Eenigenburg Water will then move into a completed building. Mr. Kil stated McDonalds would then come in, tear the building down and start construction. Mr. Kil stated that at the time McDonalds is building Earl Drive and their store, effectively, Eenigenburg Water will have one entrance to his business for the period of approximately one hundred (100) days, during which time his traffic flow will be altered. Mr. Kil stated that this is an unavoidable outcome. Mr. Kil stated after all of the construction is completed by McDonalds there will be a normal traffic flow pattern.

Mr. Daniels stated he would like to add that the six (6) months would start when Eenigenburg Water opened and was granted a temporary occupancy permit. Mr. Daniels reiterated that it may take two to three months to relocate the utilities. He stated once he starts construction of McDonalds knows that it will be roughly ninety (90) days.

Mr. Forbes, for clarification’s sake, asked if once plat and site plan are approved, McDonalds was going to start with their easement relocations as their first priority. Mr. Kil explained that once the final plat and the site plan are approved, Mr. Eenigenburg should be coming in for a building permit.

Mr. Forbes stated Eenigenburg Water will stay where it’s at and everything will happen on the new site with the new front being built, and the enclosure being constructed around the pole barn. Mr. Georgiou concurred. Mr. Forbes noted that some of the parking lot has to be built. Mr. Kil stated all of the parking lot has to be built. Mr. Forbes noted that everything up to where the meeting of Earl Drive will be constructed, and Eenigenburg Water will move into the new building with a limited traffic flow. Mr. Georgiou concurred. Mr. Forbes stated that McDonalds will then start their easement relocations, tear down, et-cetera. Mr. Kil concurred. Mr. Forbes stated that before McDonalds receives their occupancy permit, Earl Drive will be completely installed. Mr. Daniels stated Earl Drive would be completed one hundred percent (100%). Mr. Kil stated that this is exactly what being proposed.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Daniels stated he is hoping to be able to commence construction in July with Thanksgiving as a target date for completion.

Mr. Kil asked if Mr. Georgiou had the State Design Release yet. Mr. Georgiou stated that he will have a foundation release within ten (10) days. He stated that Mr. Eenigenburg was informed that site work could have already commenced. Mr. Georgiou stated that there is a contractor on board.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil stated his understanding of the project schedule is exactly how Mr. Forbes just described it, and it is also the project schedule as proposed by McDonalds.

Mr. Ryan asked if there were any other questions. There was no further discussion. Mr. Ryan stated he would entertain a motion for final plat approval including any stipulations such as parking barriers or a Letter of Credit in the motion.

Mr. Forbes asked if any of the fees had been paid. Mr. Kil stated no fees had been paid. Mr. Kil stated there would be the SWYPPP fee and the developmental fees. He stated the building permit fees would be separate, paid when the permit is applied for. Attorney Lyp stated he did not bring the checks with him but understood the checks would have to be submitted before anything is signed.

Mr. Kil explained that McDonalds and Eenigenburg Water would each pay a building permit fee as they are calculated separately. Mr. Kraus stated that there is a developmental fee for the subdivision, and a developmental fee of Nine Hundred and 00/100 Dollars ($900) for each site. Mr. Kraus stated at preliminary plat approval, his letter reflected the amount of the developmental fee for the subdivision, and in each of his letters on the individual site plans the amount of fees due were reflected.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Georgiou noted that the JDE site has a sewer and water connection fee. Mr. Kraus concurred. Mr. Georgiou asked if the fee was still applicable if there was an existing sewer and water connection. Mr. Kraus explained that he considered it a new connection since it was an improved building. Mr. Kraus stated that the site plan also reflects that they are cutting off the sewer that ran across the site and making a new connection for it and abandoning everything east of that connection.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil stated that the fees are applicable to new customers of the utility. Mr. Georgiou stated he would convey this information to Torrenga Engineering. Mr. Kil stated he would review this issue when the building permit was issued.

Mr. Ryan stated he was still looking for a motion. Mr. Forbes made a motion to grant final plat approval for the McDonalds/Eenigenburg four lot subdivision contingent upon receipt of the payment of the required fees, a Letter of Credit in the amount of one hundred and fifty percent (150%) of the engineer’s cost related to the installation of Earl Drive, Mr. Kraus’s final review of the Mylars, withholding the occupancy permit for McDonalds pending the installation of the Earl Drive and incorporation of the findings of fact by reference. Mr. Hastings seconded the motion.

Mr. Ryan requested a roll call vote. Mr. Hastings – yes. Tom Redar – yes. Mike Forbes – yes. Derwin Nietzel – yes. Tom Ryan – yes. The motion was unanimously passed by roll call vote (5/0).

B. EENIGENBURG WATER – DEVELOPMENT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL

Mr. Georgiou, Georgiou & Associates, appeared before the Board representing Torrenga Engineering and JDE, LLC, for continuing review of the site plan for Lot 1 for Eenginburg Water. Mr. Georgiou stated that through the discussions that have transpired earlier in the meeting the Board is aware the US Route 41 driveway cut has been removed from the site plan.

Mr. Georgiou stated that he would like the Board to review the waivers that were requested relative to Eenigenburg/JDE, LLC, the recommended curb cut/screening relative to the outdoor sales that is not currently reflected on the site plan, and the barrier curb. Mr. Georgiou stated that there are two complete copies of the revised site plan provided to him by Torrenga Engineering.

Mr. Kraus remarked that the verbiage “road to be installed by the Town” has been removed. Mr. Kraus confirmed that the US Route 41 driveway cut has been deleted from the set of plans provided to him by Mr. Georgiou. Mr. Georgiou passed on comments made by Mr. Torrenga that there would be no impact to drainage by deleting the roadway cut to US Route 41.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes stated that the Plan Commisssion’s approval of the Eenigenburg site plan has no bearing on the sign issue or the the salt product(s) that were previously discussed. Mr. Forbes stated the Board acknowledges the sign location because of the lay out of the parking.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil asked Mr. Georgiou what Petitioner intends to do about the two little barriers that were requested by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Kil stated it will be an issue before the BZA on Monday, and it also affects the site plan. Mr. Georgiou stated he had a conversation with the owner. Mr. Georgiou stated that Petitioner will place the curb/screening around the outdoor sales and the parking bumpers. Mr. Georgiou stated he does not have a site plan that reflects the curb/screening. Mr. Georgiou stated he would incorporate these additions in the packet to be submitted to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Forbes asked how shielding of the product will be addressed on the building side of the drive.

(General discussion ensued.)

The location of the manholes were discussed. Mr. Kraus stated that the manholes on Lot 2 will remain. Mr. Georgiou concurred. Mr. Kraus stated that the manholes on Lot 1 will have an active segment and part will be abandoned. Mr. Kraus explained that if the manholes are abandoned they are abandoned in place, and normally the manholes are taken apart at least two feet below grade, the pipes are plugged, the manholes are filled with flowable fill that is put into the pipes. Mr. Kraus recommended that the motion to approve the Eenigenburg site plan be contingent upon the sewer line being abandoned with flowable fill, and the manholes being filled with aggregate, either sand or stone.

Mr. Ryan stated he would entertain a motion for Eenigenburg developmental and site plan approval with the conditions mentioned.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes made a motion to approve the waivers listed at the time of preliminary plat approval for the Eenigenburg Water site, Lot 1. Mr. Hastings seconded the motion.

The following waivers included in Mr. Forbes motion were as follows:

Zoning Ordinance 1483, Chapter 8.4

Section F.1: No sidewalk is provided and no bicycle access.

Section G.2b: Bicycle parking not provided;

Section H.2: Landscaping is being provided as submitted, along Route 41, north property line and within parking lot as shown on Plan;

Section L.1: Sight lighting is being provided as submitted;

Section K.6(b) Overall renderings not submitted. Previous rendered elevation presented for similar design of new building addition as requested.

Section O.2: Loading to be provided parallel to north side of building in drive through lane and perpendicular to Route 41 and set back.

Zoning Ordinance 1483, Chapter 13:

Section 0.1: Route 41 Greenbelt not provided per this section, but as per Landscape Plan submitted;

Section 0.2: Perimeter greenbelt at the south and east sides not provided as existing building and vehicle access to remain. This is the pedestrian path along the south side of the building and up to the entrance on the west side of the building. See Landscape Plan for areas provided.

Mr. Ryan requested a roll call vote. Mr. Hastings – yes. Tom Redar – yes. Mike Forbes – yes. Derwin Nietzel – yes. Tom Ryan – yes. The motion was unanimously passed by roll call vote (5/0).

Mr. Forbes made a motion to grant site plan approval for Eenigenburg Water on Lot 1, contingent upon the payment of fees, the installation of the barriers between the islands reflected on the plat at or near the time of the completion of the project, review and approval of the plans by the Town’s engineer, amending the curb and landscaping to contain the outdoor sales area consistent with the Board’s discussion and the plans in Mr. Kil’s possession, at the time construction the sewers that are abandoned should be filled with flowable fill and any manholes that are abandoned be filled with stone or sand. Mr. Hastings seconded the motion.

Mr. Ryan requested a roll call vote. Mr. Hastings – yes. Tom Redar – yes. Mike Forbes – yes. Derwin Nietzel – yes. Tom Ryan – yes. The motion was unanimously passed by roll call vote (5/0).

OLD BUSINESS:

There was no Old Business.

OPEN THE FLOOR FOR PUBLIC COMMENT:

Fred Barr, 11050 West 97th Lane

Mr. Barr asked the Board if there were any plans of improving the condition of West 97th Lane east of the new Earl Drive, maybe resurfacing or filling potholes up to the cul de sac after construction.

Mr. Forbes stated that this is not a Plan Commission issue at the present time. He stated that the Town is presently assessing the condition of all its roads. Mr. Forbes noted that if construction equipment tears up the road they have to fix the road.

Mr. Kil stated that Mr. Barr is referring to the road east of the construction project; he stated that this road will be assessed in the general Town road projects. Mr. Barr stated that road condition is poor and has potholes.

Mr. Barr asked if Eenigenburg Water has plans to put exterior lighting on the building that is going to be torn down. Mr. Kil stated that there is no plan to put lighting on this building.

ADJOURNMENT:

Mr. Ryan called for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Forbes made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Redar seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously carried by voice vote (5/0).

(The meeting was adjourned at 8:12 p.m.)

A TRUE COPY

_____________________________________
Susan E. Wright, Recording Secretary
St. John Plan Commission

04-17-2013 Plan Commission Study Session

April 17, 2013 Plan Commission Study Session Meeting Minutes

Tom Ryan, President Mike Forbes Attorney Tim Kuiper
Steve Hastings, Vice-President Derwin Nietzel Kenn Kraus
Steve Kozel, Secretary   Steve Kil
Tom Redar    

CALL TO ORDER:

Mr. Tom Ryan called to order the Plan Commission study session of April 17, 2013, at 8:12 p.m.

NEW BUSINESS:

A. THREE SPRINGS – PHASE THREE – DOUG RETTIG LAND TECHNOLOGIES
Doug Rettig, Land Technologies, appeared before the Board to present a second look at Three Springs, Phase Three. Mr. Barack, owner of Three Springs Development was also present. Mr. Rettig stated that several years ago the developer submitted a different but similar sketch which consisted of a mix of duplexes, cottage homes and single family lots. Mr. Rettig pointed out the Parrish Avenue entrance location Three Springs, Phase Two, which is currently being built out.

Mr. Rettig stated that this is property that Three Springs purchased. He pointed out various locations on the parcel including the rail road right of way at the western border, high tension power lines at the south end of the property, and cutting through the property are three petroleum pipelines. He noted that the property is cut up.

Mr. Rettig stated one of the reasons the developer is proposing a Planned Unit Development (PUD) is because of the constraints (power lines, rail road right of way, pipe lines) he just listed for the Board. He stated these things being located on the property will make conventional lots and a conventional layout challenging.

Mr. Rettig stated that developer is giving up property, approximately 15 acres, for open space. Mr. Rettig stated there will be three out lots, and he pointed out the locations of the proposed out lots on the plan. He stated that the out lots will be delineated on the plat and set aside as green space. He stated that the developer proposes platting an out lot for the high tension easement.

Mr. Rettig stated there is a fiber optic line that runs within an easement, which the developer plans to stay away from. He stated they are allotting a large out lot for the existing pipelines. He stated that the pipelines don't want activity unless it's absolutely necessary. He stated that the developer will have to seek permission for the road crossings.

Mr. Rettig stated that the parcel contains an existing lake which will also be used as the detention area; there is a wet land fringe around the lake. He stated that the wetland was delineated years ago, and the developer will be revisiting the wet land delineation in the coming months. He stated that the delineation of the wet land may slightly alter what the developer intends to do.

Mr. Rettig stated that the developer is proposing one single family lot to complete a street. Mr. Rettig stated that the project will consist of one single family lot and 35 duplex lots. He stated this totals 71 dwelling units on 34 acres. The development of 71 units will make the density of approximately two units per acre. Mr. Rettig stated that this would be consistent with the single family properties within the Town.

Mr. Rettig stated that he would be happy to answer any questions that the Board may have. Mr. Rettig stated that he had samples, elevations of the buildings and photographs for the Board's review.

Mr. Rettig stated that Mr. Barick built the duplexes that are located in Three Springs, Phase I. Mr. Rettig stated that the lots in Three Springs, Phase III, will be smaller. He stated that variances will be sought.

Mr. Rettig stated most of the lots are 100' wide. He stated that the developer will be asking for a concession on square footage, but not necessarily the width. He stated that building lines and side yards will be discussed. Mr. Rettig stated that the developer intends to meet most of the Town's ordinances with a little bit of help on the lot sizes because there is going to be so much open space.

Mr. Redar asked how the buildings would work out with the topography. Mr. Redar noted that in Three Springs I, the duplexes were constructed as one long building. Mr. Redar stated in certain cases it created grading problems. Mr. Rettig stated it would be a challenge.

Mr. Redar asked if the buildings would be stepped to match the topography instead of making them long buildings. Mr. Rettig explained that the long buildings were done because the lots were wide. Mr. Rettig stated that some of the lots in Phase I were 135' to 150'.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Rettig reiterated that the parcel presents challenging topography, and the developer is aware that it will have to be addressed.

Mr. Kraus stated as part of the subdivision review, grades must be set at all of the corners of the property. Mr. Kil added that during the subdivision process every single unit must have a grade plan for review by Mr. Kraus. Mr. Kil concurred with Mr. Redar that if the grade is wrong on the first unit there will be a problem with every single unit.

Mr. Kil stated that the developer is interested in looking into the zoning and has not delved into the engineering yet. Mr. Rettig stated that the developer will commit to certain square footages, certain elevation views and certain garage sizes. Mr. Kil stated that the developer will prepare a zoning commitment for the Board's review. Mr. Rettig concurred.

Mr. Rettig stated that the developer wants to have some flexibility to vary the elevations. Mr. Rettig states the developer does not intend to do 35 identical dwellings. He stated that a variety of floor plans that will be included in the zoning commitment.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Rettig stated that the developer was looking for feedback from the Board on the proposed layout of the project to see if it's worth pursuing at the present time. Mr. Rettig stated that dealing with the pipelines is a challenge. He stated one of the pipelines is a 42" high pressure pipeline and the developer cannot go within 24" of them, but they will have to cross them. Mr. Redar asked if a concrete road had to be installed over the pipeline. Mr. Rettig stated the concrete road is dependent upon the type of pipeline.

Mr. Redar stated that as part of the original development, an offsite sewer was supposed to have been constructed along Parrish Avenue and it has never been put in. Mr. Rettig concurred. Mr. Redar asked how this would affect Phase III. Mr. Rettig stated the developer is fully aware that the offsite sewer needs to be constructed. Mr. Rettig stated that he does not think it is unreasonable for the Board to require that this offsite sewer be constructed before any approvals are granted on the proposed Three Springs, Phase III.

Mr. Redar commented at the present time, Phase II is going the wrong way. Mr. Rettig concurred. Mr. Rettig stated that there was a temporary connection from Three Springs, Phase II to Three Springs, Phase I. He stated all of this is directed to Lift Station 1. Mr. Rettig stated that it is his understanding that there have recently been some issues with the lift station as it is nearing or at capacity. Mr. Redar concurred.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Rettig opined that the lift station is a separate project. He stated if the Town insists on this project being completed it will be done. Mr. Kil stated to his recall, this project was attached to Phase II.

Mr. Rettig that this is an expensive proposition, and the economy has obviously hurt all of the developments. Mr. Rettig stated they would have to seek new bids on the sewer project. He stated that he forwarded the sewer drawings, which are approximately 95% complete, to Mr. Kraus. Mr. Rettig stated that the developer never applied for IDEM permits for the sewer in question. Mr. Rettig stated with some minor tweaks to the drawings, if any, the developer could seek bids and get going on the construction of the sewer.

Mr. Rettig stated that the developer wanted to know the stance of the Board as to whether or not they would require that the sewer project be completed before starting Three Springs, Phase III. Mr. Rettig stated when all is said and done, Three Springs Phases II and III will pump to the new lift station on Parrish Avenue, which would eliminate the burden at Lift Station 1.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Redar stated that he wanted the Board to be made aware of the status of the sewer project. Mr. Rettig concurred. He stated it has been many years since it was discussed.

Mr. Rettig stated that the proposed buildings in Phase III would consist primarily of ranch style dwellings, some with walk-out basements near the lake.

Mr. Rettig stated that there will be common maintenance in Three Springs Phase III for grass mowing and snow removal. Mr. Rettig pointed out a 10’ sliver of land that will be used as an entrance for maintenance and mowing an out lot. He stated the entrance would be located at the very end of the subdivision rather than between dwellings. He stated that Homeowner's Association fees would maintain the entire project including the out lots.

Mr. Ryan asked about the square footage of the proposed duplexes. Mr. Barick stated that the smallest dwelling would be 1,550 square feet per unit up to approximately 2,000 square feet dwellings on the lake. Mr. Rettig stated that some of the units located on the lake would have walk­ out basements. Mr. Rettig stated that with the challenging topography, the developer would consider walk-out basements in other dwellings within the development as well, on a lot by lot basis. He stated dwellings with walk-out basements are considerably more expensive.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Barick added that the Board had commented on the long lots on Hart Street. He stated that this configuration was implemented because constructing a standard, long, narrow duplex depth-wise made the green space between the dwellings too large. Mr. Barick stated that big, wide lots are a problem. He stated most homeowners are happier with a smaller amount of green space. Mr. Barick stated that is why he decided on a PUD with smaller sized, duplex lots.

Mr. Ryan asked why the developer was going from single homes to duplexes. Mr. Rettig stated that Three Springs Phases I and II have mixed dwellings. Mr. Rettig stated that the duplex lots sell. Mr. Barick added that there is a big demand for the duplex lots, in part, because people are living longer and want maintenance free homes.

Mr. Rettig stated that the developer will need some waivers as part of the PUD. Mr. Kil stated that a waiver list will have to be prepared. Mr. Kil stated that the waivers that will be required will be subdivision waivers. Mr. Kil stated as he and Mr. Rettig prepare a zoning commitment for the project, the waivers will be consistent with the Board's feedback on the project.

Mr. Forbes opined that he does not like the transition from all single family to the alcove of multifamily dwellings. Mr. Forbes opined that he would like to see more single family dwellings in the project. He stated that the proposed Three Springs Phase III sets the tone for future development in this area.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes stated he is looking to the future. He stated if the Huseman family sells their property the developers who buy it may want to follow suit of Three Springs Phase III and construct more multifamily dwellings.

The zoning was discussed. Mr. Rettig opined that is always a challenge to have mixed used developments so close together. He stated that there will be some landscaping between the different building styles. Mr. Forbes stated that this really would not be enough of a buffer.

Mr. Forbes stated that the developer's Three Springs Phase III proposed multifamily dwellings is a little bit too much for the area. Mr. Forbes asked if the lake enters into the proposed Phase III area. Mr. Rettig stated that the lake would be included. Mr. Rettig pointed out the purchase line.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes asked what the developer's purpose was for making out lots where the pipelines were located. Mr. Rettig stated that something had to be done with the land so they will make them common areas. Mr. Forbes noted that people would not be allowed to venture out on the out lots containing the pipelines. He stated that the pipeline representatives do not allow anything to be done on their property. Mr. Rettig replied that he did not know that to be true.

Mr. Kil concurred with Mr. Forbes. He stated that the pipeline representatives will not allow use of their property. Mr. Forbes stated that someday the Town will may be authorized to put in a bike trail through this property. He stated that nothing else can be done on the pipeline property. Mr. Rettig stated that the developer would maintain the out lot by mowing the grass on it. Mr. Kil stated a small picnic area has been proposed outside of the pipeline easement.

Mr. Rettig stated there are two separate easements located in this area. He stated there is a corridor of useable ground. He stated that there may be a good use for the corridor. Mr. Rettig stated that this property is owned by the developer and will be maintained by the developer.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Redar asked if the roundabout was necessary. He stated that the roundabouts create problems for snowplowing. He asked if the developer could eliminate the island to make it easier for the Town to get trucks in and out. Mr. Rettig stated that the island could be eliminated because it was not necessary.

Mr. Kil asked the Board if they would like the developer to put together a zoning commitment as a starting point. Mr. Ryan stated that he is still not convinced of the need for a zoning change. Mr. Ryan stated he was not certain if the Board should move forward or defer the matter to another time.

Mr. Rettig stated the proposed development would obviously require a zoning change. He stated that the R-1 may have to be rezoned to R-2 even if it remains single family dwellings. He stated that 20,000 square foot lots can't happen because too much land is wasted. He stated not every lot in Phase III meets the size criteria for R-2 zoning, but most of them do.

Mr. Nietzel stated that the sewer on Parrish Avenue needs to be completed before they move forward with Phase III. Mr. Kil stated no action is needed at this time as this was a study session. Mr. Rettig stated that the developer understands the Board's position on the sewer.

Mr. Ryan asked the Board members individually for their opinions. Mr. Redar stated he is not against the project, with some needed tweaking. Mr. Hastings stated he has mixed feelings on the project; he stated he does not have an opinion at the present time. Mr. Forbes stated he was stuck in the middle; he stated he has not come to a decision. Mr. Ryan stated he has already made his opinion known.

Mr. Forbes stated he does not want to see the developer invest any time in the project if the Board is not sure. Mr. Forbes recommended that the Board continue discussion on the project at the next study session.

Mr. Kil stated that the next study session is scheduled for May 15, 2013. Mr. Rettig stated that they would come back to discuss the project.

ADJOURNMENT:

Mr. Ryan adjourned the meeting.

(The meeting was adjourned at 8:59 p.m.)

A TRUE COPY

_____________________________________
Susan E. Wright, Recording Secretary
St. John Plan Commission

05-01-2013 Plan Commission

May 1, 2013 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes

Tom Ryan, President Mike Forbes Attorney Tim Kuiper
Steve Hastings, Vice-President Derwin Nietzel Kenn Kraus
Steve Kozel, Secretary   Steve Kil
Tom Redar    

CALL TO ORDER:

Mr. Tom Ryan called to order the regular meeting of the Plan Commission for May 1, 2013, at 7:00 p.m.

(The Pledge of Allegiance was said.)

ROLL CALL:

Roll call was taken by Recording Secretary, Susan E. Wright, with the following Commissioners present: Tom Ryan, Steve Hastings, Tom Redar, Steve Kozel and Derwin Nietzel. Mike Forbes was absent. Staff members present: Kenn Kraus. Steve Kil was absent at roll call. Town Council liaison, Greg Volk was also present.

Mr. Kraus advised the Board that Mr. Kil may be temporarily delayed.

(Mr. Kil entered the meeting.)

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: APRIL 17, 2013, Special Meeting

Mr. Ryan stated he would entertain a motion to approve the minutes for the special meeting for April 17, 2013. Mr. Kozel made a motion to approve the special meeting minutes for April 17, 2013, with one correction. He pointed out under “Adjournment” he did not second the motion as he was not present. Mr. Hastings seconded the motion.

Mr. Ryan requested a roll call vote. Mr. Nietzel – yes. Steve Kozel – yes. Tom Ryan – yes. Steve Hastings – yes. Tom Redar – yes. The motion was passed by voice vote (5/0).

NEW BUSINESS:

A. PARK PLACE OF ST. JOHN – REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO HOLD PUBLIC HEARING MR. JEFF COURTNEY - PROVIDENCE LIFE SERVICES

Mr. Jeff Courtney, representative for Providence Life Services, appeared before the Board with a PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Courtney noted that there were new members on the Board since the last time he attended a Plan Commission meeting in mid-to-late 2012. He stated that at that time Providence Life Services (hereinafter referred to as PLS) introduced the concept of skilled nursing that they wanted to locate on the south end of their property. He stated that the developer wishes to bring skilled nursing to the overall campus at Park Place.

Mr. Courtney stated since that last meeting he has been at work with the architects and engineers trying to determine how to bring the “small house” concept to the south end of the property at Park Place of St. John. He stated that the packet that was submitted to the Board contains information that he may not go through tonight, but it has been included for the Board’s review.

Mr. Courtney stated that, if, after his presentation the Board is in agreement that the developer is headed down the right path in requesting a zoning request, he would like to proceed and request authorization for a public hearing for Park Place of St. John be placed on the Plan Commission’s June 5, 2013, agenda.

Mr. Courtney opened his PowerPoint presentation. He showed the Board the current plat. Mr. Courtney stated that since the time this project was approved, Park Place of St. John has acquired out lot 1417; the purchase of the out lot has given the entire parcel a rectangular shape. Mr. Courtney directed the Board’s attention to the original parcel along with the site plan that was approved for the overall campus of Park Place of St. John, which includes independent living, assisted living and a location for the proposed skilled nursing.

Mr. Courtney explained the history of the project to the Board to refresh their memories. He stated that Park Place of St. John attempted, for quite some time, to market the independent living and assisted living residences. He stated that due to financial restraints on this type of development, it required a seventy-five percent (75%) pre-sales (pre-sales is defined as a ten percent (10%) deposit on each unit). Mr. Courtney stated that this project planned for the construction of approximately 150 units. He explained this would require that close to 120 of the units would have to have been pre-sold. Mr. Courtney stated that they marketed the independent and assisted living residences for three years and the best they did was approximately 32 pre-sales. He explained that this marketing was going on during the “collapse of 2008/2009.”

Mr. Courtney stated that Park Place of St. John made a decision to return the “pre-sales” deposits back to those who had put them down and close their marketing efforts at that time. He stated that Park Place of St. John has currently invested approximately two million dollars into the development of the project as well as the “small house” concept he is going to introduce to the Board.

Mr. Courtney stated that Park Place of St. John has not given up on the project, which is very important to the organization (PLS). Mr. Courtney explained that the project has some new life and hopes for financing and for overall development of the entire site. He stated he has been directed to get all of the zoning in place. With the proper zoning in place and when financing becomes available, Park Place of St. John will be able to pursue final engineering and architecture in order to move forward with the project. Mr. Courtney stated his purpose for being present before the Board tonight is to get the property in alignment with the proper zoning

Mr. Courtney showed the Board renderings for the independent living and the assisted living buildings. He explained that these plans were approved at a previous Plan Commission meeting. Mr. Courtney informed the Board that out lot 1417 is currently zoned R-2. He stated that his understanding is that R-3 zoning is acceptable for the independent living and the assisted living parcel. He noted that the minute the skilled nursing concept is introduced into the picture it requires a C-2 zoning classification.

Mr. Courtney stated in order to assist Park Place of St. John to get things in place for financing, the developer has decided to separate out lot 1417 into two parcels. He stated that the basic change will be taking the overall parcel and correcting the zoning so the development will be able accommodate the multiple levels of care. He stated that the developer is requesting to have out lot 1417 rezoned to C-2, which would allow for skilled nursing. He stated Lot 1443 zoning, R-3, will remain unchanged for the independent and assisted living units.

Mr. Courtney explained the “small house” concept to the Board. He stated in Ohio it is referred to as the “greenhouse” concept. He stated that there are all different names for the “small house” concept. He stated the “small house” concept is bringing skilled nursing to a more intimate level of care, with a more residential feel.

Mr. Courtney stated rather than having a nursing home as one single building (barracks style) with a commercial kitchen and commercial spaces to serve residents in need of skilled care, the “small house” is scaled down so that the dwellings have more of a residential feel. He showed the Board the one-story buildings on the drawings.

Mr. Courtney stated that the one-story buildings will house 10 residents, and the two-story building(s) will house 15 residents per floor. He explained that the two-story buildings, with an approximate square footage of 12,200, would be more of an outpatient, rehabilitative setting. He stated that the overall project would have 100 resident rooms (approximately 78,000 total square feet) but, again, scaled down to more of a residential feel with a more intimate level of care.

Mr. Courtney explained that the single level “small house” would contain 10 residents living there on more of a long-term basis. He informed the Board that in other states the “small house” concept is helping the residents achieve great improvement in their quality of life, living and health. He stated that the intimate, home-like setting seems to foster improved health in some of the residents.

Mr. Courtney explained that these “small houses” have “universal workers.” He stated that “small houses” have five full-time staff members (universal workers) around the clock. These “universal workers” perform all aspects of services needed including medications, clothing, bathing, medical needs, feeding, et-cetera. He stated the type of care rendered in the “small house” is similar to home health care.

Mr. Ryan asked if the developer is proposing any hospice care. Mr. Courtney stated that he does not believe that hospice has been discussed for this campus.

Mr. Courtney directed the Board to Tab 4 in their booklet, a series of renderings reflecting various views from different positions. These renderings depict the developer’s concept on how the campus will be presented down US Route 231, and the entryway into Park Place of St. John.

Mr. Courtney presented the floor plan for the 10 resident “small home” with a square footage of approximately 7,200. He stated that resident rooms are located on the outside of the building with window views. Mr. Courtney stated the floor plan is an open concept where the residents will have access to a living room, study/den and dining area. He stated that the kitchen is set up in a way that would allow a resident, if they so desired, to come in and assist in the kitchen. He stated this type of kitchen is not typically found in a skilled nursing home.

Mr. Courtney stated that the slides he presented were very basic. He stated that the binders submitted to the Board have more information, including the original plat and original site plan.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil requested a timeline be presented to the Board. Mr. Courtney stated if all goes well, the developer is hoping to be included on the Plan Commission’s June 5, 2013, agenda for a public hearing, before the Board of Zoning Appeals at their June 24, 2013, meeting, and before the Town Council on June 27, 2013.

Mr. Courtney informed the Board that he has been charged with getting the zoning in place in the event that the financing is secured. He stated that he is not sure that the financing will be available in 2013, but they are hopeful. Mr. Courtney stated that the developer broke ground in February in Homer Glen, Illinois with the “small house” concept. He stated there is anxiousness on the part of the developer to get the “small house” concept moving forward.

Mr. Kil informed the Board that when the Gates of St. John was originally presented, Park Place of St. John was included in the development.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Courtney stated that the zoning on Lot 1443 would remain unchanged. He stated that if the construction began on the proposed skilled nursing facility it would be a staged construction. He stated that there is definitely a need for skilled nursing facilities in the St. John area as the closest skilled nursing facility is located in Munster.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Ryan stated he would entertain a motion to authorize a public hearing for Park Place of St. John Development at the June 5, 2013 meeting. “So moved,” by Mr. Redar. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kozel.

Mr. Ryan requested a roll call vote. Mr. Nietzel – yes. Steve Kozel – yes. Tom Ryan – yes. Steve Hastings – yes. Tom Redar – yes. The motion was passed by voice vote (5/0).

ADJOURNMENT:

Mr. Ryan adjourned the meeting.

(The meeting was adjourned at 7:29 p.m.)

A TRUE COPY

_____________________________________
Susan E. Wright, Recording Secretary
St. John Plan Commission

05-15-2013 Plan Commission Meeting Canceled
06-05-2013 Plan Commission

June 5, 2013 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes

Tom Ryan, President Mike Forbes Attorney Tim Kuiper
Steve Hastings, Vice-President Derwin Nietzel Kenn Kraus
Steve Kozel, Secretary   Steve Kil
Tom Redar    

CALL TO ORDER:

Mr. Tom Ryan called to order the regular meeting of the Plan Commission for June 5, 2013, at 7:01 p.m.

(The Pledge of Allegiance was said.)

ROLL CALL:

Roll call was taken by Recording Secretary, Susan E. Wright, with the following Commissioners present: Tom Ryan, Steve Hastings, Tom Redar, Steve Kozel, Derwin Nietzel and Mike Forbes. Staff members present: Kenn Kraus and Steve Kil. Town Council liaison, Greg Volk was present. Attorney Tim Kuiper was also present.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MAY 1, 2013, Regular Meeting

Mr. Ryan stated he would entertain a motion to approve the regular meeting minutes of May 1, 2013; he requested that any changes or comments to the minutes be addressed in the motion. Mr. Kozel made a motion to approve the regular meeting minutes for May 1, 2013, with the correction of the spelling of his name on the first page. Mr. Nietzel seconded the motion.

Mr. Ryan requested a roll call vote. Mr. Nietzel – yes. Steve Kozel – yes. Tom Ryan – yes. Mike Forbes – abstain. Steve Hastings – yes. Tom Redar – yes. The motion was passed by voice vote (5/0/1).

NEW BUSINESS:

A. PARK PLACE OF ST. JOHN – PROVIDENCE LIFE SERVICES ZONING CHANGE R-3 TO C-2 PUBLIC HEARING JEFF COURTNEY

Mr. Jeff Courtney, representative for Park Place of St. John (Providence Life Services) appeared before the Board for a public hearing on Petitioner’s request to change zoning for a portion of Park Place of St. John from R-3 to C-2.

Attorney Kuiper noted that the notices to adjacent property owners were in order, a sign was posted on the property and he had received publication confirmation from The Times. Attorney Kuiper stated it was his understanding that the Notice of Public Hearing was also timely published in the Post Tribune. Mr. Courtney stated that he had in his possession an e-mail confirmation of the timely publication for the public hearing from the Post Tribune. Attorney Kuiper noted that subject to receiving the Post Tribune confirmation all matters were in order for the Public Hearing to properly proceed on this date. Mr. Courtney stated that he would e-mail the notice to Mr. Kil.

Mr. Courtney showed his PowerPoint presentation to the Board. He stated that the proposed zoning change was related to the parcel known as Park Place of St. John. He stated that a corner lot was recently purchased and will be incorporated into the overall parcel. Mr. Courtney is proposing to change the zoning on the parcel from R-3 to C-2 in order to construct a skilled nursing facility on this piece of the property.

Mr. Courtney explained to the Board (on the site plan) how the original presentation reflected only independent living and assisted living. He stated rather than have one large building for skilled nursing the plan, as presented, is to construct multiple buildings. Mr. Courtney explained that the type of construction being proposed for the skilled nursing facility is known as a “small house” concept. He explained that the “small house” concept for skilled nursing has a more residential feel or setting. Mr. Courtney stated that the “small house” dwellings will contain 10 resident rooms in each of the smaller buildings and 30 resident rooms in the two proposed two-story dwellings on the site. He stated that this would equate to 100 rooms across six buildings.

Mr. Courtney showed the preliminary site plan to the Board. He pointed out Park Place and its relationship to Route 231. He showed the Board, as reflected on the plan, how a drive would separate the independent living and assisted living from the skilled nursing. He stated that the 10 resident skilled nursing care dwellings would house the long –term stay residents. The two-story buildings would house the short-term residents or those there for rehabilitation from a surgery or whatever the case may be.

Mr. Courtney stated that the Board should have received all of the architectural renderings. He pointed out the rendering reflecting the entryway at Park Place and Route 231. He pointed out the location of the 10 resident dwellings units and the two-story dwellings.

Mr. Courtney stated he would be happy to answer any questions the Board may have. Attorney Kuiper informed the Board that the Petitioner was scheduled to appear in front of the Board of Zoning Appeals later in June. Mr. Kil stated that the Petitioner was seeking a special exception from the Board of Zoning Appeals for the skilled nursing facility, pursuant to Town ordinance.

Mr. Courtney stated that the zoning change would assist the Petitioner in securing financing. He stated that securing financing for independent living and assisted living runs a completely different course than the skilled nursing does. He stated that the separation of the independent living and assisted living from the skilled nursing would enable Petitioner to focus on financing each individually.

Mr. Courtney stated that Petitioner has engaged a marketing firm to do a preliminary market study. He stated that the market studies from the initial development were outdated. He stated updated marketing studies are needed in order to secure financing. Mr. Courtney stated that a feasibility study will also be obtained. He stated that as soon as the market and feasibility studies are complete, they will be submitted for financing.

Mr. Courtney stated as soon as the financing is secured, the development will move forward. Mr. Ryan asked for a tentative timeline. Mr. Courtney explained that the market studies will take approximately 60 days, and that the feasibility study will not begin until the market study is completed. Mr. Courtney stated the feasibility study could take between 30 to 60 days. Mr. Courtney stated he would love to see the Petitioner break ground in spring of 2014.

Mr. Ryan stated he would open the Public Hearing. Mr. Ryan called for public comment relative to the zoning change at Park Place of St. John from R-3 to C-2. There was no public comment. Mr. Ryan closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back before the Board.

Mr. Ryan stated he would entertain a motion for the zoning change from R-3 to C-2 for Park Place of St. John. Mr. Kozel made a motion to forward a favorable recommendation to the Town Council for a zoning change from R-3 to C-2 for Park Place of St. John, incorporate the findings of fact and contingent upon receipt of Notice of Public Hearing from the Post Tribune. Mr. Forbes stated he would second the motion.

Mr. Ryan requested a roll call vote. Mr. Nietzel – yes. Steve Kozel – yes. Tom Ryan – yes. Mike Forbes – yes. Steve Hastings – yes. Tom Redar – yes. The motion was passed by voice vote (6/0).

B. PLAT OF CORRECTION TO REMOVE SIDE YARD BUILDING LINE - 9141 DEODOR STREET – MEYERS DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Ryan noted that the next order of business for the Board’s consideration was a Plat of Correction to remove the 40’ side yard building line at 9141 Deodor Street, Meyers Development.

Mr. Kil explained to the Board that what actually was being done could be called a Certificate of Amendment. He stated that a Plat of Correction and a Certificate of Amendment will accomplish the same thing, but a plat correction is not needed because no lot lines are being changed.

Mr. Kil asked the Board to look at the plat before them. He noted that the lot in question fronts on Deodor Street. He explained that no one can explain why there is a 40’ side yard building line on the south of the property. Mr. Kil stated that Mr. Denny Meyers applied for a building permit for this parcel of property. Mr. Kil stated that the parcel contains a severe slope on the south.

Mr. Kil stated that the Town’s main ditch goes under Deodor Street. Mr. Kil noted that there is a building line on the parcel, but there is no road. Mr. Kil stated he suggested to Mr. Meyers that the side yard building line on the south be eliminated but keep the building line on Deodor Street.

Mr. Kil stated that elimination of the 40’ side yard building line on the south of the parcel would allow for a more normal side yard setback. Mr. Kil stated that Mr. Meyers is proposing to put in a walk-out basement and deck on the residence, but cannot do so until the side yard building line is eliminated. Mr. Kil stated that elimination of the side yard building line will allow Mr. Meyers to install doors in the basement which will make the residence more presentable.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil reiterated that the elimination of the 40’ side yard building line on the south of the parcel will allow Petitioner to have a normal side yard setback. Mr. Forbes remarked that elimination of the 40’ side yard building line on the south of the parcel would not affect or impede anyone.

Mr. Ryan stated he would entertain a motion on the Certificate of Amendment for the removal of the 40’ side yard building line at 9141 Deodor Street. Mr. Forbes made a motion to vacate the 40’ side yard building line, per the description by Petitioner, for Lot 3 of Oakwood Estates. Mr. Kozel seconded the motion.

Mr. Ryan requested a roll call vote. Mr. Nietzel – yes. Steve Kozel – yes. Tom Ryan – yes. Mike Forbes – yes. Steve Hastings – yes. Tom Redar – yes. The motion was passed by voice vote (6/0).

C. THREE SPRINGS – PHASE THREE – ZONE CHANGE FROM R-1 TO R-3 - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT(PUD) DOUG RETTIG

Mr. Rettig, Land Technologies, appeared before the Board on behalf of Three Springs Development, Phase Three, seeking a zoning change from R-3 to R-1. He submitted a half-scale site plan to the Board for their review. Mr. Rettig stated that Three Springs, Phase Three, has undergone some changes since last meeting with the Board. He stated that instead of all duplexes, the developer has added some cottage homes/single family homes all along the lake. Mr. Rettig stated that the proposed cottage homes would lend a sense of continuity and cohesiveness with the single family residences located in Three Springs, Phase Two.

Mr. Rettig reminded the Board that there are some constraints with the parcel including a pipe line that bisects the property, railroad tracks and the lake. Mr. Rettig stated that the latest revision of the plan includes 67 total dwelling units located on approximately 30 acres. He stated that the density of the homes is very typical of a residential development.

Mr. Rettig stated that he was presenting the revised sketch to get feedback from the Board in order to see if the revision was more palatable to the Board than the developer’s the previous submittal.

Mr. Ryan asked for the lot size of the proposed cottage homes. Mr. Rettig stated the smallest lot for the proposed cottage homes would be 62x140. Mr. Rettig reminded the Board that this development will be a PUD and not a typical subdivision. Mr. Ryan remarked that the lots look narrow. Mr. Rettig concurred the lots are narrow at 62’; he stated 60’ in size is pretty typical.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes asked what size cottage home the developer is proposing to build on the lots. Mr. Rettig stated that the cottage homes would be much the same foot print as a duplex (approximately 1,600 square feet) but the cottage homes would be located along the lake and have walk-out basements. Mr. Rettig reminded the Board that the development will be a PUD. He stated a minimum side yard will be established for the entire project at whatever size the Board deems necessary.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Rettig stated that Three Springs, Phase Three, will contain more realistic lot sizes. He acknowledged that the lot sizes of 135x150 in Three Springs, Phase One, were oversized. He stated that the lots in Phase Three will be tighter but more cohesive.

Mr. Forbes stated that the revised plan was a step in the right direction; he stated he liked the concept of cottage homes. Mr. Forbes stated he is still concerned about the precedent set by Lots 28 through 33. He stated that these lots run north/south against vacant property owned by the Husemans. Mr. Forbes stated that his suggestion for Lots 28 through 33 would be to construct cottage homes on them.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil stated he could envision single family development homes on the north side of the pipeline easement, and the development could carry all the way to Parrish Avenue and across. Mr. Forbes stated that is why he is not comfortable allowing duplexes on Lots 28 through 33, because it would set a precedent. Mr. Forbes stated in the event that the Huseman property is purchased, he envisioned single family residences.

Mr. Rettig acknowledged that Mr. Forbes had a valid point. He stated that the development is still in the early stages and the developer was just trying to see what would be the best fit. Mr. Forbes noted that Lot 41 is a large lot with an open area next to it; he asked if this open area was green space. Mr. Rettig stated that this area is part of the out lot. Mr. Rettig stated that all of the maintenance and lawn care would be performed by the Homeowner’s Association.

(General discussion ensued.)

There was discussion about losing four additional units if the plan configuration was changed. Mr. Rettig stated he would consider reconfiguring the site plan. Mr. Rettig commented that the cottage home/duplex trade off might work. Mr. Rettig stated that if he reconfigured the plan, per the Board’s recommendation, the development should only be less two units. Mr. Rettig stated that the cottage home frontage would not be less than 60’.

Mr. Rettig stated that he would consider narrowing the cul-de-sac somewhat. Mr. Kil stated that a sea of asphalt is not necessary because the duplexes will have private driveways.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Barick asked the Board if the binder and surface coat should be done on the roads all at one time when the project commences. Mr. Kil responded that he thinks it is important to apply the binder and the surface coat at the beginning of the project. Mr. Barick noted that this was against the ordinance. Mr. Kil explained that the Town’s thought processes on this matter have changed. He stated that the roads hold up better when the binder and surface coat are applied at the same time. Mr. Kil stated that the full thickness of the road handles the traffic better. Attorney Kuiper stated that this could be a condition of the PUD.

Mr. Redar asked about the development’s impact on the lift station; he noted that the lift station is already at capacity. Mr. Rettig stated that the lift station was sized for the property. Mr. Redar noted that the interceptor line was never installed. Mr. Rettig stated that the interceptor sewer would have to go in along Parrish Avenue. Mr. Rettig stated that the sewer line is 95% designed; he stated that the plans need to be updated and tweaked for the current situation. Mr. Rettig stated that the force main is already in the ground and it will just have to be switched over.

Mr. Ryan asked if there were any other comments or questions from the Board. There were no further comments or questions from the Board. Mr. Rettig thanked the Board for their time.

Mr. Kil recommended one additional study session for Three Springs, Phase Three. Mr. Rettig stated that he planned on attending the next study session on June 19, 2013, with a revised plan.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Mr. Ryan called for public comment. There was no public comment. Mr. Ryan closed the floor to public comment.

ADJOURNMENT:

Mr. Ryan stated he would accept a motion to adjourn. “So moved,” by Mr. Forbes. Mr. Kozel seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously carried by voice vote (6/0).

(The meeting was adjourned at 8:03 p.m.)

A TRUE COPY

_____________________________________
Susan E. Wright, Recording Secretary
St. John Plan Commission

06-19-2013 Plan Commission

June 19, 2013 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes

Tom Ryan, President Mike Forbes Attorney Tim Kuiper
Steve Hastings, Vice-President Derwin Nietzel Kenn Kraus
Steve Kozel, Secretary   Steve Kil
Tom Redar    

CALL TO ORDER:

Mr. Tom Ryan called to order the regular meeting of the Plan Commission for June 19, 2013, at 7:00 p.m.

(The Pledge of Allegiance was said.)

ROLL CALL:

Roll call was taken by Recording Secretary, Susan E. Wright, with the following Commissioners present: Tom Ryan, Steve Hastings, Tom Redar, Steve Kozel and Derwin Nietzel. Mike Forbes was absent. Staff members present: Steve Kil. Kenn Kraus was absent. Attorney Tim Kuiper was also present.

NEW BUSINESS:

A. THREE SPRINGS – PHASE THREE – CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON ZONE CHANGE FROM R-1 TO R-3, (PUD)
Mr. Ryan called for a representative of Three Springs, Phase Three, for continued discussion on the zone change. Mr. Doug Rettig, Land Technologies, was absent. Mr. Kil informed the Board that Mr. Rettig’s colleague was scheduled to take his place at tonight’s meeting. At 7:02, there was no representative present on behalf of Three Springs, Phase Three.

Mr. Ryan stated that the Board would wait for a few minutes for the Three Springs representative to appear.

(There was a pause in the proceedings.)

Mr. Ryan ascertained that there had been no communication from a Three Springs representative that they would be late and/or unable to attend the meeting.

At 7:08, Mr. Ryan stated that he would adjourn the meeting due to the absence of a representative for Three Springs, Phase Three.

OLD BUSINESS:

There was no Old Business.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Mr. Ryan called for public comment. There was no public comment. Mr. Ryan closed the floor to public comment.

ADJOURNMENT:

Mr. Ryan adjourned the meeting.

(The meeting was adjourned at 7:08 p.m.)

A TRUE COPY

_____________________________________
Susan E. Wright, Recording Secretary
St. John Plan Commission

07-03-2013 Plan Commission Meeting Canceled
07-17-2013 Plan Commission Meeting Canceled
08-07-2013 Plan Commission

August 7, 2013 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes

Tom Ryan, President Mike Forbes Attorney Tim Kuiper
Steve Hastings, Vice-President Derwin Nietzel Kenn Kraus
Steve Kozel, Secretary   Steve Kil
Tom Redar    

CALL TO ORDER:

Mr. Tom Ryan called to order the Town of St. John Plan Commission, regular meeting for August 7, 2013, at 7:05 p.m.

(The Pledge of Allegiance was said.)

ROLL CALL:

Roll call was taken by Recording Secretary, Susan E. Wright, with the following Commissioners present: Tom Ryan, Mike Forbes, Steve Hastings, Tom Redar and Steve Kozel. Derwin Nietzel was absent. Staff members present: Kenn Kraus was present. Steve Kil was present. Town Council liaison, Greg Volk was also present. Attorney Dave Austgen was also present. Rex Sherrard was also present.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: NO MEETING MINUTES FROM JULY 2013

Mr. Ryan stated there were no minutes to approve from July, 2013.

NEW BUSINESS:

A. PARK LAND IMPACT FEE – PUBLIC HEARING

Mr. Ryan stated that the first matter before the Board was the park land impact fee. Mr. Taghi Arshami introduced himself as a principal of Arsh Group, Inc., a planning consultant firm located in Merrillville, Indiana. Mr. Arshami stated he was retained by the Town approximately three months ago to prepare a new parks and recreation impact fee. Mr. Arshami stated that St. John was one of the first communities in Indiana to engage in development of a park impact fee.

Attorney Austgen noted that the park impact fee was set for public hearing tonight. He stated that all notices and publications were timely published and a public hearing could be properly conducted at tonight’s meeting.

Mr. Arshami explained that the impact fees are developed by growing communities to address parks and recreational needs. He stated sometimes a community’s existing resources may not be adequate and the park impact fee gives them a source of funds to address the impact of the new residential developments. Mr. Arshami stated that state law requires that an advisory committee be established, for him to work with this committee and go through a process of deliberations and calculations to arrive at the impact fee.

Mr. Arshami stated that he met with the Impact Fee Advisory Committee three times. He stated that he has also assessed the Town’s assets as well as needs. Mr. Arshami thanked the Board. He also congratulated the Board, Town Manager and the Parks Department for their additions to the parks and recreational assets in the last five years. He stated that during the assessment process it was a pleasant surprise to learn of the many additions that have been made to the parks and recreation in St. John.

Mr. Arshami stated that the Town has realized a nine percent increase annually in population/housing. He stated it has been difficult to catch up with the population increase. He stated that the Town’s future growth was taken into consideration in the development of the parks impact fee. He stated that a needs assessment was also developed during the course of his review, and what the level of impact will be. Mr. Arshami stated that those details are reflected in the tables within the handout that was submitted to the Board.

Mr. Arshami stated that the Town has a significant amount of assets, which adds to the level of impact that the Town can impose. He stated that this level in raw form was approximately $3,000. Mr. Arshami stated that this is the same pattern as was shown five years ago. He noted the impact fee established five years ago was around $2,800. He stated that the Town has still been able to add to their assets collectively despite the fact that land value has substantially declined over the last five years because of the economy.

Mr. Arshami stated he had very good conversations with the Advisory Committee. Mr. Arshami stated that the Advisory Committee’s recommendation is that it would not be appropriate to impose the full impact fee of $3,000 plus at this point in time due to the weak economy. Mr. Arshami stated that the Advisory Committee recommends that the same rate as before be maintained with an adjustment for construction costs.

Mr. Arshami explained the formula that was used to calculate the new park impact fees. He stated that there has been approximately a five percent increase in costs. He stated that the fee now being proposed is approximately $80 more than five years ago. He stated that the Advisory Committee is recommending a new park lands impact fee of $1,735.26.

Mr. Arshami stated if this fee is approved by the Plan Commission and the Town Council, conservatively, the Town could expect to generate $1-1.2 million dollars in revenue for the Parks Department over the next five years and this revenue could be used fund park improvements.

Mr. Arshami stated he would be happy to answer any questions.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Arshami stated that the Advisory Committee has recommended maintaining a flat fee, which will remain the same for the next five years. Mr. Arshami stated that there is a table within the handout comparing St. John’s impact fee with that of other communities. Mr. Kil stated that he concurs with the Advisory Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Kil stated that Attorney Austgen is reviewing a recommendation letter received from the Impact Fee Advisory Committee that the fee be updated to $1,735.26.

Mr. Ryan stated he would open the public hearing. He called for public comment. There was no public comment. Mr. Ryan closed the public hearing and brought the matter back before the Board.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil assigned the Resolution Number 13-08-07 to the park land impact fee resolution; he read Resolution Number 13-08-07 into the record.

Mr. Ryan stated he would entertain a motion to consider Resolution Number 13-08-07. Mr. Forbes made a motion to send a favorable recommendation to the Town Council on Resolution Number 13-08-07, an updated park land impact fee of $1,735.26. the Town Council. Mr. Kozel seconded the motion.

Mr. Ryan requested a roll call vote. Steve Kozel – yes. Tom Ryan – yes. Mike Forbes – yes. Steve Hastings – yes. Tom Redar – yes. The motion was passed by roll call vote (5/0).

B. EENIGENBURG SECOND ADDITION – REVISIONS TO SITE PLAN.

Mr. Ryan stated that Eenigenburg Second Addition with revisions for site plan was before the Board. Mr. Allan Bartley, Abco General Contractors, appeared before the Board on behalf Mr. Eenigenburg. Mr. Georgiou was also present. Mr. Don Bates was also present.

Mr. Bartley commented that the Board was given a short time to review his submission; he stated it took a little time to get it together. He stated that a demolition permit has been acquired to demolish the existing building at the Eenigenburg site. Mr. Bartley stated that the Petitioner is considering relocating the new building more to the center of the lot. He stated that the relocation of the building will be beneficial as far as aesthetics of the building and ingress and egress from 97th.

Mr. Bartley stated that as far as the building signage is concerned, it will remain the same. He noted that a variance was granted for the digital sign and this sign will also remain the same.

Attorney Austgen asked the Eenigenburg representative to identify himself, for the record. Mr. Allan Bartley identified himself and informed the Board that he would be doing the work on the project. Mr. Ryan noted that Mr. Bartley submitted documents to the Board right before the start of tonight’s meeting. Mr. Ryan stated that his understanding is that the documents were to have been provided to the Board several days ago.

Mr. Bartley stated that the project just came about and was prepared as quickly as possible. He stated that the site plan was prepared by Torrenga Engineering and Mr. Georgiou has revised the building on the site plan.

Mr. Forbes asked what time the plans were delivered, for the record. Attorney Austgen noted that the site plans were delivered at 6:45 p.m., fifteen minutes before the meeting started.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes stated it was a little inappropriate for the Petitioner to walk into a regular meeting with site plan drawings. Mr. Bartley apologized to the Board; he stated that he came in to get on the agenda last week. Mr. Ryan remarked that this seems to be an ongoing problem with the Eenigenburg project.

Mr. Bartley stated he hoped to be at the end of the road. Mr. Ryan asked what Petitioner’s representative expected to happen this evening since the site plans were just submitted. Mr. Bartley explained that Petitioner believed that the Board would like the revised site plan, and they would not have to move forward with the “existing, approved plans.” He stated that Petitioner thought “maybe this would be something that would work better for everybody.”

Mr. Ryan remarked that it does not appear that Petitioner/Eenigenburg is moving forward with what was already presented. Mr. Bartley reiterated that they submitted the revised site plans believing them to be a better situation for everybody. Mr. Ryan informed Mr. Bartley he would give him a few minutes to go over his presentation.

Mr. Bartley stated the Board previously granted permission for Petitioner to renovate the existing building. He stated that after going through the plan it was decided that it might be more feasible to construct a new building instead of renovating an old building. Mr. Bartley stated that if the old building was going to be torn down then it would make sense to move the new building away from the road.

Mr. Bartley stated that the existing building’s location is pretty close to 97th Avenue. Mr. Ryan asked what square footage is being proposed for the new building. Mr. Bartley stated that the proposed building is under the square footage of the existing building at 7,000 square feet. Mr. Bartley stated that the proposed building is 70x100, the existing building is 60x120.

Mr. Bartley stated that the screening that was required is still in place for the outside sales. He stated “we flipped the building from the one side and put it over on the other side and reversed the drive-thru.” Mr. Forbes asked for the proposed location of the outside sales. Mr. Bartley stated that the outside sales would be located on the south side of the building. Mr. Forbes stated that the outside sales location reflected on the revised site plan was not was consistent with what was approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes informed Mr. Bartley that the Petitioner would have to appear before the Board of Zoning Appeals again with the revised site plans. Mr. Ryan stated that on the north side of the existing building the outside sales area was located up against the structure; he stated it was not on both sides as reflected in the revised site plan. Mr. Bartley stated that keeping the outside sales area up against the building could be taken into consideration.

Mr. Kil asked if the revised site plan contains the same amount of parking stalls that had been previously approved. Mr. Bartley stated that the drive-thru now goes around the entire building. He stated that parking is along the front. Mr. Bartley stated he would have to check on the number of parking stalls.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes stated mention was made of waivers that were granted for the previous site plan; he noted these waivers were now non-existent. Attorney Austgen concurred. He stated if there was a new site plan there is a new process and if waivers are being requested for a new site plan the Petitioner will have to go through the application and presentation process.

Mr. Forbes noted BZA action is now required. Attorney Austgen explained that if variances are requested for the new site plan the Petitioner must go through a new application and presentation process before the Board of Zoning Appeals.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Bartley stated that the revised site plans reflect a change of the outside sales from facing the north to facing the south side. Mr. Forbes stated that he does not like the outside sales area facing 97th Lane. He stated that it gives the appearance of a perpetual garage sale. He stated he was more comfortable with the outside sales located on the north side of the building because it is more hidden. Mr. Bartley stated there would be landscaping along the outside in lieu of pavement and truck parking.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Bartley stated that the revised site plans reflect green area blocking 97th from the curb area. Mr. Kil noted there were no loading docks on the revised site plan. Mr. Bartley stated that the revised site plan reflects flat overhead doors in the back with no loading dock. The trash enclosure location was discussed.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Hasting asked if the outside sales area would present a fire issue by blocking doors. Mr. Bartley stated no doors would be blocked. The size and location of the outside sales area was discussed. The grading plan was discussed.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Bartley stated that the final engineering would have to be submitted for approvals. Mr. Kraus stated that he did receive a PDF from Torrenga Engineering late last week that includes the grading and storm sewer drainage.

Mr. Ryan stated that there are more questions than answers; he asked if the matter could defer this matter. Attorney Austgen remarked that this was a study session set of materials. He stated that the site plans were received in two pieces, one portion arrived last Friday and the other portion was submitted at 6:45 p.m. today. Attorney Austgen stated that this revised site plan is on a platted lot. He stated that this lot is the subject of a developer agreement that is substantial and fairly complex. He stated that these plans were executed by this property owner and witnessed by his attorney.

Attorney Austgen recommended that a like amount of diligence be exercised by the Plan Commission related to the development of the revised site plan based upon the nature of the development especially with a proposed McDonalds being developed adjacent to Eenigenburg Water. He stated that the Plan Commission should review the revised site plan in conformance with their laws, rules and regulations and the Town’s ordinances.

Mr. Ryan stated that this review of the revised site plan feels kind of rushed. He stated he would like to defer any kind of action on this matter until the Board members have time to review the plans. Attorney Austgen stated it would be great study session item that could be worked on at next month’s study session. He stated that placing this matter on the next month’s study session agenda would give the staff time to review the revised plans. Attorney Austgen stated after a review is properly conducted the matter could be reconsidered for placement on the agenda in September.

Mr. Bartley noted that there is a time issue, and he realizes it is not the Plan Commission’s problem. Attorney Austgen commented that land use approvals were last granted for this project in April.

Mr. Kozel stated that the Board should be given a fair amount of time to properly review the revised site plans; he made a motion to defer this matter for the study session. Mr. Forbes seconded the motion.

Mr. Ryan requested a roll call vote. Steve Kozel – yes. Tom Ryan – yes. Mike Forbes – yes. Steve Hastings – yes. Tom Redar – yes. The motion was passed by roll call vote (5/0).

ADJOURNMENT:

Mr. Ryan adjourned the meeting.

(The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m.)

A TRUE COPY

_____________________________________
Susan E. Wright, Recording Secretary
St. John Plan Commission

08-21-2013 Plan Commission

August 21, 2013 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes

Tom Ryan, President Mike Forbes Attorney Tim Kuiper
Steve Hastings, Vice-President Derwin Nietzel Kenn Kraus
Steve Kozel, Secretary   Steve Kil
Tom Redar    

CALL TO ORDER:

Mr. Tom Ryan called to order the Town of St. John Plan Commission, study session for August 21, 2013, at 7:05 p.m.

(The Pledge of Allegiance was said.)

ROLL CALL:

Roll call was taken by Recording Secretary, Susan E. Wright, with the following Commissioners present: Tom Ryan, Steve Hastings, Steve Kozel, Tom Redar, Mike Forbes and Derwin Nietzel. Staff members present: Steve Kil. Kenn Kraus was present. Town Council liaison, Greg Volk was present. Rex Sherrard was present.

NEW BUSINESS:

A. EENIGENBURG SECOND ADDITION – ALLAN BARTLEY REVISIONS TO SITE PLAN, LOT ONE.
Mr. Allan Bartley appeared before the Board on behalf of Eenigenburg Second Addition with a revised site plan. Mr. Nick Georgiou, architect, was also present. Mr. Bartley informed the Board that the existing building has been demolished.

Mr. Bartley informed the Board that rather than remodel the existing structure Petitioner is proposing the construction of a new building, which would be 25’ farther away from 97th Lane and more to the center of the lot. He stated that the proposed building will be smaller than what was there.

Mr. Bartley stated that Petitioner plans to move the existing building 25’ to the north. He stated that the signage would stay exactly the same as what was originally agreed upon for the both the building and the monument sign.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Bartley noted that the drive-thru will stay on the north side of the building. Mr. Kil asked about the distance between the sidewalk and the curb.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Ryan asked Mr. Kraus if he had received the revised site plan and was able to review it. Mr. Kraus stated that he had reviewed the site plan and it remains pretty much the same as the previously approved site plan except for the location and size of the building. Mr. Kil, referring to the mylar, stated the sanitary easement would have to be omitted; he stated Torrenga Engineering would have remove the sanitary easement from the recorded mylar.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes asked about Lot Two. Mr. Kraus explained that Lot Two will have its own service line on the south side of the building out to 97th.

Mr. Forbes noted that the Board was in receipt of a letter from Austgen Kuiper & Associates, containing a list of 19 items to be addressed in the revised site plan.

Mr. Forbes noted one of the items in the list related to parking spaces. He asked if there should be one or two ADA parking spots. Mr. Kozel noted that the ADA rules were 24:1, and Petitioner was compliant with one handicapped parking space. Mr. Bartley noted that the original approved plan contained 17 parking stalls, the revised plan contains 21 parking stalls.

Mr. Forbes stated he was troubled by the first parking spot at the entrance of the store. He noted the two parking spots on the south side of the sign location; he stated that the first parking spot appears to be right on top of the driveway. Mr. Forbes recommended eliminating these two parking spots and making this location green space, for safety’s sake. The Board members concurred.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Redar noted the dumpster enclosure location right up against the building; he asked Mr. Bartley if the dimensions of the dumpster enclosure were reflected on the site plan. Mr. Redar remarked that there is language in the Town’s Fire Code about the distance between a dumpster and a structure. Mr. Georgiou noted that he would make the dumpster enclosure deep enough to adhere to the Town’s Fire Code, with bollards.

Mr. Kozel noted that the landscape plan reflects the handicapped parking location on the west side, and the site plan reflects the handicapped parking is located at the center of the parking area. He asked for clarification on this discrepancy. Mr. Georgiou stated that the civil plans have the correct location of the handicapped parking spot.

Mr. Forbes asked if the sidewalk in the front, west side of the building should be extended. Mr. Kraus noted that there should be 7’ foot of sidewalk on the west elevation. Mr. Kil recommended that the building be moved back a couple of feet in order not to cut into driveway.

Mr. Kraus asked if there was curb along the front sidewalk. Mr. Forbes noted that the front sidewalk, at a minimum, should have a barrier curb. Mr. Kraus noted that a 6” curb is required between the asphalt and the concrete sidewalk; he stated that the floor elevation of the building would have to come up. The Board concurred that the finished floor should be raised by 6”.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kraus stated the elevation could remain as it is and parking bumpers could be put in place, or alternatively, the sidewalk and building could be raised and a barrier curb installed. He stated that the sidewalks on the north and the south sides could be flush because there is no parking.

Mr. Forbes stated that one of the items on the aforementioned list was landscaping irrigation. He noted that no waiver was granted on the landscaping irrigation on the previous site plan, and he was of the same mind this time.

Mr. Forbes stated that the wall offset was discussed. He stated that he has no preference for the offset but the curb must be equally extended.

Mr. Forbes noted no windows or skylights are reflected in the warehouse area. He asked if there was a requirement for the percentage of glass on the building. Mr. Kil remarked that he does not recall any requirement for the percentage of glass on a building, and that there is glass on the front of the building.

Mr. Forbes noted another item to be addressed is “Reflected that less than half of the surface run-off will be collected on site and the remainder would be routed to storm inlets in 97th Lane and the Earl Drive extension.” Mr. Kraus explained that there are three inlets on 97th Lane that will pick up one half of the lot; he stated this was the same as on the previously approved site plan. Mr. Kraus explained that the storm sewers on the north side would pick up run-off from the north half of the site and then directed to the detention basin, and the storm sewers on the south side will be picked up by the storm sewers on 97th Lane and be directed to the detention basin. Mr. Kraus stated that the surface run-off should not pose a problem to 97th Lane barring unforeseen circumstances.

Mr. Forbes asked about the wattage of the light fixtures. He noted that the lighting should be zero at the perimeter and this was not reflected on the lighting plan. He stated that this was a recurring problem on the original site plan before it was adjusted and corrected. Mr. Georgiou stated he would review the lighting to ensure that there was zero illumination at the perimeter.

Mr. Forbes asked what type of lighting would be used. Mr. Georgiou noted that his notes reflected metal halide lighting. Mr. Kil stated he believed the type of lighting being used was metal halide. Mr. Forbes stated that Petitioner, Eenigenburg Water, should try and match their lighting with McDonalds lighting for the sake of harmony in the lighting. Mr. Georgiou concurred.

Mr. Forbes asked Mr. Kraus if he had submitted a letter with regard to the revised site plan. Mr. Kraus stated that he has not yet prepared a letter on his review of the revised site plan. He stated that he has had communications with Mr. Gary Torrenga about the drainage, grading of the lot, sanitary sewer easement, abandoning the existing sanitary sewer that would not be used and the addition of a manhole on the 8” line in order to provide an access point. Mr. Kraus stated he has not yet received revised drawings from Torrenga Engineering reflecting the implementation of these recommendations.

Mr. Forbes stated that the issues regarding Lots Two and Three did not have to be addressed at the present time. Mr. Kil concurred. Mr. Kil stated that in the event that Mr. Eenigenburg finds a buyer for Lot Two, a lot of work will have to be done including moving the utilities.

Mr. Hastings asked about the previous Board of Zoning Appeals approvals related to Lot One. Mr. Kil stated that as long as the existing signage stays the same as was previously approved by the BZA the same approvals still be in effect.

Mr. Kil directed that Mr. Bartley bring the revised mylar to the September 4, 2013, meeting.

OLD BUSINESS:

Mr. Ryan asked if there was any Old Business.

Mr. Forbes stated that he would like to discuss the Plan Commission’s rules and regulations. He stated that it seems in many cases, the Board does not receive site plans until the eleventh hour. Mr. Forbes stated that the Board’s rules and regulations call for the site plans to be submitted well in advance of the meeting.

Mr. Forbes stated that if plans are not submitted on the Friday before the Plan Commission’s meeting, the individuals should be stricken from the agenda. Mr. Forbes stated that the Board should start to enforce these rules for regular meetings as well as study sessions.

Mr. Forbes noted that the Town engineer is supposed to receive the drawings two weeks prior to the meeting. Mr. Forbes told Mr. Kraus if he does not receive the plans in a timely matter he should inform the Board so that the matter can be deferred. Mr. Forbes stated he likes to visit every site to familiarize himself with the property, usually on the weekend before the meeting. He stated it is much easier on all of the Board members to get the plans in time to review them before the meeting.

Mr. Forbes reiterated that if plans are not received on or before the Friday before the meeting, the individuals should be taken off of the agenda.

Mr. Kraus welcomed Mr. Nietzel back and stated he was very happy to see him back at the meetings. Mr. Nietzel stated it was good to be back.

There was no further discussion.

ADJOURNMENT:

Mr. Ryan adjourned the meeting.

(The meeting was adjourned at 7:57 p.m.)

A TRUE COPY

_____________________________________
Susan E. Wright, Recording Secretary
St. John Plan Commission

09-04-2013 Plan Commission

September 4, 2013 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes

Tom Ryan, President Mike Forbes Attorney Tim Kuiper
Steve Hastings, Vice-President Derwin Nietzel Kenn Kraus
Steve Kozel, Secretary   Steve Kil
Tom Redar    

CALL TO ORDER:

Mr. Tom Ryan called to order the Town of St. John Plan Commission, regular meeting for September 4, 2013, at 7:05 p.m.

(The Pledge of Allegiance was said.)

ROLL CALL:

Roll call was taken by Recording Secretary, Susan E. Wright, with the following Commissioners present: Tom Ryan, Steve Hastings, Steve Kozel, Mike Forbes, Tom Redar and Derwin Nietzel Staff members present: Steve Kil. Kenn Kraus was present. Attorney David Austgen was present. Rex Sherrard was also present. Greg Volk, Town Council liaison, also present.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: AUGUST 7, 2013

Mr. Ryan stated if the members have had a chance to review the August 7, 2013, meeting minutes, he would entertain a motion to approve the minutes noting any corrections or changes in the motion. Mr. Forbes made a motion to approve the meeting minutes of August 7, 2013, as posted. Mr. Kozel seconded the motion.

Mr. Ryan requested a roll call vote. Derwin Nietzel – yes. Steve Kozel – yes. Mike Forbes – yes. Steve Hastings – yes. Tom Redar – yes. Tom Ryan – yes. The motion was passed by roll call vote (5/0).

NEW BUSINESS:

A. CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT FOR RENIASSANCE UNIT FOUR

Mr. Ryan noted that a Certificate of Amendment for Renaissance for Number 4 was before the Board for their review. Mr. Kil informed the Board that a minor problem has cropped up in Renaissance, Unit Four, that needs to be corrected. He explained that the a few of the corner lots in Renaissance, Unit Four, were inadvertently platted with two 30’ building lines. Typically, the building lines are 30’ for the front yard building line and 20’ for the side yard building line. Mr. Kil stated that Tony Strickland, V-3, could not explain this phenomenon.

Mr. Kil asked the Board to consider approving a Certificate of Amendment (to be recorded), which will identify the lots in question and change the 30’ side yard building line to a 20’ side yard building line. Mr. Kil stated that there are five lots affected by the incorrect building line. Mr. Kil stated that this change is necessary in order for the surveyor to properly lay out the homes in Unit Four.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Ryan stated that he would entertain a motion on the Certificate of Amendment for Renaissance, Unit Four.

Mr. Forbes made a motion to approve the Certificate of Amendment for Renaissance, Unit Four, changing the side yard building line from 30’ to 20’ on the following lots, 523, 535, 566, 609 and 614; and authorize signature on the Certificate of Amendment upon receipt of a corrected document. Mr. Kozel seconded the motion.

Mr. Ryan requested a roll call vote. Derwin Nietzel – yes. Steve Kozel – yes. Mike Forbes – yes. Steve Hastings – yes. Tom Redar – yes. Tom Ryan – yes. The motion was unanimously passed by roll call vote (5/0).

A. EENIGENBURG SECOND ADDITION – SITE PLAN APPROVAL.
Mr. Ryan stated that Eenigenburg, Second Addition, was before the Board for site plan approval. Mr. Allan Bartley, Abco General Contractors, appeared before the Board on behalf Mr. Eenigenburg. Mr. Georgiou was also present. Mr. Bartley stated that changes were made to the site plan as per the recommendation of the Board at the last meeting.

Mr. Ryan asked Mr. Kenn Kraus if he had a chance to review the site plan. Mr. Kraus stated that he finished reviewing the site plan today and submitted a letter to the Board before the meeting regarding the same.

Mr. Kraus noted on “Item Six, Irrigation” he had no information regarding the irrigation system plan. Mr. Kraus stated that sheet “LD-1” indicated that information on the irrigation system plan (for landscaping areas) will be provided. In addition, Mr. Kraus noted that the old 8” sanitary sewer that is now going to be reused as a sanitary sewer service line shows no clean-out. He stated that a clean-out for the service line is required

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kraus pointed out that the lighting plan that was presented by Petitioner at the last meeting was in compliance with the Town’s lighting ordinance. He stated that a half-foot candle is allowed at the property line in the commercial district. Mr. Kraus stated that either lighting plan that Petitioner submitted would be acceptable. Mr. Georgiou explained the lighting settings to the Board. Mr. Ryan commented that he liked the lighting plan that Petitioner submitted tonight.

Mr. Forbes asked about the measurement of the rear yard. Mr. Kraus stated that the rear yard requirement is 45’. Mr. Kraus noted that Torrenga’s drawings had the actual dimensions. Mr. Forbes noted that that the 42’ rear yard would require a 3’ waiver.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes noted that in his review of the landscaping along US Route 41, the landscaping is sparse in this area. He recommended that more ground cover and/or shrubbery be added to dress up the area along US Route 41.

Mr. Forbes noted Section 0.2 “loading to be provided parallel to the south side of the building in the two-way drive and at the rear of the building.” Mr. Forbes asked if the purpose of the outdoor sales area was to serve as a loading area. Mr. Georgiou stated that his interpretation of loading was related to deliveries, not customer pick-up, being made to the facility by semis and delivery trucks. He stated, in this case, the deliveries would be made at the south side/rear of the building. Mr. Forbes asked that this be clarified on the site plan. Mr. Kil recommended of that the north side be designated as “customer pick-up” and the south side be designated “deliveries.”

Mr. Nietzel noted that the water service line into the building was going out to 97th Lane versus US Route 41. He noted that there is a 12” main on US Route 41 that could be used so that 97th Lane line would not have to be cut into, and the water quality is better off of the 12” main. Mr. Bartley stated that he would prefer to use the existing tap off of US Route 41, which he recently discovered. The Board concurred.

Attorney Austgen reminded the Board that as a part of the original project that was approved in April, 2013, Petitioner was required to enter into a developer Commitment Agreement. He stated his continued recommendation to the Board would be that the developer Commitment Agreement be included in their current consideration. Attorney Austgen explained that the developer Commitment Agreement memorializes the terms, provisions and conditions set forth by the Board.

Attorney Austgen stated he has a signed, notarized copy of the Commitment Agreement, dated May 15, 2013, signed by the property owner, so Petitioner should be familiar with it. Attorney Austgen recommended that all of the terms and conditions that have been changed or updated should be incorporated into an amended Commitment Agreement and be a condition of the Board’s approval of the Eenigenburg site plan.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil remarked that the Petitioner could avoid the cost of a letter of credit if all of the public improvements for the subdivision are done before the plats are signed.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Bartley stated as soon as the Petitioner secures approvals and can obtain a permit, they intend to start work on installing the public improvements. Mr. Kil reiterated that when the subdivision’s public improvements are in the mylars can be signed and the Petitioner can forego having to obtain a letter of credit.

Attorney Austgen suggested that the Board could make an approval leaving the landscaping issue open and require Petitioner to re-submit an additional landscaping plan for their review and consideration. Mr. Forbes concurred.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Ryan stated he would entertain a motion on site plan approval for Lot One of Eenigenburg’s Second Addition including the necessary waivers. Mr. Forbes made a motion to approve the waivers, as revised by the Board, excluding the landscaping along US Route 41 requesting that Petitioner submit additional landscaping for this area in advance of securing any building permit, and noting on Section F-2 the rear yard is a 3’ reduction from what is required by the Town’s ordinance. Mr. Kozel seconded the motion.

Mr. Ryan requested a roll call vote. Steve Kozel – yes. Tom Ryan – yes. Mike Forbes – yes. Steve Hastings – yes. Tom Redar – yes. The motion was passed by roll call vote (5/0).

Mr. Forbes made a motion to approve the site plan for Eenigenburg Second Addition, Lot One, approval being contingent upon the use of the lighting plan dated August 28, 2013, inclusion of an updated and amended developer Commitment Agreement pursuant to Attorney Austgen’s recommendation, installation of a clean-out for the sewer service line pursuant to Mr. Kraus’ recommendation, and withholding of signatures on the mylar(s) until all of the subdivision’s public improvements are installed. Mr. Kozel seconded the motion.

Mr. Ryan requested a roll call vote. Derwin Nietzel – yes. Steve Kozel – yes. Mike Forbes – yes. Steve Hastings – yes. Tom Redar – yes. Tom Ryan – yes. The motion was unanimously passed by roll call vote (5/0).

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Mr. Ryan opened the floor to public comment. He called for public comment. There was no public comment. Mr. Ryan closed the floor to public comment.

ADJOURNMENT:

Mr. Ryan stated he would entertain a motion to adjourn. Mr. Forbes made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Kozel seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously carried by voice vote (5/0).

(The meeting was adjourned at 7:46 p.m.)

A TRUE COPY

_____________________________________
Susan E. Wright, Recording Secretary
St. John Plan Commission

09-18-2013 Plan Commission Meeting Canceled
10-02-2013 Plan Commission Meeting Canceled
10-16-2013 Plan Commission Meeting Canceled
11-06-2013 Plan Commission Meeting Canceled
11-20-2013 Plan Commission

November 20, 2013 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes

Tom Ryan, President Mike Forbes Attorney Tim Kuiper
Steve Hastings, Vice-President Derwin Nietzel Kenn Kraus
Steve Kozel, Secretary   Steve Kil
Tom Redar    

CALL TO ORDER:

Mr. Michael Forbes, chaired the meeting in Mr. Tom Ryan’s absence. He called to order the Town of St. John Plan Commission, study session, for November 20, 2013, at 7:02 p.m.

(The Pledge of Allegiance was said.)

ROLL CALL:

Roll call was taken by Recording Secretary, Susan E. Wright, with the following Commissioners present: Michael Forbes, Steve Hastings, Steve Kozel, Tom Redar and Derwin Nietzel. Tom Ryan was absent. Staff members present: Kenn Kraus was present. Steve Kil was present. Town Council liaison, Greg Volk was also present. The Board’s attorney was not present.

NEW BUSINESS:

A. RENAISSANCE UNIT 5 – PLAN REVIEW DOUG TERPSTRA
Mr. Forbes stated that the first matter before the Board under New Business was Renaissance, Unit 5, for plan review. Mr. Doug Terpstra appeared before the Board on representing Wyngate Development. Mr. Terpstra informed the Board that the plan has been altered. He stated originally Renaissance, Unit 5, was to be done in two phases and it will now be done in four phases.

Mr. Terpstra pointed out that the interior of Renaissance, Unit 5, is complete. He stated there is very little left to be done. Mr. Terpstra stated that if one looks at what is currently developed, they are circling around the perimeter. Mr. Terpstra informed the Board that the parcel could have been platted and recorded originally, but has not been.

Mr. Forbes remarked that no changes were made to the original plan, but the project is just being re-phased. Mr. Terpstra concurred; he stated there are no changes.

Mr. Forbes asked how Parcel Four ended up at its current location as reflected on the drawing. Mr. Terpstra explained that it was purchased with the concept that it would be completely separated out of the Gates of St. John and would extend from the original Renaissance, Phases One, Two and Three.

Mr. Forbes noted that Unit Four seems a little left out. Mr. Forbes asked if Lots 515 through 580 were approved and ready to build on. Mr. Terpstra explained that Lots 515 through 580, located on 101st and Joliet Street, are completed with approximately one-third of the units sold.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Terpstra noted that the engineer inadvertently left some things on the drawing that should have been removed. Mr. Kil directed Mr. Terpstra to have the rear building lines omitted from the drawing as these lines cause confusion, especially amongst the homeowners.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes opined that the project is simple and straightforward. He stated that the only thing that needed to be created was a unit designation. Mr. Terpstra concurred. Mr. Terpstra explained that his development sells parcels to custom builders, usually at a 50 lot maximum.

Mr. Terpstra stated an entrance is to be installed on the east side, which would be Garden Way. He explained that going north on Garden Way takes one into the old Renaissance, circles around and stops where the streets are located across the back of 97th. Mr. Terpstra stated that more than two-thirds-plus of all the streets and curbs are completed.

Mr. Forbes asked if there was language included on the plat for a no-access easement onto Joliet Street from any of the parcels. Mr. Terpstra stated that the residences, as reflected on the plat, can only face Hibiscus Drive. Mr. Forbes recommended that no-access easement language be included on the plat for Lot 456 along Joliet Street.

Mr. Terpstra stated that a buffer zone prevents the back yards of the residences from being seen from the street and also prevents the residents from seeing Joliet Street. He stated he is hoping that others pick up and add a lot more trees and landscaping in this area.

Mr. Forbes asked the Board members if they had any further questions. There were no questions or comments from the Board.

Mr. Kil instructed Mr. Terpstra to send the final plat along with the changes discussed tonight, to Mr. Kenn Kraus for his review. The matter was to be placed on the December 2, 2013, agenda.

B. GREYSTONE – PROPOSED PROJECT – SCHLLING DEVELOPMENT – JACK SLAGER

Mr. Forbes stated that Greystone, a proposed project of Schilling Development was the next matter for the Board’s consideration and review. He noted that the proposed project was located on Calumet Avenue.

Mr. Jack Slager appeared before the Board representing Schilling Development. He stated he was present to discuss the Greystone project with the Board. Mr. Slager stated that an 11x17 color drawing was submitted to the Board for their review.

Mr. Slager informed the Board that this parcel was approximately 120 acres located at the far west side of Town. He noted that the property is bisected by Calumet Avenue.

Mr. Slager stated that the property is mostly wide, open farm land. He explained that there are also three sets of pipelines crisscrossing through the property and some high tension lines which are located approximately 150’ north of the property. Mr. Slager further defined the location of the proposed Greystone project as everything that’s left from west of Saddle Creek east to Emerald Crossing on the west.

Mr. Slager stated that the developer would like to offer a variety of products, for example, not exclusively single family homes/duplexes/villas/townhomes. He stated that the property was annexed in approximately 2006-2007 as a part of the Town’s push to the state line. Mr. Slager stated when the property was annexed, there was “kind of a random zoning put on it.”

Mr. Slager explained that the east half of the parcel has some R-2 zoning, the west half has some R-3 zoning, and also a couple of little commercially zoned pieces on Calumet Avenue. He stated that the zoning needs to be straightened out and the developer would like to discuss the same going forward.

Mr. Slager stated that the proposed Greystone project is intended to be a long-term project. Mr. Slager stated that single family homes, cottage/patio homes, ranch/villa/four-unit building(s), duplexes and three and four unit townhomes will be marketed at varying price levels. Mr. Slager informed the Board that he has done some research, and the four unit buildings (villas) will not require sprinkler systems.

Mr. Slager stated that the development will pick up the sewer and water at Saddle Creek where there is a deep, 15” sewer stub. He stated that the utilities will have to be run through the proposed Greystone development and then south and west towards 101st for future development.

Mr. Slager directed the Board’s attention to the proposed Phase One on the drawing. He stated that he is hoping to construct approximately 20 each of the aforementioned villas, single family residences, townhomes and duplexes in the first phase. He stated that this phase will include the installation of the entrances on Calumet Avenue. Mr. Slager described a rolling, five to ten foot berm with heavy landscaping that would be located on both sides of Calumet Avenue. Mr. Slager explained that the landscaped berm would serve as a buffer along Calumet Avenue.

Mr. Slager stated that the developer has met with architects endeavoring to create a theme for the Greystone project. He stated that the developer wants a new look, but at the same time they want to be able to tie the entire project together with a similar theme. Mr. Slager showed the Board some renderings of the proposed duplexes.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil explained the anti-monotony clause and its application (Town zoning ordinance) to Mr. Slager. Mr. Slager explained that due to the pipelines crisscrossing through the property there will be plenty of green space. The green space will also serve as buffers between the different neighborhoods.

Mr. Slager explained that when all of the proposed single family and multi-family units are added up, the overall density on the proposed project will be 2.8 units per acre. He stated that the crisscrossing pipelines will be used to the advantage of the development in that they will serve as green space.

Mr. Slager asked the Board for any feedback, questions or comments. Mr. Kil remarked that the zoning would have to be addressed first. R-2 and R-3 PUD zoning was discussed.

(General discussion ensued.) Mr. Slager stated that there is a small triangle located on the far west side of this property which is a part of the Emerald Crossing development. He stated that this parcel is unincorporated. Mr. Slager stated that one of the first steps the developer will take will be to annex this parcel. Mr. Slager pointed out the location of this parcel to the Board.

Mr. Forbes opined that the proposed development has many good qualities but the number of proposed multi-family units would be a tough sell and will also dominate the development. Mr. Forbes stated he is not favorable of multi-family units.

Mr. Slager acknowledged Mr. Forbes comments. He stated the proposed development is on the far fringe of Town. Mr. Slager stated that the developer did not feel that this parcel warranted 300 single family lots that might take twenty years to sell.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil explained that the corner of Calumet Avenue and 101st, the southeast corner, is zoned commercial, C-2. Mr. Slager stated he does not foresee the commercial aspect of the Greystone project being developed. Mr. Slager explained that there is an abundance of commercial property that is already zoned and platted on 101st which is not moving.

Mr. Forbes asked about two particular parcels on the drawing. Mr. Slager explained there is a “funny triangle” left to the south that most likely be sold if the Sickma parcel is ever developed. Mr. Slager explained that no particular use has been decided upon for the east side parcel, but it may be used for retention. He stated this (east) parcel is wedged between two pipelines. Mr. Kil recommended that the developer might want to plat this parcel as public and dedicate it to the Town.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes noted that the cul-de-sac located by the proposed cottages runs out into the pipe line area. Mr. Slager informed the Board that roads can be built over the pipe lines, but dwellings cannot be built on the pipe lines.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes asked if the development would include a bike trail. He noted that this will be the Town’s farthest west located subdivision. Mr. Slager noted that the Saddle Creek bike trail ends off of the northeast corner of this parcel, about 150’ north of the proposed development. Mr. Slager stated the Saddle Creek bike trail could possibly be continued to run down along the power lines just north of the development or possibly through the greenways/pipe line easements. Mr. Slager stated that this matter would be considered. Mr. Forbes opined that a bike trail would be a huge benefit to the proposed Greystone development.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes asked if there were any questions or comments. Mr. Slager reiterated that the developer will proceed with the annexation of the triangular parcel and will also put together a zoning request. Mr. Slager stated that the east half of the parcel on Calumet was originally slated as a phase of the Olthof development for Saddle Creek. Mr. Slager noted that the density of the proposed Olthof development east of Calumet Avenue was 412 units for a density of 5.7.

C. PENINSULA – PHASE TWO – SCHILLING DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Forbes stated that Peninsula, Phase Two, was next on the agenda for the Board’s review. Mr. Jack Slager, representative for Schilling Development, appeared before the Board on behalf of Peninsula, Phase Two.

Mr. Slager stated that the Board should have received an 11x17 color drawing. He stated this is a challenging piece of ground. Mr. Slager stated Peninsula, Phase Two, was a leftover parcel after the Peninsula Point duplex development.

Mr. Slager explained that a very current aerial photo is superimposed on the document. Mr. Slager stated that there is a left over five acre sliver of property that runs along the north side of Hedwig Drive. Mr. Slager stated he does not know the full history of this five acre parcel and why it was not developed. He stated that the parcel is zoned R-3 and was zoned with the entire development.

Mr. Slager stated that the high-end, brick duplexes are selling well again. Mr. Slager stated that 10 additional duplexes could be added on this five acre sliver of property. He stated that there is a challenge to this piece of land in that it is shallow and high, ranging anywhere from three feet to eight feet above the road. Mr. Slager informed the Board that in the event that duplexes were to be built in this area there would be steep driveways, steps and cuts into the hill.

Mr. Slager stated that after much examination of this property, the developer is proposing eight large, single family lots, upwards of 15,000 square feet. Mr. Slager stated that the developer is proposing to engineer each site individually. He stated this would entail building side drives in order to get the driveway up the hill, and setting the homes up on the hill. Mr. Slager stated this would eliminate having to cut down the hills or the trees to make the lots buildable.

Mr. Slager informed the Board that when Hedwig Drive was built it was slid all the way to the south side of the right of way as was the sidewalk that runs along the north side of Hedwig Drive. He explained this was done to bring the road and the sidewalk out of the hill.

Mr. Slager stated that the property line for the front of the lots lies 15’ behind the sidewalk, which gives the developer a 15’ set back.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Slager stated his request, in the event the proposed single family lots go forward, would be for a 25’ or 30’ front building line in order to utilize the entire front area and not have to push the proposed homes back any further than is necessary. He stated all of the homes behind the proposed development are single family homes. Mr. Slager stated that the usual 25’ rear yard setback would be acceptable, which is the requirement in R-3 zoning.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Slager conceded that some variances for the front and rear yard setbacks may be needed. He stated that there may also be some requests for variance on the driveway slopes. Mr. Kil discussed floating building lines. Mr. Slager explained the various building lines that would be needed for the different lots. Mr. Slager stated that a 10% driveway slope would be acceptable; he would make it work.

Mr. Forbes explained that the reason there are no homes on this property is because it was laid out as a common area. He stated that it was represented to the Board that this property would “always remain a green and open area.” Mr. Slager acknowledged Mr. Forbes statement.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes recalled a past meeting wherein he was the one who wanted a sidewalk along Hedwig Drive. He stated that Attorney Muenich, who represented the Schillings, fought “tooth and nail.” Mr. Forbes stated that the sidewalk along Hedwig and Bullrun were quite a topic of discussion. Mr. Forbes stated that from the sidewalk discussion ensued discussion about the common area and how the common area would be green space. Mr. Forbes stated that the idea was to buffer the Peninsula and leave it all natural.

Mr. Slager stated that, obviously, there is a lot of green space around the duplexes because of all of the wetlands. He stated that the ground under discussion is “high, useable ground rather than wet, unusable ground.”

Mr. Forbes, stated, if he recalled correctly, somewhere along Lots 6 and 7 it is wet. Mr. Slager conceded that there is a small, wetland right on the lot lines of Lots 5 and 6.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes stated that all of the residents that live on Fehlberg Court and the other areas who have been here were told that this parcel would not be touched. Mr. Slager directed the Board’s attention to the aerial photograph reflecting that the property is being used for playgrounds and trampolines.

Mr. Forbes reiterated that the concern of the residents’ was that this land under discussion has always been an open area, they have been allowed to use it without question and were told it would not be touched.

Mr. Slager stated, with Mr. Kil’s help, he would like to review some of the minutes from this time to see what was actually promised. He stated that the developer would like to develop this piece of land as it is useable ground.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes stated given the terrain of this land “and the promises that were --- basic promises that were made,” he has a problem with developing this property. Mr. Forbes stated that the homeowners have to be looked out for. Mr. Slager stated that he would take this information back to Mr. Schilling and see what their options are. Mr. Slager reiterated he would like to obtain some of the minutes to ascertain what the discussions were.

Mr. Slager thanked the Board.

D. WILLOW RIDGE – UNIT THREE PLAN REVIEW MIKE GRANICZNY

Mr. Forbes stated that the next item on the agenda was Willow Ridge, Unit Three, plan review. Mr. Mike Graniczny and Brandon Vermondi appeared before the Board on behalf of Willow Ridge. Mr. Graniczny stated that there are 15 lots proposed for Willow Ridge, Unit Three. He informed the Board that all of the lots meet the requirements for R-1 zoning with the exception of Lots 7, 8, 12 and 13. He stated these four lots are a little bit shy of 20,000 square feet. He stated that they would seek a variance on the smaller lots, if possible. Mr. Graniczny stated the lots that would require a variance range in size from 15,000 square feet to 18,900 square feet. Mr. Forbes asked how far Willow Lane would be extended. Mr. Graniczny stated that Willow Lane would be connected into Schaffer Drive.

(General discussion ensued.)

Roads, road stubs and easements were discussed. Mr. Forbes noted that the cul-de-sac did not run straight through to the property line. Mr. Graniczny stated that there are wetlands located next to it; he stated a lot of land was lost to wetlands.

Mr. Forbes suggested that the cul-de-sac be moved out and spread the line across all of the lots; he stated that they would lose one lot, but all of the other lots would then meet the R-1 zoning requirements for lot size. Mr. Graniczny asked if there was a chance on getting a variance on the undersized lots.

(General discussion ensued.)

The various lot sizes and wetlands were discussed. Mr. Graniczny asked if he could rezone the development to R-2 and put in the street to Parrish Avenue. Mr. Graniczny suggested he could also put in a bike trail. Mr. Forbes stated that the addition of a bike trail was worthy of discussion. Mr. Forbes suggested turning the sidewalk along west side length of the property into a bike trail. The location, width and composition of the bike trail were discussed.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kraus asked where the detention would be located. Mr. Graniczny stated, per the engineer, the detention would be run off into the wetlands. The wetlands along with detention pond and its location pond were discussed.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Graniczny queried if his next step would be rezoning the property. Mr. Kil instructed Mr. Graniczny to inform his engineer of the changes that were discussed tonight. Mr. Kil recommended that a drawing be generated to reflect the rezoning designation of R-2, the installation of a bike trail to Schaffer Drive along with a rezoning commitment.

Mr. Kil recommended to Mr. Graniczny that he have the plan redrawn and then come back before the Board.

* * * * *

Mr. Forbes recommended that both of the Board’s January meetings be moved to January 8, 2014, the second Wednesday, and January 22, 2014, the fourth Wednesday. The members were in agreement with the changed meeting dates.

Mr. Forbes asked the Board members if there was any further discussion. There was no further discussion from the Board.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Mr. Forbes opened the floor to public comment. He called for public comment. There was no public comment. Mr. Forbes closed the floor to public comment.

ADJOURNMENT:

Mr. Forbes called the meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.

A TRUE COPY

_____________________________________
Susan E. Wright, Recording Secretary
St. John Plan Commission

12-04-2013 Plan Commission

December 4, 2013 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes

Tom Ryan, President Mike Forbes Attorney Tim Kuiper
Steve Hastings, Vice-President Derwin Nietzel Kenn Kraus
Steve Kozel, Secretary   Steve Kil
Tom Redar    

CALL TO ORDER:

Mr. Tom Ryan called to order the regular meeting of the Town of St. John Plan Commission, for December 4, 2013, at 7:03 p.m.

(The Pledge of Allegiance was said.)

ROLL CALL:

Roll call was taken by Recording Secretary, Susan E. Wright, with the following Commissioners present: Tom Ryan, Steve Hastings, Steve Kozel, Tom Redar, Mike Forbes and Derwin Nietzel. Staff members present: Kenn Kraus was present. Steve Kil was present. Attorney Tim Kuiper was also present. Town Council liaison, Greg Volk was also present.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 4, 2013 REGULAR MEETING

Mr. Ryan stated if the Board members have had a chance to review the minutes from the September 4, 2013, meeting, he would accept a motion to approve the meeting minutes or note any changes that need to be made to the same. Mr. Kozel made a motion to accept the minutes as circulated. Mr. Nietzel seconded the motion.

Mr. Ryan requested a roll call vote. Mr. Nietzel – yes. Steve Kozel – yes. Michael Forbes – yes. Steve Hastings – yes. Tom Redar – yes. Tom Ryan – yes. The motion was carried by roll call vote (6/0).

NEW BUSINESS:

A. RENAISSANCE UNIT 5 – FINAL PLAT APPROVAL TONY STRICKLAND,V3 COMPANIES
Mr. Ryan noted the first order of business before the Board was consideration for final plat approval for Renaissance, Unit Five. Mr. Tony Strickland, V3, appeared before the Board on behalf of Renaissance, Unit Five, for final plat approval. Mr. Strickland informed the Board that Mr. Doug Terpstra was unable to attend tonight’s meeting.

Mr. Strickland stated that the plans had been submitted for the Board’s review. Mr. Kenn Kraus stated that he did review the Renaissance, Unit Five, plan; he submitted a letter to the Board outlining his review. Mr. Kraus noted that Renaissance plan that he reviewed was fine, but did not contain signatures.

Mr. Kozel asked if all of the corrections that were requested at the last meeting had been made. Mr. Strickland stated that the corrections had been made.

(Board members reviewing drawings.)

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil stated that there were no contingencies attached to the final plat approval that he was aware of. Mr. Kraus noted that at the last meeting Mr. Terpstra represented that there were no outstanding fees attached to the Renaissance, Unit Five. Mr. Kil noted that all of the improvements are in.

Mr. Ryan stated he would accept a motion for approval of final plat for Renaissance, Unit Five. “So moved,” by Mr. Forbes. Mr. Kozel seconded the motion.

Mr. Ryan requested a roll call vote. Mr. Nietzel – yes. Steve Kozel – yes. Michael Forbes – yes. Steve Hastings – yes. Tom Redar – yes. Tom Ryan – yes. The motion was carried by roll call vote (6/0).

B. WILLOW RIDGE – UNIT THREE, REQUEST FOR REZONE FROM R-1 TO R-2 – BRANDON RAIMONDI AND MIKE GRANICZNY
Mr. Ryan noted that the request for rezone of Willow Ridge, Unit Three, from R-1 to R-2 was next on the agenda for the Board’s consideration.

Mr. Brandon Raimondi and Mr. Mike Graniczny appeared before the Board representing Willow Ridge, Unit Three, for the rezone request. Mr. Raimondi noted that at the last meeting, the Board requested that they have their plan redrawn with the R-2 zoning designation along with the proposed bike path. Mr. Raimondi stated that a presentation was prepared to give the Board some background on the situation.Mr. Raimondi stated that a copy of the redrawn plat was submitted in the packet to the Board.

(Board reviewing documents.)

Mr. Forbes noted that in the submittal packet there was a section of pictures reflecting some of the homes that Mr. Graniczny has built and/or intends to build in the proposed Willow Ridge, Unit Three. Mr. Graniczny concurred. Mr. Forbes remarked that the homes were very nice looking.

Mr. Ryan asked for the minimum square footage of a residence in the proposed Willow Ridge, Unit Three. Mr. Graniczny stated that minimum square footage would be approximately 3,000 square feet on a two-story, and a ranch at a minimum of 2,700 square feet with full basements. Mr. Raimondi added that many of the homes would be in the mid-3,000 square foot range.

Mr. Ryan asked for a price range of the proposed homes in Willow Ridge, Unit Three. Mr. Graniczny stated that the home would run from approximately $425,000 to $550,000.00.

Mr. Ryan asked the Petitioners where they have previously built homes. Mr. Graniczny stated that at the present time he is building in Mokena, Illinois. Mr. Graniczny stated that he has been building in Mokena, Illinois, since the recession started to die down. Mr. Raimondi stated that Mr. Graniczny has been building homes for approximately 15 years. Mr. Graniczny stated he has been building homes since 2001. He recalled he built a home in Wysteria Gate, Gates of St. John, approximately eight years ago.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Ryan asked Mr. Kraus if he had an opportunity to review the most recent plan. Mr. Kraus stated that tonight was the first opportunity he had to look at the plan.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kraus stated at the last meeting there was discussion of having a sidewalk run from Renaissance Drive through to Schaffer Drive. Mr. Raimondi noted that the sidewalk was not reflected in the drawing. Mr. Forbes noted that the bike path/sidewalk is a part of the contingencies for the rezone from R-1 to R-2. Mr. Graniczny concurred. Mr. Forbes stated that the proposed bike path/sidewalk, as discussed at the last meeting, will connect to Lot 18, follow along the street and go all the way to 93rd Avenue and then connect across.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Ryan asked if the bike path/sidewalk was to be composed of asphalt or concrete. Mr. Graniczny stated at the last meeting a concrete bike trail/sidewalk was discussed but this issue was not finalized. Mr. Kil remarked that both concrete and asphalt have been used. Mr. Kil recommended that concrete be used in the Gates of St. John. Mr. Forbes noted that the bike path/sidewalk in the Gates of St. John should be concrete which would help prolong the life of the bike trail. Mr. Ryan stated that a concrete bike path/sidewalk would be his personal preference.

Mr. Ryan asked about the rezone from R-1 to R-2. Mr. Forbes explained that the rezone to R-2 would downsize some of the lots and allow the developer to recoup some of the expenses associated with all of the changes. Mr. Forbes stated originally the plan included a cul-de-sac which he wanted eliminated. Mr. Forbes explained, potentially, if more development occurs nearby a road could be laid that runs through and curves up to Parrish Avenue. Mr. Forbes stated that placement of a cul-de-sac in Willow Ridge, Unit Three, would preclude the possibility of a future road connection.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Raimondi explained that the proposed 18-lot subdivision including the bike path/sidewalks is financially workable for the Petitioner(s). Mr. Ryan commented that he understands the Petitioners’ point of view, but at the same time, the Board must protect the integrity of proposed subdivisions in the Town. Mr. Ryan remarked he is not a fan of small lot sizes.

(General discussion ensued.)

Lot sizes in adjoining lots were discussed. Mr. Raimondi informed the Board that Lots 1 through 7 are close to 20,000 square feet, and Lots 16, 17 and 18 are well over 20,000 square feet.

Mr. Forbes commented that tonight’s meeting was merely a request from the Petitioners to the Board to grant a public hearing for the rezone from R-1 to R-2 in Willow Ridge, Unit Three. Mr. Forbes commented if and/or after the requested rezoning is granted would the Board review the site plan. Mr. Forbes noted that the contingencies are laid out in the zoning.

Mr. Ryan stated if there were no other comments from the Board, he would accept a motion on the request for a zoning change. Mr. Forbes made a motion to authorize publication for public hearing regarding the rezoning of Willow Ridge, Unit Three, from R-1 to R-2. Mr. Kozel seconded the motion.

Mr. Ryan requested a roll call vote. Mr. Nietzel – yes. Steve Kozel – yes. Michael Forbes – yes. Steve Hastings – yes. Tom Redar – yes. Tom Ryan – yes. The motion was carried by roll call vote (6/0).

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil recommended that the Board schedule a public hearing for Willow Ridge, Unit Three, zone change be held on January 8, 2014.

* * * *

Mr. Kil informed the Board that the Town has finally received the replacement letter of credit in the amount of $319,536.80 for Three Springs, Unit Two. He stated that the dollar amount for the letter of credit was recalculated by Mr. Kraus. Mr. Kil stated that the letter of credit includes money to finish the biggest project in Three Springs, Unit Two, the sewer installation.

Mr. Kil requested that the Plan Commission accept the replacement letter of credit for Three Springs in the amount of $319,536.80 and forward a favorable recommendation to the Town Council. Mr. Kil stated if the Board acted favorably on this item, he would be able to place it on the Town Council’s December 12, 2013, agenda.

Mr. Ryan stated he was looking for a motion to forward a favorable recommendation from Board to the Town Council to accept the replacement letter of credit in the amount of $319,536.80 for Three Springs, Unit Two. Mr. Forbes made a motion that the Plan Commission send a favorable recommendation to the Town Council to accept the replacement letter of credit in the amount of $319,536.80, for Three Springs development, Unit Two. Mr. Kozel seconded the motion.

Mr. Ryan requested a roll call vote. Mr. Nietzel – yes. Steve Kozel – yes. Michael Forbes – yes. Steve Hastings – yes. Tom Redar – yes. Tom Ryan – yes. The motion was carried by roll call vote (6/0).

Mr. Redar informed the Board and him and Mr. Kil would be performing a final walk-through on Friday, December 6, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. for Lake Central High School, Sector Five and Sector Two.

(General discussion ensued.)

The lights on the football field at Clark Middle School were discussed. Mr. Volk informed the Board that a couple of neighbors are keeping an eye on the football field light usage. He received one complaint that these lights were on one night and there was no activity. Mr. Volk stated, he can personally vouch for, and that he has been informed that there is a lot of glare from the football field lights.

Mr. Volk stated that Mr. Fryzel, a Gates of St. John resident, informed him that there is noise from the speakers at the field. Mr. Ryan added that when there are night games he can hear from his home the noise from the crowd from the field.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Volk stated that the school is generally conforming to the time schedule for the lights off rule that was established by the Board. Mr. Volk stated that they will continue to monitor this situation.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Mr. Ryan opened the floor to public comment. He called for public comment. There was no public comment. Mr. Ryan closed the floor to public comment.

ADJOURNMENT:

Mr. Ryan called the meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m.

A TRUE COPY

_____________________________________
Susan E. Wright, Recording Secretary
St. John Plan Commission

12-18-2013 Plan Commission Meeting Canceled
Accessibility  Copyright © 2020 Town of St. John, Indiana Accessible Version