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

Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 2014

Meeting Minutes

01-08-2014 Plan Commission

January 8, 2014 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes

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

CALL TO ORDER:

Mr. Michael Forbes, Vice-President, St. John Plan Commission, chaired the meeting in Mr. Tom Ryan’s absence. He called to order the regular meeting, for January 8, 2014, 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 and Michael Forbes. Darwin Nietzel was absent. Staff members present: Kenn Kraus and Steve Kil. Town Council liaison, Gregory Volk, was also present.

Roll call was taken by Recording Secretary, Susan E. Wright, with the following Commissioners present: Michael Forbes, Steve Hastings, Steve Kozel and Tom Redar. Mr. Tom Ryan and Mr. Derwin Nietzel were absent. Staff members: Kenn Kraus was absent. Steve Kil was present. Town Council liaison, Greg Volk was present. The Board’s attorney was not present.

ELECTION OF OFFICERS:

Mr. Forbes noted election of officers for the 2014 Plan Commission was next on the agenda. He asked if there were any nominations for the position of President. Mr. Tom Redar nominated Mr. Michael Forbes to serve as President of the Plan Commission for 2014. Mr. Forbes declined the nomination, and in turn, he nominated Mr. Tom Ryan to serve as President of the Plan Commission for 2014. Mr. Hastings seconded the motion. Mr. Forbes asked if there were any further nominations for president.

Hearing no further nominations for the position of president, Mr. Forbes asked all those in favor of Mr. Tom Ryan’s nomination to signify by saying “Aye.” Ayes – all. Nays – none. The motion carried (4/0).

Mr. Forbes stated he would entertain a nomination for Vice-President of the St. John Plan Commission for 2014. Mr. Tom Redar nominated Mr. Michael Forbes to serve as Vice-President of the Plan Commission for 2014. Mr. Forbes asked if there were any other nominations for the position of Vice-President. There were no further nominations.

Hearing no further nominations for the position of Vice-President, Mr. Forbes asked all those in favor of Mr. Tom Redar’s nomination for Mr. Forbes to serve as Vice-President for 2014 to signify by saying “Aye.” Ayes – all. Nays – none. The motion carried (4/0).

Mr. Forbes stated he would entertain a nomination for the position of Secretary to the Plan Commission for 2014. Mr. Tom Redar nominated Mr. Steve Kozel to serve as Secretary to the Plan Commission for 2014. Mr. Forbes asked if there were any further nominations.

Hearing no further nominations for the position of Secretary to the Plan Commission, Mr. Forbes closed the floor to nominations and asked all those in favor of Mr. Tom Redar’s nomination of Mr. Kozel to serve as Secretary for 2014 to signify by saying “Aye.” Ayes – all. Nays – none. The motion carried (4/0).

APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 4, 2013.

Mr. Forbes noted that the minutes of December 4, 2013, Plan Commission meeting were before the Board for their approval. Mr. Forbes asked if there were any corrections to the meeting minutes. Hearing no corrections, Mr. Forbes stated he would entertain a motion for approval of the meeting minutes from December 4, 2013. “So moved,” by Mr. Steve Kozel. Mr. Redar seconded the motion. Ayes – all. Nays – none. The motion was carried by voice vote (4/0)

PUBLIC HEARING:

A. WILLOW RIDGE – UNIT THREE – PUBLIC HEARING TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM R-1 TO R-2. MIKE GRANICZNY
Mr. Forbes asked for confirmation that all of the publications related to the public hearing were in order. Mr. Kil acknowledged that all of the Proofs of Publication were in order for a Public Hearing on Willow Ridge, Unit Three, Rezone of Property from R-1 to R-2 to be properly conducted.

Mr. Graniczny and Mr. Raimondi appeared before the Board seeking approval for a rezone from R-1 to R-2 for the Preserves of Willow Ridge, Unit Three. He stated that there was discussion about a sidewalk being added to the development from the south end of Willow Ridge to 93rd Avenue and continuing east to Schaffer Drive.

Mr. Raimondi stated that the Petitioners are seeking R-2 zoning in order to make the property economically feasible for the development. He explained 18 lots would be the least amount of lots they could work with. He stated that developer is willing to work with everyone in Town to make the proposed development a beautiful subdivision for everyone.

Mr. Forbes asked the Commission members if they had any questions. The members had no questions. Mr. Forbes opened the floor public comment.

PUBLIC HEARING
KELLY GLISTA, 9330 West 92nd Place
Ms. Glista stated that she lives with her family at the proposed corner of 92nd Place where it currently dead-ends. She noted a proposed road is to be connected to her street. Ms. Glista stated this would make her lot a corner lot.

Ms. Glista read a letter into the record:

“To the Building and Planning Commission and the Town of St. John.

The subject is the remonstrance of proposed Willow Ridge Phase Three, Plan as submitted by Sublime Development, LLC.

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board:

My husband, Byron and I would like to take this opportunity to voice our concern and displeasure at the proposed Willow Ridge, Phase Three, project plan as provided in the registered letter from Sublime Development.

Our home is at the end of 92nd Place which is a dead-end street. This is a very quiet street. Our yard is bordered by trees, marshland and prairie. Deer and other wildlife appear in our yard regularly and we enjoy sharing these views with our kids. This was the ideal site for any homeowner to raise small children without the noise and danger of traffic whizzing by and was the primary consideration for our purchasing our home five years ago.

At the time, the area to the west of our home was indicated on plat survey as marsh land. It was said that the area could not be developed due to the instability of the ground in supporting any structure or road. With that in mind, the purchase was completed and we’ve been very happy there.

Even though the mosquitoes have been known to put up a good fight we’ve incurred the expense of private mosquito abatement in treating the marshy area adjacent to our yard for the last few years, which has also greatly benefitted our neighbors in the increased use of their yards in the spring, summer and early fall.

We have noticed that the survey proposed indicates that a roadway called Willow Lane would be extended from the existing Willow Lane in Phase Two southward to connect to 92nd Place. This, in effect, changes our beautifully serene location into a busy street corner lot with no privacy or protection for our children. We would have to incur the expense of a privacy fence.

We also noticed that the proposed roadway would be directly under our kitchen and bedroom windows, which is distressing, not only for the noise but we would, in effect, “on display for traffic.”

Our future development of our property will need to be changed, which included a possible detached garage, pool, deck and landscaping. These monies would need to be diverted to create privacy, safety, security and soundproofing measures. This hardly seems fair to put on a family that had no desire to live on a corner lot.

We also noticed that the road in the proposed survey appears to cut off land from our property in an effort to make the existing road straight in connection with 92nd Place. There is no easement line on our plat survey allowing for the utility or roadway in this location.

In addition to the road concerns of it being converted from a dead-end road to a corner/access street that doesn’t go through to 93rd Avenue, we are also concerned with the number of vehicles that will pass through this corner on a daily basis, and it’s alarming.

We respectfully request that the petition for an R-2 designation be denied for this area and that we be included in further hearings on the matter of lot layout and road construction for Willow Ridge, Phase Three.

Thank you for your time and consideration.”

LARRY BRISTER, 9212 West 92nd Place
Mr. Brister stated he and his wife have lived at this address since 1978. Mr. Brister asked the Commission if the subdivision had already been approved. Mr. Forbes informed him that the subdivision has not been approved.

Mr. Brister stated that he agreed with Ms. Glista in that he would urge the Commission not to allow the rezone. He stated he has lived on a dead-end street for a long time and he will not like increased traffic. Mr. Brister asked how many units can be placed on an R-2 lot. Mr. Forbes explained the difference between the R-1 and R-2 designation. Mr. Forbes stated the R-2 lots would be a minimum of 15,000 square feet with single-family residences.

Mr. Brister reiterated that he would encourage the Commission not to allow this change.

TOM WHITE, 9159 West 92nd Place
Mr. White informed the Board he has lived at this address with his wife for approximately 22 years. He asked the Commission if it was really necessary to take this action. He asked the developers what was their reason for developing Willow Ridge, Unit Three. Mr. Raimondi responded that the developer wanted to build homes for others to enjoy as Mr. White has enjoyed his home.

Mr. White asked why more homes were needed here. He pointed out that there was vacant land all over St. John that could be developed.

Mr. Forbes directed Mr. White to address his questions and\or comments to the Board. Mr. White asked why homes were being built in this location and why allow a proposed street to go through his subdivision. Mr. White stated that a new family has just moved in his neighborhood with one child and another on the way. He stated with the proposed street going through and traffic going all over the place will make it more dangerous for the little ones.

Mr. Brister stated this development was not needed and he wanted to know why the development was going in. He asked why the access street was needed. Mr. Forbes explained that the Town’s Subdivision Control Ordinance calls for two access exits. Mr. Forbes stated that the property owners wished to develop their property and that is why the subdivision is now under consideration.

Mr. Brister stated that developing property has chased away all of the wild life, and all this because developers want to develop the property. He reiterated that there is no wild life around here. He asked what happened to the “country living?”

Mr. Raimondi informed Mr. Brister that the wetlands will be preserved, a bike path will be installed for children to be able to get to the nearby school. Mr. Raimondi stated that he is sympathetic to the residents. He pointed out that West 92nd Place is not a cul-de-sac, but it was prepared for eventual extension. Mr. Brister disagreed.

Mr. Brister asked why he has never heard about the street extension. Mr.Graniczny stated that the developer is trying to prevent traffic from 93rd Avenue by connecting to 92nd Lane and putting in a bike path. Mr. Graniczny stated that this will not be a main entrance into Willow Ridge.

Mr. Brister reiterated that the neighborhood does not want the new development and they don’t need it in light of the safety of the little ones on the block.

ANTHONY DONNELLY, 9331 West 92nd Place
Mr. Donnelly stated that he is definitely against the rezone and development. He stated he hoped the Commission votes the rezone down. Mr. Donnelly stated that he understands that a landowner wants to develop their property. He asked the Commission if the developer owned the easement and the marshland. Mr. Forbes stated that the developer owns part of the marshland.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes explained that a part of the developer’s property goes into the wetlands, but the wetlands cannot be developed.

Mr. Donnelly asked if the developer owned the property where the proposed street is going in. Mr. Forbes noted that this property belongs to the developers and that is why they are proposing a street there.

Mr. Donnelly stated he has been at his property for almost seven years. He stated that the road dead-ends. Mr. Donnelly stated he does not understand why they are asserting that 92nd Lane was developed to meet with the proposed Willow Road. Mr. Forbes noted that 92nd Place was not designed to be terminated at this point. Mr. Forbes remarked that if the road was designed to terminate at this point it would have been a cul-de-sac. Mr. Forbes explained that the end of 92nd Place denotes the end of Mr. Donnelly’s subdivision. Mr. Forbes stated that the road was stubbed at 92nd Place in anticipation of further development.

Mr. Forbes noted that Willow Lane was a part of Willow Ridge and there is an easement that runs all the way to 93rd Avenue from previous plans. Mr. Kil concurred. Mr. Kil explained that when developers come in to develop their property, they terminate the road at the edge of their property boundary because they cannot build a road on land that they don’t own.

Mr. Donnelly asked what will happen with the protected wetlands that the Army Corps of Engineers asserts a road cannot be built on. Mr. Forbes acknowledged that there is a wetland in this location but there is an area around the wetland that is suitable for building. Mr. Forbes stated that he does not know who supplied Mr. Donnelly with the information he had. Mr. Forbes noted that the Commission hears this a lot, someone is looking to buy a home and the realtor will say ‘Look at all this great space you’ve got; nobody will ever build there.’ Mr. Forbes stated that is not the case. He stated in this instance, at the time that Mr. Donnelly’s subdivision came in, the planners that sat on the Commission determined that at some point in time 92nd Place was going to connect to something and that is why the road is terminated.

Mr. Donnelly asked what goes into the Commission’s decision. He asked if the Commission could accept the subdivision as proposed or make changes. Mr. Forbes noted that changes to the development could be required by the Commission.

Mr. Donnelly asked if the Commission could make the developers change the location of the proposed road connection. He asked what factors the Commission members consider in making such a decision. Mr. Donnelly stated he is just one of the homeowners who lives on the dead-end street and he does not want to see it changed.

Mr. Forbes stated when he looks at connections and access into a subdivision, he considers it from the aspect of emergency access for the Fire Department, Police Department and ambulances. Mr. Forbes explained that there is a very roundabout way to get into the subdivision with only one entrance, which makes it problematic. Mr. Forbes stated that although the homeowners do not like the connection it is actually a benefit to them. Mr. Forbes acknowledged that there will be more traffic, but the homeowners will have better access to all of the roads and different ways in and out of town.

Mr. Donnelly stated he has been taking care of an easement for the last seven years. He asked who will care for it when the proposed bike path is put in. Mr. Donnelly informed the Commission that the easement he is referring to is adjacent to his house.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil explained that the way the proposed subdivision is laid out and the location of the property boundaries were what determined where the road would go. He stated that decisions where Willow Lane could be placed included the connection of 92nd Lane. Mr. Kil stated that the only other thing that the Commission could potentially require the developers to do is to take Willow Lane and put it right into 93rd Avenue, across from Renaissance. Mr. Kil stated that the 93rd Avenue connection would give everyone access straight up.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Donnelly referred to the approximate 100X200 parcel that is “pretty much an easement.” Mr. Forbes stated that this parcel has not been discussed. He stated that the parcel could be deeded to the Town or to subdivision’s the Homeowners Association (if one exists). Mr. Kil stated that this matter would be discussed in the subdivision layout stages. He reminded the public that tonight’s public hearing was strictly covering the zoning change from R-1 to R-2. Mr. Kil stated, according to the preliminary discussion that has been had, the easement near Mr. Donnelly’s house would remain. Mr. Kil noted that the bike path is not close to Mr. Donnelly’s residence; the bike path is proposed for the west side of the subdivision.

(Mr. Donnelly and Mr. Kil examined documents.)

Mr. Donnelly stated he thinks the road is a “horrible idea.” He stated it is very difficult to have this happen to residents when they have been used to living a certain way for so many years. Mr. Donnelly stated that when he drove down 92nd Lane seven years ago and pulled into the driveway and saw the dead-end street and the beautiful house and easement he was sold. Mr. Donnelly stated that whether the road was proposed years ago or not he does not agree with it.

KELLY GLISTA, 9330 West 92nd Place

Ms. Glista stated that on the drawing that was provided to her, the proposed road, when put up to scale, does not look like her property line is being honored as it is drawn on the plat of survey that she has in her possession. Ms. Glista asked if she was going to have a road ten feet under her bedroom window.

Ms. Glista stated that the road looks awfully close to her house and she is scared to death to think of having traffic whizzing by. She stated that the end of her street is being turned into a corner lot. She stated that vehicles will either be slowing down in front of her kitchen window or accelerating past her bedroom window or vice-versa. Ms. Glista stated that this will “create a ton of disruption and ton of noise.”

Ms. Glista stated she works in the city and drives for an hour and a half each way to come and live in St. John’s beautiful, serene atmosphere. She stated it is very upsetting to have 92nd Lane turned into another street corner.

Ms. Glista asked what would be put in place. Would privacy be offered to her family? Sound abatement? Stop signs or speed bumps to keep the Willow Ridge community and people living north of Willow Ridge from using the proposed corner as a speedway?

Ms. Glista stated she would like to know if safety precautions will be put in place. She stated she wants to know that her family will be protected. Ms. Glista stated that she has a three-year-old, a dog, teenagers and privacy. She stated that this development is threatening all of this and it’s not fair.

Mr. Kil remarked that Ms. Glista’s house would be approximately 35’ feet off of the curb. For clarification, Mr. Forbes remarked that the road would not be put on her property.

Ms. Glista commented that the direct south line of Willow Lane cuts through her property according to the drawing she was provided. Mr. Kil explained, without a scale right in front of him, it looks as though her house is approximately 35’ off of the curb.

JOSEPH E. DICKELMAN, 9258 West 92nd Place
Mr. Dickelman stated he lived in St. John for approximately 38 years. He stated he “knows St. John very well.” Mr. Dickelman asked if the Town is providing financial help to the developers in putting in the road connection. He asked whether new taxes would affect the subdivision.

Mr. Dickelman stated that when there is a heavy rain the water comes all the way up to his house. He stated that there had better be proper drainage and sewage so this doesn’t happen. Mr. Dickelman stated he has pictures of the water problems. He wanted to make the developers well aware of the drainage. Mr. Forbes commented that the Town has stringent rules for the subdivision development and especially the drainage. Mr. Dickelman stated he was in construction and “you can’t fool me.”

Mr. Dickelman asked how the residents are going to be able to sell their homes. He asked the Commission members if they thought the residents would have a hard time selling their homes. Mr. Forbes stated he did not believe so. Mr. Dickelman disagreed with Mr. Forbes.

Mr. Dickelman stated he knows construction. He stated he knows how and where people like to live. Mr. Dickelman stated he is telling the Commission what people prefer and how they like to live. He stated when these people go to sell their houses they will have to take a huge loss.

Mr. Dickelman stated he knows a little bit more than the developers know. He stated that a lot of people know who he is.

Mr. Forbes answered Mr. Dickelman’s first question, the Town is not participating in the development at all, financially or otherwise. Mr. Dickelman asked if the developer will be taking entire financial responsibility for everything that happens in the proposed development. Mr. Forbes replied, “Absolutely.”

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Dickelman wanted to know if a contract would be written to hold the developer responsible for defective work in the event that any of the residents’ homes flood. Mr. Forbes stated that there would be no contract. Mr. Forbes stated that these issues are addressed in the Subdivision Control Ordinance. He noted that the developers cannot negatively impact the surrounding landowners.

Mr. Kil explained that the development has to be engineered. He stated if anything is done during the course of the construction that has a negative impact on the existing property around the development they will be forced to take corrective action. Mr. Dickelman asked if there were fines. Mr. Kil responded that there is no provision in existence wherein a developer can be fined. Mr. Dickelman opined that if negative impact occurs the developers should be fined. Mr. Dickelman stated, in his experience in construction, if he did something wrong there was a fine. Mr. Kil repeated that the Town has no provision to fine the developer, and he does not have the ability to fine them.

Mr. Dickelman stated he is bringing these issues up now to make the Commission members aware of them. Mr. Dickelman stated he is against the developers. Mr. Kil explained that any developer who develops next to existing property and creates a negative impact would be required to take corrective action.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Dickelman stated there is clay in St. John and the developers may put a road in and it could shift due to the clay.

Mr. Dickelman stated his grandchildren will be affected by the proposed road connection, and he wants them to be protected also. He stated that there will be “holy hell” from him if there are no safety precautions (bumps and stops) at the road connection. Mr. Dickelman stated if anyone is hurt there will be liability and he has one “hell of a lawyer.”

Mr. Dickelman stated he wanted to prepare everyone with his questions that no one else thought to bring up. He stated he may have more questions later.

For the record, Mr. Kil stated he wanted it to be very clear that there will be no speed bumps installed in the development. He stated there is not a chance of a speed bump being put on a public road under any set of circumstances. Mr. Dickelman asked if there would be stop signs. Mr. Kil stated there would likely be stop signs.

(General discussion ensued.)

Stop signs at Willow Ridge and Parrish Avenue were discussed.

Mr. Kil stated he would have the Police Department inspect this corner.

Mr. Dickelman asked if all of the trees will be removed. Mr. Kil explained that the only trees that are removed are for the placement of the utilities and the road. He stated that no more trees are taken than is necessary.

The tree removal issue was discussed.

KELLY GLISTA, 9330 West 92nd Place
Ms. Glista asked what kind of easement would be on a 94’ lot off of her back property line. Mr. Kil stated that the Town’s ordinance sets forth a minimum side yard requirement of 8’. Mr. Kil stated on a 94’ lot it could possibly be 10’, but the minimum side yard requirement is 8’.

Mr. Kil stated that the homes to be built by Sublime Development will be comparable to Willow Ridge, Phase Two, fairly large homes.

(General discussion ensued.)

Lot sizes, side yard requirements and sidewalks were discussed.

Mr. Kil assured Ms. Glista that no developer would be able to get on her property and remove trees. Mr. Kil explained that without knowing where the rear yard inlets will need to be placed, he could not tell her which lots will have easements and which ones will not. Mr. Kil stated he was almost certain there will be a rear yard easement running across everything. He stated that there will be side yard easements running through the lots. Mr. Kil explained this all depends on how the engineering is laid out.

Ms. Glista asked when these hearings would be held. Mr. Kil informed Ms. Glista that the meetings, subdivision approval, were tentatively set for March or April. Mr. Kil explained that the adjacent residents will be notified about the subdivision approval.

Mr. Forbes noted that there will be another public hearing on the subdivision. Mr. Kil stated that after the engineering is done they will know where all of the inlets are located, and where the storm water will go, among other things.

Ms. Glista asked if the development would contain rental properties. Mr. Kil stated in the community of St. John, an R-2 designation means a single family home. Mr. Kil stated that this development will not have duplexes.

(General discussion ensued.)

Ms. Glista asked about the easement running adjacent to Mr. Donnelly’s residence. She asked the Commission if the developer has purchased this parcel and if they would be responsible for maintaining it. Mr. Glista stated that Mr. Donnelly and others currently maintain this parcel and it appears as a “lawn-looking type of property.” Mr. Kil stated that the developer may not want this parcel and may give it to Mr. Donnelly if he wants it.

Mr. Donnelly asked if the developer had a comment on this. Mr. Forbes stated that this easement subject has not been discussed in depth yet, but there are a couple of options. Mr. Kil stated that he could not speak for the developer nor answer as to what will happen with this parcel at this time. Mr. Forbes stated that this matter would be discussed at the subdivision phase of the development.

Mr. Forbes stated that the Town has pretty strict rules about building, drainage and roads. Mr. Forbes stated that Mr. Tom Redar, Town Building Inspector, is “one of the toughest guys in Lake County. He knows the building code forward and backwards.” Mr. Donnelly asked if the developer has built in the area before.

Mr. Graniczny responded that he has built a home the Gates of St. John, Wysteria Gate. He stated most of their building has been in the state of Illinois. Mr. Donnelly asked if the Commission would check into the developers’ background.

Mr. Forbes stated if there are problems with the Town’s builders and developers “we’re all over them.”

Mr. Raimondi stated he wanted to make some comments. Mr. Forbes stated that Mr. Raimondi would be allowed to make comments after the public hearing is concluded.

KEN SCHNEIDER, 9001 Parrish Avenue
Mr. Schneider informed the Board that he is the representative for the Willow Ridge Homeowners Association, which backs up to the proposed subdivision. Mr. Schneider stated the homeowners would like to see the R-1 lots maintained to match what currently exists. Mr. Schneider noted even in Lancer Estates the lots are designated R-1.

Mr. Schneider noted in the event the zoning designation is changed to R-2, there are six lots, Numbers 9 through 14 that are less than 15,000 square feet, which would require another variance.

Mr. Schneider asked if the proposed development’s covenants could be designated to match Willow Ridge, Phase Two, covenants in order to maintain integrity for the housing.

Mr. Schneider questioned the decision why the furthest north east/west street dead-ends at the present time. He asked if there are plans for this street or are there wetlands. He asked if there was a possibility that this road could go through. Mr. Forbes stated that there is a possibility that this road could go through.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Schneider noted his concern about the spillway from the pond, which drains into the start of a designated ditch. Mr. Schneider asked that this drainage be maintained when the developer moves to work on this phase of the subdivision. Mr. Kil stated he knows what Mr. Schneider is referring to and the Town is on top of this matter.

Mr. Schneider asked where the drainage for the development is going to go. He stated, in the past, revisions to the berm were considered. He stated that the pond at willow Ridge, Phase Two, is not sized to take any of the water. Mr. Forbes commented, very preliminarily, the drainage is scheduled to go south.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Schneider informed the Commission that he is exercising his due diligence to protect all of the residents in Willow Ridge, Phase Two.

LARRY BRISTER, 9212 West 92nd Place
Mr. Brister informed the Board that his neighbors, the Whites, did not receive a letter related to the public hearing. He stated they only knew about this matter because he called them. Mr. Kil explained that homeowners within 300’ of the proposed development are notified by mail.

(General discussion ensued.)

KELLY GLISTA, 9330 West 92nd Place
Ms. Glista asked if her taxes would be impacted by turning the end of 92nd Place into a corner lot that would be accessible to Willow Ridge, Phase Three. She asked if she would be forced to comply with the Town’s landscaping rules. Mr. Forbes remarked, “you’re grandfathered in.” Mr. Kil remarked that you are only taxed on what you own.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil explained that if a homeowner’s residence “stays as is” without adding any area or additions and/or a need to be reassessed, the proposed subdivision will not impact Willow Ridge, Phase Two.

BYRON GLISTA, 9330 West 92nd Place
Mr. Glista noted that the drainage would be run to the south where the wetlands are located. He stated that when there is a heavy rain, he has had water up in his yard two to three feet deep. He asked where the water was going to go.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil informed Mr. Glista that there was a collapsed culvert on Deodor Street that backed up. Mr. Kil stated that the culvert has since been repaired with all new piping through Lake Hills down into the St. John ditch.

(General discussion ensued.)

Water issues were discussed. Mr. Kil stated that when the engineering is completed there would be more information on the location of inlets and catch basins. Mr. Kil stated that the drainage issue will be carefully watched.

JOSEPH E. DICKELMAN, 9258 West 92nd Place
Mr. Dickelman stated that the water had backed up the side of the hill almost to his house. He stated that this could happen again.
TOM WHITE, 9159 West 92nd Place
Mr. White addressed Mr. Forbes and noted earlier in the meeting it was explained that he did not get a letter because he was not 300’ away and it didn’t affect him. Mr. Forbes disagreed with Mr. White’s comment. Mr. White stated, “You said it didn’t affect us.”

Mr. Forbes again explained that, by law, if a resident is not within 300’ of a proposed development they are not notified by mail. Mr. White remarked that the proposed development will affect every homeowner on the street. Mr. Forbes concurred.

Mr. White stated that it was phrased that the homes built by Sublime Development will be “nice, upscale homes.” He opined that that this comment makes it sound like the decision has already been made. Mr. Forbes explained that he was just relaying information about things that he has seen. Mr. White commented that it was not the way it sounded.

(General discussion ensued.)

MARY RYAN, 9050 Willow Lane
Ms. Ryan stated her home will be adjacent to the proposed four lots that will be rezoned to R-2. She stated she hoped that St. John would stick with the R-1 zoning designation.

Ms. Ryan states she has been in St. John for 20 years. She stated that the older areas of St. John, where the R-1 zoning has been maintained, are “bigger, prettier, no fences, rolling hills.”

She reiterated her wish that the Town would stick with the R-1 designation instead of getting smaller and smaller like Olthof and cookie-cutter like.

(General discussion ensued.)

Ms. Ryan asked about how far the easement will extend on the berm. She noted this area is where the water does come out. She stated her husband and her are constantly removing logs from this area to make sure there is good flow. Mr. Kil commented that Lots 8, 9,10 and 11 will have a rear yard easement. Mr. Kil stated depending on what is in the easement will determine the size of the easement.

Ms. Ryan requested that the developer be required to adhere to the same covenants of Willow Ridge, Phase Two. She stated that she does not want to see all of the wood, stockade fences that are seen in a lot of areas.

JOSEPH E. DICKELMAN, 9258 West 92nd Place
Mr. Dickelman stated that it will be “very imperative” that once the land is developed that the water lines are in the easement and not on the property. He stated that this mistake happened to him.

Mr. Kil assured Mr. Dickelman that there is not a chance that a water main will be installed that is not in a right of way or in an easement.

The location of the sidewalk was discussed. Mr. Forbes stated that the sidewalk topic/location would be determined at subdivision plat review.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Dickelman requested that a 20 m.p.h. speed limit sign be put in place for the proposed road. Mr. Forbes stated that all of the signage will be reviewed by the Chief of Police; he stated that the appropriate signage will be put in place.

Streetlights were discussed. Mr. Kil stated that the Town’s ordinance requires one of two things, a decorative pole or an aluminum spun pole.

TOM AND CRAIG ELDER
Mr. Tom Elder stated that he and his brother, Craig, own a significant amount of property on the west side of the proposed development. Mr. Elder explained that his grandfather bought all of this property in 1951. He stated and his brother have run around on the property all of their lives.

Mr. Elder stated he has seen change, and change is good. Mr. Elder stated his only concern is water drainage. He stated he is to the south and water drains right on the property into the lowlands.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil stated it will be difficult to discuss the water flow more specifically until the property has been engineered. Mr. Kil stated that the Town’s engineer is well-acquainted with this watershed and they will keep a close eye on it.

The culvert on Deodor Street was discussed.

Mr. Forbes called for additional public comment. There was no further public comment. Mr. Forbes closed the public hearing and brought the matter back before the Board.

Mr. Forbes asked the developers if they had any comments. Mr. Raimondi stated that they appreciated all of the comments and concerns. He stated that Sublime Development is a small business. Mr. Raimondi stated they plan on building on the proposed lots. He stated that homes will be in the $450-$600,000 price range, and no less than 3600 square feet plus.

Mr. Raimondi stated that the covenants will be as strict or stricter than Willow Ridge, Phase Two. Mr. Raimondi explained that the letters that were sent out to adjacent homeowners (300’) were sent pursuant to a list provided by the Assessor’s Office. He stated that notices were also published in The Times in order to notify nearby homeowners.

Mr. Raimondi stated most of the lots are closer to 20,000 square feet. He stated that the developer has no desire to push this issue any further.

Mr. Raimondi stated that the drainage concerns will be addressed by professional engineers. He stated that if there are currently drainage issues he would hope that these would be corrected by their development. Mr. Raimondi stated that the developer will definitely not put anyone in a position to devalue their property. He stated it is the developers’ wish to form a good working relationship with everyone who is present.

Mr. Forbes asked the Board if they had any further comments. The Board members had no further comments.

Mr. Forbes asked the developers if they have reviewed the covenants from Willow Ridge, Phase Two. Mr. Raimondi and Mr. Graniczny acknowledged that they have seen Willow Ridge, Phase Two, covenants.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil noted that Mr. Raimondi acknowledged that one of the contingencies of the rezoning could be that Willow Ridge, Unit Three, covenants will meet or exceed those of Willow Ridge, Phase Two. Mr. Raimondi acknowledged that this was the goal.

Mr. Forbes asked the Board members for any additional questions, thoughts or concerns. There was no further comment from the Board.

Mr. Forbes stated he would entertain a motion on the Preserves of Willow Ridge, Unit Three, on the rezone from R-1 to R-2, to send a favorable/unfavorable or no recommendation to the Town Council including a contingency to comply with and/or meet or exceed the covenants of Willow Ridge, Unit Two.

Mr. Kozel made motion to accept the rezone from R-1 to R-2 for the Preserves of Willow Ridge, Phase Three, with the contingency that the covenants of Willow Ridge, Phase Two, are followed and/or Willow Ridge, Unit Three, meet or exceed the covenants of Willow Ridge, Phase Two. Mr. Kozel also referenced the findings of fact in the motion. Mr. Hastings seconded the motion.

Mr. Forbes requested all those in favor signify by saying “Aye.” Ayes – all. Nays – none. The motion was carried by voice vote (4/0).

Mr. Forbes noted that this motion was merely for a rezone of the property. He informed the audience that there will be significant discussion on the infrastructure, drainage and all other concerns.

Mr. Forbes explained that notification would be made prior to “primary plat approval.” Mr. Forbes stated all the details will be made available at the time of the next public hearing.

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 stated he would entertain a motion to adjourn. “So moved,” by Mr. Kozel. Mr. Redar seconded the motion. The motion was carried by voice vote. Ayes -- all. Nays – none.

(The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.)

A TRUE COPY

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

01-22-2014 Plan Commission

January 22, 2014 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes

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

CALL TO ORDER:

Mr. Michael Forbes called to order the St. John Plan Commission, study session, of January 22, 2014, 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: Steve Hastings, Steve Kozel and Michael Forbes. Tom Ryan, Tom Redar and Derwin Nietzel were absent. Staff members present: Kenn Kraus and Steve Kil.

(Mr. Tom Ryan enters room.)

Mr. Tom Ryan arrived at the meeting after roll call and his presence was noted; he chaired the meeting from the point of his arrival forward.

NEW BUSINESS:

A. GATES OF ST. JOHN – GARY TORRENGA, ENGINEER – GATES OF ST. JOHN, UNIT 1E -- JOHN LOTTON, DEVELOPER – BRIAN BOOMSMA

Mr. Gary Torrenga, Torrenga Engineering, appeared before the Board on behalf of John Lotton and Brian Boomsma. Mr. Torrenga stated he was present to talk about the Gates of St. John, Unit 1E, and the slight change that has been made to the same. He explained that Gates of St. John, Unit 1E, has always been multifamily units.

Mr. Torrenga stated that considerable change in direction has been made by many developments since 2007. Mr. Torrenga stated that Mr. Lotton and Mr. Boomsma have discovered what products sell after having developed the west end of the Gates of St. John.

Mr. Torrenga passed out to the Board a copy of the originally approved plans, and also a set of completed plans with minor changes. He stated that there are no big changes, just an increase in the number of proposed units.

Mr. Torrenga stated that the southeast area of Unit 1E has always contained multifamily units. He explained that there has been a moderate change in the street configuration northeast of Unit 1E, just north of the cul-de-sac. This change has resulted in a slight increase in the number of proposed units from 72 to 84-85 units.

Mr. Torrenga stated a street has been placed between the fire station and the water tower.

Mr. Torrenga referred to the new plan as “the Gates of St. John, redesign of balance of Unit 1.” He stated that everything not included in the proposed plan has already been built. Mr. Torrenga noted that the storm sewers exist along the northern boundary of the parcel near the water tower. He noted that no detention would be necessary here because the detention has already been provided in the Gates of St. John subdivision. Mr. Torrenga acknowledged that the developer must ensure that the water from the proposed balance of GOSJ, Unit 1E, is directed to the existing 27” storm sewer in the northeast corner of GOSJ, Unit 1.

Mr. Torrenga referred to Page 2.0. He stated the rectangular layout has been preserved but modified. He stated that the proposed street configurations are more conducive to the product that the developer intends to sell.

Mr. Torrenga noted that 109th Avenue contains large easements which will be used to create berms in order to block the proposed units from traffic on 109th Avenue. Mr. Torrenga stated that the proposed units are slightly smaller due to changing demographics.

Mr. Torrenga stated that the biggest change in the proposed plan is the former cul-de-sac at the northeast corner of the “old Gates, Unit 1.” He stated that a road that will connect all the way to the north between the water tower and the fire station in lieu of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Torrenga stated that this change will add a second entrance to the subdivision. Mr. Torrenga stated that all of the Town’s zoning codes will be adhered to with the proposed changes in the plan for the balance of Unit 1E.

Mr. Torrenga referred to Page 3, the drainage and grading plan for the proposed units. Mr. Torrenga noted the grading along 109th Avenue which will contain the proposed berms that will range from five feet to seven feet high, and the berms will be landscaped. Mr. Torrenga stated no water will be sent to adjacent properties. He stated that the water from this are will be sent to the 27” sewer through a 24” sewer located to the east of Lot 23. Mr. Torrenga stated that the storm water system will operate substantially as it always has.

Mr. Torrenga referred to Page 4, the sanitary and water that will service the proposed units. Mr. Torrenga stated that the sanitary service is punched south of West 107th Place and west of Scarlett Oak Drive which will be tied into. The sanitary will also be extended along West 107th Place slightly east of Lot 27. Mr. Torrenga explained that the water main exists along the east side of Scarlett Oak Drive and will continue in a loop. The water main also exists along the north side of 107th Place and will continue there.

Mr. Torrenga stated that storm water pollution prevention plans will have to be produced contingent upon the approval of the Board.

Mr. Torrenga directed the Board’s attention to Lot 14; he stated that there is a possibility that this unit will be changed to a three-unit lot. In the event this becomes a reality, it will be proposed in the final plans.

Additionally, Mr. Torrenga stated that, pursuant to previous discussion related to the curb radius near the fire department, he will change the radius of the curbs so that the fire trucks are able to negotiate the corners with no problem.

Mr. Torrenga asked for feedback from the Board regarding the proposed changes to the southeast aspect of Gates of St. John, Unit 1E.

Mr. Lotton informed the Board that the product that Mr. Spoolstra and Mr. Boomsma are currently building will be the same product that is carried through to the completion of the proposed changes to GOSJ, Unit 1E.

Mr. Forbes asked if the water lines along driveways of Units 2, 3, 4, 12 and 13 were straight lines that terminated. Mr. Torrenga stated that there would be fire hydrants at the end of the lines.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes noted that even though the density has gone up, the proposed plan seems more open. He remarked that the berm and landscaping are a positive addition. Mr. Torrenga remarked that the space is being utilized more sensibly.

Mr. Kil directed that the entire road profile be completed at the commencement of the project. Mr. Lotton acknowledged and concurred with Mr. Kil’s statement.

Mr. Ryan asked about the square footage and prices of the proposed two and three units buildings. Mr. Lotton stated that the two units would be approximately 2000 square feet or a little over, and the three unit residences would range from 1600 square foot in the middle to 2000 square feet on the end. Mr. Lotton stated that the entry-level units would start at approximately $260,000.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Torrenga stated that if there were no objections to the proposed project he would complete the plans. Mr. Kil stated that the Petitioner could anticipate a public hearing in March.

ADJOURNMENT:

Mr. Ryan adjourned the meeting.

(The meeting was adjourned at 7:37 p.m.)

A TRUE COPY

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

02-19-2014 Plan Commission

February 19, 2014 Plan Commission Special Meeting Minutes

Tom Ryan, President Steve Hastings Attorney David Austgen
Mike Forbes, Vice-President Darwin Nietzel Kenn Kraus, Town Engineer
Steve Kozel, Secretary   Steve Kil, Town Manager
Tom Radar    

CALL TO ORDER:

Mr. Forbes chaired the Plan Commission's special meeting in Mr. Tom Ryan's absence. He called to order the St. John Plan Commission, special meeting, of February 19, 2014, 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: Michael Forbes, Steve Kozel, Steve Hastings, Tom Redar and Derwin Nietzel. Tom Ryan was absent. Staff members present: Steve Kil. Mr. Kenn Kraus was absent. The Board's attorney was absent. Greg Volk, Town Council liaison, was also present.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES OF JANUARY 8, 2014

Mr. Forbes noted that the minutes of January 8, 2014, were before the Board for their approval. He asked if there were any questions on the minutes for January 8, 2014. The Board had no questions.

Mr. Forbes stated he would entertain a motion to approve the Plan Commission meeting minutes for January 8, 2014, as submitted. "So moved," by Mr. Kozel. Mr. Hastings seconded the motion. The motion was carried by voice vote (5/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

NEW BUSINESS:

A. GATES OF ST. JOHN - UNIT 1E - REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING - JOHN LOTTON
Mr. Lotton was not present. Mr. Forbes noted that Mr. Lotton was requesting a public hearing for the Gates of St. John, Unit 1E. He stated that this matter had been significantly discussed with Mr. Gary Torrenga, Torrenga Engineering, at the last study session. Mr. Forbes stated that he did not believe there were any outstanding issues related to the Gates of St. John, Unit 1E.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes noted that one of the proposed changes to the development would be two and three unit dwellings in lieu of four unit dwellings. He stated that the new layout with the two and three unit dwellings looks much more open even though more units have been added.

The streets have been reconfigured and the cul-de-sac was eliminated. An east/west street running to Sage Brook will be installed. This street will give the fire department a second access point into the subdivision.

Mr. Kil recommended the public hearing be scheduled for April 2, 2014.

Mr. Forbes stated he would entertain a motion to authorize Mr. John Lotton to advertise for a public hearing for the Gates of St. John, Unit 1E. "So moved," by Mr. Tom Redar. Mr. Nietzel seconded the motion. The motion was carried by voice vote (5/ 0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

B. GREYSTONE DEVELOPMENT --- REZONE --- REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING --- JACK SLAGER.
Mr. Slager, representative for Schilling Development, was not present. Mr. Forbes noted that the Petitioner was requesting authorization for a public hearing. Mr. Kil stated that he has requested elevations on the Greystone Development but has not yet received this information.

Mr. Forbes opined that the Greystone Development had issues that needed to be discussed further at a study session. Mr. Redar concurred. Mr. Kil recommended scheduling Greystone Development for the March study session.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes stated he would entertain a motion to deny the request to advertise for public hearing for Greystone Development. "So moved," by Mr. Tom Redar. Mr. Kozel seconded the motion. The motion was approved by voice vote (5/ 0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

C. CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT - RENAISSANCE, UNIT 5.
Mr. Forbes noted that the Certificate for Amendment for Renaissance, Unit 5 was before the Board for their consideration. He asked Mr. Kil to elaborate on this matter. Mr. Kil refreshed the Board's recollection that Renaissance, Unit 5, for unknown reasons, contain two 30' building lines. He stated that the building lines should be one 30' building line and one 20' building line.

Mr. Kil stated that the Certificate of Amendment for Renaissance, Unit 5, would change the 30' side yard building line to a 20' side yard building lines. Mr. Kil remarked that Renaissance builds quite large homes and in order to fit the residence on the lots the building line must be changed.

The duplicate address was discussed by the Board. Mr. Kil noted that the duplicate address would be taken care of.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes asked if there were any questions on the Certificate of Amendment for Renaissance, Unit 5. The Board had no questions.

Mr. Forbes stated he would entertain a motion to approve the Certificate of Amendment for Renaissance, Unit 5. "So moved," by Mr. Hastings. Mr. Kozel seconded the motion. The motion was carried by voice vote (5/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Mr. Forbes opened the floor for public comment. He called for public comment. There was no public comment. Mr. Forbes closed the floor to public comment.

ADJOURNMENT:

Mr. Forbes stated he would entertain a motion to adjourn. "So moved," by Mr. Kozel. Mr. Hastings seconded the motion. The motion was carried by voice vote (5 / 0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

(The meeting was adjourned at 7:13 p.m.)

A TRUE COPY

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

03-19-2014 Plan Commission

March 19, 2014 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 St. John Plan Commission, study session, of March 19, 2014, at 7:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL:

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

NEW BUSINESS:

A. GATES OF ST. JOHN – ONE LOT SUBDIVISION – TIM AND ANGELA MASON
Mr. Ryan noted the first item on the agenda was a one lot subdivision in the Gates of St. John belonging to Tim and Angela Mason.

Mr. and Mrs. Tim Mason appeared before the Board. Mr. Mason explained to the Board that as of December, 2013, he purchased Lot 760, adjacent to their residence and they would like to merge the two lots. He stated that he had an individual survey for each lot but no survey for the configuration of both lots.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Mason stated that they would like to merge to two lots in order to eliminate any easements and extend their yard. Mr. Ryan asked what Petitioners’ intention was for the lot. Mr. Mason stated that they want to extend their lot and add landscaping and grass.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Mason stated that he wants to merge the two lots because he is worried about the spacing between the two lots. He believes if there are any easements between the two lots it will cause problems when he is ready to put in a pool and he does not want to have to worry about spacing.

Mr. Forbes remarked that there is an eight foot utility easement that runs between the two properties. He asked Mr. Kraus if there were utilities present in the easement. Mr. Kraus stated that he would have to check.

Mr. Forbes stated he has no problem merging the two lots, but if there are utilities present in the easement Petitioners will not be able to build over it. Mr. Mason stated he had no intention of building over an easement.

Mr. Ryan asked if the Petitioners intended to build a garage or shed on the easement. Mr. Mason stated he has no intention of building a garage or shed on the lot.

Mr. Redar noted that the Petitioner would be responsible for extending the sidewalk. Mr. Mason concurred.

Mr. Forbes stated that there are still a few steps that Petitioners would have to take in order to accomplish the merging of the lots. Mr. Kraus stated he would review the plans for the location of the sewer/water utilities and also check with NIPSCO and Comcast.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Hastings noted that the Petitioners should take a trip to the county to ascertain if merging the two lots would lower their taxes.

Mr. Kil informed the Petitioners that the matter would be scheduled for the regular Board meeting in April and, at that time, they could request authorization for a public hearing at the regular meeting in May.

B. THREE SPRINGS DEVELOPMENT --- REZONE --- ATTORNEY GLENN PATTERSON
Mr. Ryan called for representatives of Three Springs Development. Attorney Glenn Patterson, Lucas, Holcomb & Medrea, appeared before the Board on behalf of Three Springs Development. Doug Rettig and Dave Barrick were also present. He stated that the developer has been working on Three Springs, Phase Three, the last and final phase.

Mr. Patterson stated that a Petition for Zoning Map Amendment has been filed for Phase Three. He stated that the rezoning is a bit complicated. He directed the Board’s attention to the second page of the Petitioner’s application, Exhibit A, and a portion of the parcel currently zoned R-2.

Attorney Patterson stated that this portion of the parcel was zoned R-2 in connection with Phase Two, even though the parcel was not included in Phase Two. Mr. Patterson stated that everything below the line he indicated on the drawing is zoned R-1 and was zoned R-1 with the Town’s annexation of the property.

Attorney Patterson stated that the Petitioner is proposing a zoning ordinance that will rezone the upper part of the parcel into R-1. He stated that the reason that the rezone is encompassing the entire parcel is because there is a question as to exactly where the break is between R-2 and R-1.

Mr. Patterson directed the Board’s attention the drawing labeled “R-3.” He stated that the R-3 parcel is currently zoned as R-1, and Petitioner is requesting R-3 zoning because they are proposing duplexes for this portion of the parcel.

Attorney Patterson noted that the sketch development plan that was passed out earlier is the exact sketch plan that was in front of Plan Commission study sessions in the summer of 2013. He noted that the sketch plan received relatively favorable reviews at that time.

Attorney Patterson stated that zoning commitments proposed by Petitioner are nothing more than a narrative of what is drawn on the sketch plan. The density proposed in the zoning commitment is exactly as reflected on the sketch plan. He stated that the lot areas, widths and building lines are exactly as shown on the sketch plan with no changes from what was presented last summer.

Mr. Patterson stated that Paragraphs One and Four are statements of Petitioner’s intention to develop Three Springs, Phase Three, in a manner that is consistent architecturally and price-wise with Phases One and Two of Three Springs.

Mr. Patterson noted that “Exhibit E” is the zoning commitment for the proposed R-3 zoning. He reiterated that the zoning commitment is a narrative of what is reflected on the sketch plan. Attorney Patterson stated that Petitioner is being faithful to the sketch plan as it was presented last summer.

(General discussion ensued.)

Attorney Patterson noted that this parcel is a very unique piece of property with a lot of hardships in terms of development. He noted a pipeline easement, a Com Ed easement with high tension wires, railroad tracks to the west and a retention pond to the north.

Attorney Patterson noted the presence of Mr. Doug Rettig, project engineer. He stated that Mr. Rettig could answer any questions related to the subdivision process.

Attorney Patterson stated that Petitioner is requesting placement on the April regular meeting agenda to request authorization for a public hearing in May.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Ryan noted some of the lot sizes were only 50’ across. Mr. Rettig noted that the smallest is a 60’ building line. Mr. Rettig explained that the building line is typically where the lot widths are measured and all are at a 60’ minimum.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Rettig stated that the Petitioner is proposing cottage homes, somewhat smaller than conventional homes and targeted at empty nesters.

Mr. Ryan directed the Petitioner to communicate with Mr. Kil and the Town’s attorney.

C. EENIGENBURG WATER --- REVISION TO SITE PLAN --- JOHN EENIGENBURG
Mr. Eenigenburg appeared before the Board seeking a revision to the site plan for Eenigenburg Water. He stated that the Board directed him to locate a salt and water drive-thru on the north side of the building. He asked the Board what their reasoning was for locating the drive-thru on the north side of the building.

Mr. Ryan stated that he believed there were a couple of different reasons, to his recollection, one being appearance and the other flow of traffic.

Mr. Eenigenburg stated that the flow of traffic would be the same on either side of the building.

Mr. Eenigenburg stated he has operated at 9769 Wicker Avenue for over twenty years. He opined that the appearance of his business has been neat and orderly with no junk accumulating around the place. He stated he has also tried to control the flow of traffic.

Mr. Eenigenburg stated that this past winter, due to the height of the building, once the snow and ice fall down it’s difficult to remove. He stated that if he had been operating out of the north side of his business during “that storm” he would be out of business. Mr. Eenigenburg stated that when it’s so cold nothing works to melt ice and snow other than heated concrete, which would be a “big labor.”

Mr. Eenigenburg noted that on the south side of the building they were able to clear the snow and ice every time. He stated that the only way he would be able to prevent the accumulation of snow and ice at the drive-thru would be to put a canopy over the top and heat the area. Mr. Eenigenburg stated that would defeat his purpose.

Mr. Eenigenburg stated one of the reasons the salt was put out in front of his building was “for the circus.” He stated people go by and see the drive-thru display and they understand what he does. Mr. Eenigenburg stated if he is going to “hide my drive-thru on the north side of the building, I might as well just forget about putting it out.”

Mr. Eenigenburg opined that he provides a very valuable and convenient service to the Town. He stated he draws people in from out of state, which brings people into the community.

Mr. Eenigenburg asked the Board to reconsider the location of the drive-thru and allow him to re-locate it to the south side of his building. He stated that the traffic flow would not be a matter of concern, and it would be much safer for him to operate.

Mr. Eenigenburg stated if he puts his “Young boys on the north side of that building where nobody can see them, one, it’s going to be a very boring job for them. But the thing I worry about the most is somebody coming by with a gun and holding them up. Because they’re hidden. Nobody can see them.”

Mr. Eenigenburg stated that he provides a good service to the community and keeps his business clean. He stated that relocating the drive-thru to the south side would be a good service.

Mr. Forbes asked about gutters on the building.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kozel asked about the traffic pattern. Mr. Eenigenburg stated that the traffic flow would be the same coming from east to west, side by side. Mr. Eenigenburg stated that the vehicles would not have to navigate the snow and the packed ice if the drive-thru were located on the south side of the building.

Mr. Eenigenburg noted when it is sub-zero outside and snow or water hits the concrete, it can’t be removed. He noted his building is tall and the sun never hits within 15’ of the building.

Mr. Eenigenburg asked Mr. Forbes why he wanted the drive-thru located on the north side. Mr. Eenigenburg stated that the traffic pattern is not the problem. Mr. Eeingenburg asked Mr. Forbes if he was “trying to restrict my business?” Mr. Forbes commented “No, sir, and I don’t believe that we are in any, shape or form.”

Mr. Eenigenburg commented that Mr. Forbes did not understand the “economics of circuses that get people to understand.”

Mr. Eenigenburg told the Board a story about his associate in Fort Meyers, Florida. He told them a story about his business in Indianapolis, and how the business is hidden.

Mr. Forbes stated he did not see a need for a circus. He stated that he did not see the point of having stuff stacked up on the lot of his business. Mr. Forbes remarked that Mr. Eenigenburg stated himself that people know and use his business. Mr. Forbes commented that people appreciate his business.

Mr. Eenigenburg stated he asked 1,200 people to sign a petition to submit to the Board. He stated that 1,200 people were randomly asked to sign the petition. Mr. Eenigenburg stated that over 400 registered voters from St. John could not give him any reason why the drive-thru should be located on the on the north side of the business.

Mr. Eenigenburg stated that he can show records from 1997 when the traffic signal was installed on Route 41. He stated that people were stopping because they saw his business and saw what he was doing. He stated his business increased over 50 percent at this time.

Mr. Eenigenburg stated he has been in marketing for over 50 years. He stated he understands what gets people motivated to buy from him. Mr. Eenigenburg stated that he gives people a chance to come in and try his product. He stated “that’s what you call circuses,” you get people interested in what you’re doing and they’re going to buy. Mr. Eenigenburg opined that if you have a legitimate product and people are treated in a fair manner they will come back.

Mr. Eenigenburg stated that his business has grown constantly because he provides a good service, necessary and desired services and because he treats customers fairly. He stated his customers return and bring their friends. He stated, for these reasons, he does not have to advertise as much as he did.

Mr. Eenigenburg stated “I paid the extra freight to get front row tickets.”

He stated he wants people to see what he’s doing. He stated someone may come in and buy salt from him after purchasing a water softener somewhere else. Mr. Eenigenburg stated he might give customers a bag of salt just to try it out.

Mr. Eenigenburg that he has good people at his business that are concerned and empathetic about people’s problems. He stated when people have water problems they have big problems. He stated he changes people’s lives.

Mr. Eenigenburg asked the Board to make it easier on him and help him promote his business. He stated that he spent thousands of dollars to make the building look nice.

Mr. Eenigenburg noted that he could not strike a deal with McDonalds unless they had the first lot. He stated the reason that McDonalds wanted the first lot is for marketing, being right there. Mr. Eenigenburg noted that McDonalds is the king of real estate. He stated that McDonalds knows controlling the corner will bring in a lot of dollars.

Mr. Eenigenburg stated had he known all of the grief he would have to go through for all of this stuff, he would have said no to McDonalds and stayed right where he was because he “had the circus going.”

Mr. Eenigenburg stated he will lose money by locating the drive-thru on the north side of the business. He stated if the Board wants businesses to come into St. John they better watch how they treat a 20-year resident.

Mr. Kozel noted that the pavement is narrower on the south side by three feet. Mr. Eenigenburg stated he has more than enough room on the south side to accommodate traffic.

Mr. Eenigenburg stated that he had to build his new building to accommodate the Board’s wishes so that he could locate the drive-thru on the north side or the south side. He stated he spent thousands of dollars more to “mirror image that building inside.”

Mr. Eenigenburg stated he would survive if he locates the drive-thru on the north side, but it will be a hardship. He stated his business will not improve and increase, and he does not want the business to stagnate. Mr. Eenigenburg stated he wants his business to improve and increase.

Mr. Eenigenburg stated he could move the curb on the south side because it was not put out far enough. He stated there’s enough room to push the curb out to the south another four or five feet and still be within the Town’s set back.

Mr. Ryan thanked Mr. Eenigenburg for his comments and told him that the Board would take this matter under advisement.

Mr. Eenigenburg asked if he could get the Board’s answer tonight. Mr. Forbes advised Mr. Eenigenburg that the Board does not vote during study sessions.

Mr. Ryan stated, at the present time, he was not inclined to change his vote.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kraus explained changes in the detention pond to the Board.

D. GREYSTONE DEVELOPMENT --- CONTINUED DISCUSSION --- JACK SLAGER
Jack Slager appeared before the Board on behalf of Schilling Development. He noted Dean Schilling, CEO, Schilling Lumber, and Ed Welch, a Greystone Development partner, were also present.

Mr. Slager stated that he was last before the Board in November of 2013, discussing Greystone Development. He stated that the developer would like to discuss a potential rezoning of the property.

Mr. Slager directed the Board’s attention to the overall master plan of Greystone Development. He explained that the parcel is a 120 acre parcel on the far west side of St. John. Mr. Slager stated that the parcel is bisected by Calumet Avenue, running north/south through the middle of the property.

Mr. Slager cited some unique factors on the site were the three different sets of pipe lines that cut through the property, high tension lines running east/west approximately 150’ north of the parcel and as previously mentioned, Calumet Avenue. He stated that the parcel is bounded on the east by the Saddle Creek and Silver Leaf subdivisions, on the west by Emerald Crossing.

Mr. Slager stated that the parcel does not have a lot of character as it is flat with no trees or lakes. He stated that the developer is proposing five different products for the property. Mr. Slager stated that the largest portion of the project would be 79 single family lots located on the southeast, located to the north of the single family lots would be 75 cottage homes. Mr. Slager stated that the west side of Calumet Avenue would consist of a mix of villas, duplexes and town homes.

Mr. Slager stated that he is strictly the land developer. He stated the land and subdivision would be developed and the single family lots would be sold to builders or individuals. Mr. Slager stated that architectural restrictive covenants would be set up for the multi-family phase of the development. He stated that the Petitioners would have control over the style and sizes allowed in the multi-family phase of the development.

Mr. Slager stated it is Petitioners’ intention to be very specific and strict on what is allowed to be built in the multi-family phase.

Mr. Slager stated that the covenants could be placed in writing, in terms of a zoning commitment, when the development reaches this point.

Mr. Slager stated that the second page of his submission to the Board reflects the existing zoning and the proposed zoning that Petitioner will be requesting. He informed the Board that the property was annexed into the Town in 2008. He stated that some of the zoning may have been done hastily in order to get the parcel annexed quickly.

Mr. Slager stated that the Petitioners’ request is not too different from the zoning that was originally approved. He stated that Petitioner is seeking R-2 on the southeast side, R-2 PUD in the northeast quadrant, and everything on the west side of Calumet Avenue R-3. He stated that this would give a mix of two, three and four unit residences.

Mr. Slager submitted some anticipated styles for the multi-family units. He stated that there is a great demand for cottage home units such as the ones built in Weston Ridge. He reiterated there would be architectural covenants requiring “things like brick and stone, high pitches on the roofs, windows on the sides, side-loaded garages.”

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Slager stated that part of the challenge for the developer will be marketing challenges. He stated that the parcel is in the Hanover School District and the development will have a Dyer mailing address.

Mr. Redar asked Mr. Slager to address the road configurations. He asked if Mr. Slager could possibly change the road configurations. Mr. Redar noted the round-abouts and cul-de-sacs, and stated he was not a big fan. Mr. Slager stated that he heard the Board’s input at the last meeting. He stated that he added a road stub to the south; he stated there is future expansion to the south. Mr. Slager stated that on the west side there is also a road stubbed to the south.

Mr. Slager stated that the cul-de-sacs are desirable from a marketing standpoint. Mr. Redar requested that he review the road layout further.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Slager stated that the Greystone Development is a long-term project. He stated when the Town learned they were interested in developing this piece of property, they asked to analyze the sewer capacity for the west side of Town. Mr. Slager stated that the sewer capacity plays a big factor in the developer’s timing as far as waiting for answers as to when the sewer capacity will be enlarged.

(General discussion ensued.)

Lift Station One was discussed. Mr. Kil stated that the force main is at capacity and cannot handle a development of the size of Greystone Development. Mr. Kil stated that a running another force main would be a big and costly project. Mr. Kil stated that the Water and Sewer Master Plans need to be updated to accommodate all of the future developments that will come into Town including Greystone Development.

Mr. Slager stated that the sewer is a big issue for the developer, and he hopes to get some answers on this issue soon. He stated he wanted to present the project to get some feedback from the Board on the zoning.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Ryan asked Mr. Schilling if he was involved with the condominium project at Bull Run. He stated he was on the bike trail near Bull Run recently and there is a lot of construction debris blowing east into the creek. Mr. Schilling informed the Board that McFarland Construction was the builder at Bull Run. Mr. Slager stated that they would relay the message to McFarland Construction.

* * * * * * * * *

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kraus informed the Board that Mr. Nietzel called him regarding the water tower lot. Mr. Kraus stated that Mr. Nietzel requested that driveway “scooted over” an additional 20 feet. Mr. Nietzel is concerned that the drip line of the tower may fall onto the street.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kraus stated that he would let Torrenga Engineering know that the road will not have to be moved nor additional waivers required.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Mr. Ryan opened the floor to public comment.

Don Bates 11689 Patterson Avenue, Cedar Lake
Mr. Bates stated he wanted to comment on the building that Mr. Eenigenburg has put up. He stated that it has been a “pretty emotional process.” Mr. Bates stated there were a lot of problems at the beginning related to “emotions” on the building.

Mr. Bates stated that there were a lot of pre-conceptions and a lot of mis-information that was given on both sides that stalled the whole project. He stated that after everyone stopped thinking “emotionally and started looking at this logically and things were presented in a proper manner,” Mr. Eenigenburg ended up with a much better project that what was originally proposed.

Mr. Bates requested that the Board “consider logically” Mr. Eenigenburg’s business and his request. He requested that the Board put all emotion aside and consider what is best for the Town of St. John and what’s best for Mr. Eenigenburg’s business and the community.

Mr. Bates stated that that Board is bright and they understand the business, the Town, how things work. Mr. Bates stated that when Mr. Eenigenburg talks about “a circus” he’s talking about visibility. He stated if there is no value to visibility, then the former K-Mart would not have put their plants out on the sidewalk to sell. Mr. Bates stated that visibility is key to Mr. Eenigenburg’s business.

Mr. Bates stated that the stronger the businesses are in Town the better it is for everyone. He stated no business wants to locate where the businesses are in decline or the business environment is hostile.

Mr. Bates stated from a pure business standpoint, it does not make sense to locate the drive-thru on the north side because it restricts the view. Mr. Bates reiterated that “the circus” is in someone seeing the business and how it operates. He states that the visibility gives people a tangible view of what Mr. Eenigenburg’s does.

Mr. Bates stated for retail sales such as Mr. Eenigenburg’s it’s all about “Location. Location. Location.” Mr. Bates stated locating the product on the other side of the building adds another dimension and substantially changes how his sales are done.

Mr. Bates states it behooves the Town to have a strong business environment. He stated that the stronger the businesses are in Town, the better he does. He stated more people working in Town bring in more residents which builds a stronger tax base.

Mr. Bates stated from a “business standpoint and from a logical standpoint, non-emotional, you need to look at the project and what he’s requesting.” Mr. Bates stated he does not think Mr. Eenigenburg is requesting anything unreasonable.

Mr. Bates stated “once we go past the emotional side,” Mr. Eenigenburg knocked his building down, which is what the Board wanted. Mr. Bates stated that Mr. Eenigenburg is requesting an accommodation to make his business stronger so he can be a stronger part of the community. He asked the Board to “really, really to sit down and think and consider that.”

Mr. Bates requested the Board “Make a decision based on business. Please don’t make a decision based on emotion. Please don’t make a decision based on relationship or anything else like that.”

Mr. Bates stated that there is a shadow on the north side of the building, and it takes much more effort to get the ice and snow melted. He stated that locating the drive-thru on the south side of the building would make it easier to manage.

Mr. Bates encouraged the Board members to go out to Eenigenburg’s site and take a look. He stated the business needs the visibility. Mr. Bates stated that the Town wants to encourage businesses to grow and do more sales in Town.

Mr. Bates stated that the Board needs to accommodate businesses “as much as you can within the scope of what you’re trying to accomplish.”

Mr. Bates thanked the Board.

ADJOURNMENT:

Mr. Ryan adjourned the meeting.

(The meeting was adjourned at 8:19 p.m.)

A TRUE COPY

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

04-02-2014 Plan Commission

April 2, 2014 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 St. John Plan Commission, study session, of April 2, 2014, 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 and Michael Forbes. Darwin Nietzel was absent. Staff members present: Kenn Kraus and Steve Kil. Town Council liaison, Gregory Volk, was also present.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: SPECIAL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 19, 2014

Mr. Ryan noted the first item on the agenda was motion on the minutes of the special meeting of February 19, 2014. He stated he would entertain a motion to accept the minutes; he stated if there were any changes to the minutes to make note of them in the motion.

“So moved” by Mr. Kozel. Mr. Forbes seconded the motion. Mr. Ryan requested a roll call vote. Derwin Nietzel --- yes. Steve Kozel --- yes. Steve Hastings --- yes. Tom Redar --- yes. Tom Ryan --- yes. The motion was unanimously carried by roll call vote (6/0).

NEW BUSINESS:

A. GREYSTONE DEVELOPMENT – AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR PUBLIC HEARING – MAY 7, 2014 --- JACK SLAGER
Mr. Jack Slager, representing Schilling Development, appeared before the Board requesting permission for a public hearing on May 7, 2014, for Greystone Development. He stated that the Petitioner was present two weeks ago at the study session to begin the discussions on the Greystone parcel which is located on both sides of Calumet Avenue between 101st and 109th.

Mr. Slager stated at that time of the study session the Petitioner thought that they would wait on the Greystone project. He stated subsequent to the study session, he had a meeting with Mr. Kil wherein the length of time of the rezoning process was discussed. Mr. Slager stated that the Petitioner has decided to move forward with the project, therefore, they are requesting permission to advertise for a public hearing at the May 7, 2014, regular meeting.

Mr. Ryan asked if the Board members had any questions. Mr. Forbes noted that part of the parcel must be annexed into St. John. Mr. Slager explained that the Petitioner is seeking rezoning strictly on what they own and the part of the parcel that is already in Town at this point in time.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes stated that the Board is waiting to ascertain the impact of the Greystone Development on Lift Station One. He noted that the number of units would be affected by the rezoning.

Mr. Kil stated that Mr. Kraus is reviewing the Master Plan and/or Lift Station One upgrade. He stated that the upgraded Lift Station One would be sized to handle the entire east side of Town.

Mr. Kraus stated that the yet-to-be upgraded lift station would be sized to encompass the “ultimate service area,” including parcels not yet annexed into Town. He stated that most likely the lift station will be replaced because the soil is so acidic it has eaten through steel, but it has served the Town well for 32 years.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kraus stated that he has some preliminary costs for this project, and his review should be completed by the end of April.

Mr. Slager stated that Petitioner understands that the Greystone Development hinges on the outcome of the lift station project. He remarked that he realizes that the Town is performing a long-term study on the lift station upgrade.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Ryan asked Mr. Kil who would bear the costs of the upgrades and improvements to the lift station. Mr. Kil stated that due to the magnitude of the lift station project, it would be a cooperative effort among a lot of parties. He stated that the lift station upgrade will be very costly.

Mr. Kil stated that after the location and cost of the lift station project is determined, the Town would have to discuss the project with involved developers and decide a course of action.

Mr. Ryan asked if, due to the lift station project being undetermined, it was too early to advertise Greystone Development for public hearing. Mr. Kil opined that the rezoning of the parcel does not have anything to do with the development of the parcel. Mr. Kil stated that the subdivision development process would hinge upon the lift station upgrade.

Mr. Ryan opined that it was pointless to rezone with no definite plans and/or numbers on the lift station upgrade.

Mr. Ryan stated he would entertain a motion. Mr. Kozel made a motion to set Greystone Development for public hearing on the rezoning. Mr. Hastings seconded the motion. Mr. Ryan requested a roll call vote. Derwin Nietzel --- no. Steve Kozel --- no. Steve Hastings --- no. Tom Redar --- no. Tom Ryan --- no. The motion was denied by roll call vote (4/2).

Mr. Forbes made a motion to defer Greystone Development to the next study session. Mr. Redar seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously carried by voice vote (6/0).

B. GATES OF ST. JOHN – ONE LOT SUBDIVISION --- AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 7, 2014 --- TIM AND ANGELA MASON

Mr. Tim Mason appeared before the Board requesting permission to advertise for a public hearing for a one lot subdivision. He stated he was going to combine the lot he recently purchased with the lot that his residence sits on.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kraus stated that in his review, he did not find any sanitary sewer and water and/or NIPSCO gas/electric in the easement.

Mr. Mason stated that he wanted to lay out plans for a swimming pool and did not want the lot lines to affect the same. He stated he plans on planting trees and grass on the lot and has no intention to build on it.

Mr. Ryan stated he would entertain a motion. Mr. Forbes made a motion to authorize Petitioner(s) to advertise for a public hearing on May 7, 2014. Mr. Redar seconded the motion. Mr. Ryan requested a roll call vote. Derwin Nietzel --- yes. Steve Kozel --- yes. Steve Hastings --- yes. Tom Redar --- yes. Tom Ryan --- yes. The motion was unanimously carried by roll call vote (6/0).

C. THREE SPRINGS DEVELOPMENT – REZONE --- AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR PUBLIC HEARING --- MAY 7, 2014 --- ATTORNEY GLENN PATTERSON

Mr. Ryan called for representatives of Three Springs Development. Attorney Glenn Patterson, Lucas, Holcomb & Medrea, appeared before the Board on behalf of Three Springs Development. Doug Rettig was also present.

Attorney Patterson stated that Petitioner, Three Springs Development was seeking permission to advertise for a public hearing on May 7, 2014.

He stated that the typographical error that was pointed out at the study session has been corrected.

Mr. Redar stated that he has reviewed the document and after having looked at it, he finds it very confusing. He noted that R-1, R-2 and R-3 are entirely different things and he was totally confused.

Attorney Patterson stated that the zoning commitments must be recorded and would be enforceable; he stated that it would be no burden on the Town if issues arose out of the zoning.

Mr. Forbes stated that he had the same concerns as Mr. Redar; he stated that the language is a problem and must be straightened out.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil stated that the Petitioner would have convert to a Planned Unit Development (PUD). He stated that Mr. Rettig and Mr. Barrick are well aware of the requirements. Petitioner was directed to rework the zoning. Mr. Ryan directed the Petitioner to communicate with Mr. Kil on this Three Springs zoning.

Mr. Ryan stated that he would entertain a motion. Mr. Forbes made a motion to defer Three Springs Development, to the next study session. Mr. Kozel seconded the motion. Mr. Ryan requested a roll call vote. Derwin Nietzel --- yes. Steve Kozel --- yes. Steve Hastings --- yes. Tom Redar --- yes. Michael Forbes --- yes. Tom Ryan --- yes. The motion was unanimously carried by roll call vote (6/0).

D. EENIGENBURG WATER --- REVISION TO SITE PLAN JOHN EENIGENBURG

Mr. Ryan noted that the next item on the agenda was Eenigenburg Water, requesting a revision to the site plan. Mr. Eenigenburg appeared before the Board seeking a revision to the Eenigenburg Water site plan.

Mr. Eenigenburg noted that his customers were having a hard time accessing his site. He told the Board that he must continue on with the “circuses” in order for his business to grow. He stated that out of view “circuses” will limit his business.

Mr. Eenigenburg stated that locating the drive-thru to the south side of his building would not be a detriment and, in fact, would be a comfort to his customers in the winter. He opined that placing the drive-thru on the north side of the building will be a hardship and detriment to his company.

It was noted that a lot of thought was given to the site plan and feedback was heard at the time of site plan review. Mr. Eenigenburg asked if there was any way for him to change the thinking of the Board so they would consider relocating the drive-thru to the south side of the building. Mr. Ryan replied “No.”

Mr. Eenigenburg asked the Board to explain their reasoning for their decision to locate the drive-thru on the north side of the building. The Board members could not presently recall all of the discussion and/or reasoning that went into the decision to place the drive-thru on the north side of the building.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes stated that he did not agree with Mr. Eenigenburg’s assessment that the out of view circuses would limit or hinder his business. Mr. Eenigenburg remarked that Mr. Forbes should not be so obtuse. Mr. Forbes noted that this issue had been addressed and he did not see the need to go over it again.

Mr. Eenigenburg stated that he had a petition wherein his customers were polled as to why they thought the drive-thru was assigned to the north side of his building, and nobody was able to figure out the reasoning for this.

Mr. Forbes noted that the minutes of the last meeting reflected Mr. Eenigenburg stating his business had increased by 50%. Mr. Eenigenburg stated that his business increased with the installation of the traffic signal.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Eenigenburg also stated that he was promised a ten year tax abatement that never came to fruition. Mr. Forbes commented that reason that Mr. Eenigenburg did not receive the tax abatement was because he had neglected to fill out the paperwork required in order to receive the tax abatement.

Mr. Eenigenburg stated he was just trying to get the Board to understand the facets of his business. He asked the Board to reconsider their position on the drive-thru in order to help him, as a businessman, make money.

Mr. Redar noted that a letter dated April 18, 2013, was received by the Town from Georgiou Architects wherein Petitioner agreed to follow the directives of the Board.

The Town’s ordinance prohibits goods from being set outside was referred to.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Eenigenburg noted that the Board’s forcing him to use the north side of his business for the drive-thru caused him to have to spend quite a few thousand dollars more for architectural drawings.

Mr. Ryan stated he would entertain a motion on the site plan revision for Eenigenburg Water. Mr. Redar made a motion to approve the site plan revision for Eenigenburg Water to locate his outdoor sales display on the south side of the building. Mr. Nietzel seconded the motion.

Mr. Ryan requested a roll call vote. Derwin Nietzel --- yes. Steve Kozel --- no. Steve Hastings --- no. Tom Redar --- yes. Michael Forbes --- no. Tom Ryan --- no. The motion was denied by roll call vote (4/2). Ayes --- two. Nays --- four.

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 adjourned the meeting.

(The meeting was adjourned at 7:49 p.m.)

A TRUE COPY

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

04-16-2014 Plan Commission Special Meeting

April 16, 2014 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 St. John Plan Commission, special meeting of April 16, 2014, 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, Steve Kozel, Tom Redar and Darwin Nietzel. Michael Forbes was not present at roll call. Staff members present: Kenn Kraus and Steve Kil. Town Council liaison, Gregory Volk, was also present.

Mr. Ryan noted that Mr. Forbes was running late.

NEW BUSINESS:

A. PARK PLACE OF ST. JOHN – 10800 PARK PLACE PROVIDENCE LIFE SERVICES – PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 7, 2014.
Mr. Ryan noted that representatives of Park Place of St. John, 10800 Park Place, Providence Life Services, were present tonight seeking the Board’s permission to advertise for a public hearing.

Mr. Jeff Courtney appeared before the Board, representing Park Place/Providence Life Services, seeking permission to advertise for a public hearing at the May 7, 2014, regular meeting of the Plan Commission. Mr. Courtney informed the Board that that Providence Life Services was before the Board last May requesting zoning changes; he stated all of the zoning aspects have been dealt with.

Mr. Courtney stated that Petitioner is seeking permission to advertise for a public hearing. He stated engineering and architecturals are near completion. He stated that the engineering and architectural work is scheduled to be completed by May 1, 2014. Mr. Courtney submitted current drawings to the Board so that they could re-familiarize themselves with the project. He stated that drawings included building elevations, footprints of the overall plans, a site plan and what the Petitioner proposes to move forward with on the overall development.

Mr. Courtney stated that at the last meeting, skilled nursing was discussed, because it was added to the overall development. He stated that the skilled nursing proposes a “small house concept,” which was discussed in detail. Mr. Courtney stated that the Petitioner proposes to move forward with the initial three buildings of skilled nursing.

Mr. Courtney stated that the Petitioner also proposes going through with the architectural and engineering and moving forward on the independent and assisted living aspect of the development.

Mr. Courtney presented a PowerPoint to the Board. He refreshed their recollection as to the additional out lot that had been purchased and rezoned. He showed them a cross-section on the drawing reflecting the skilled nursing. He stated there will be six buildings with 100 beds of skilled nursing. Mr. Courtney pointed out the overall campus where the independent/assisted living (previously approved for development) will be located.

Mr. Courtney informed the Board that the south half of the overall development will have six buildings of skilled nursing. He pointed out the location of the single story buildings containing ten resident rooms each, the small house concept. There will also be two, two-story thirty bed units which will serve more as an outpatient or short-term rehabilitation residence.

(Mr. Forbes enters meeting room.)

Mr. Courtney showed the Board the previous configuration. He informed the Board that the current site plan is configured more to a square. He stated that the previous engineer missed the building set back line; it was short by approximately 15 feet. Mr. Courtney stated that the building set back along Route 231 is overall 75’. He stated adjustments were made to meet the building set back lines.

Mr. Courtney stated that the Petitioner’s intent is to come out of the ground with the three buildings, totaling 50 beds of skilled nursing, a single story 10 bed, a two-story 30 bed, and another single story 10 bed. He stated that the Petitioner is also planning on moving forward with the independent living building as well.

Mr. Courtney stated that the independent building living building will be built in a phased construction. He explained the layout of the independent living building. Mr. Courtney stated that that independent living wings will house 60 residents overall. He stated that Petitioner intends to start construction for the independent living dwelling in the fall.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Courtney explained that the independent living facility will be built one wing at a time, and as the demand increases the other wing will be added. It was added that a market study has been done, which proves that there is enough demand for the entire building, but due to the time it takes to rent it out, the building will be done in phases.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Courtney stated that the independent living structure will appear finished and the entire exterior will be finished (including the back) until such time as construction begins on the additional wing.

Mr. Courtney stated that Petitioner will be requesting a waiver to the Town’s ordinance requiring a full masonry façade along Route 231 and Park Place. Petitioner is proposing a reduction of the full masonry on these facades.

(General discussion ensued.)

The ordinance was discussed. Mr. Courtney directed the Board’s attention to the renderings and detailed how the façade of each building would look. He showed the rendering reflecting the façade that would face Park Place, the east elevation. He explained that the façade on the independent living unit would be first floor brick and second and third floor siding.

Mr. Kil explained to the Petitioner, that part of the approval process requires that a development plan encompassing the materials Petitioner proposes to use be submitted to the Board for their review. Mr. Kil explained that in the event that the Plan Commission approves the drawings submitted, Petitioner would then receive an approved drawing.

Exterior color schemes were briefly discussed.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Courtney informed the Board that all of the documentation required of Petitioner including engineering and final architecture will be in place by May 7, 2014.

Mr. Kil cautioned Mr. Courtney on the size of water lines to be used.

Mr. Kraus stated he did some preliminary calculations. The waterworks system development and the sanitary/sewer system development charges were discussed.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil directed Mr. Courtney to consult Mr. Nietzel with any questions he might have related to main sizes, water pressure or any other water related issues. Petitioner stated that they will have the water line issue corrected before the plans were submitted to the Board.

Mr. Ryan called for further questions or comments.

Mr. Courtney informed the Board that their development community, Victorian Village, is located at 143rd and Bell, in Homer Glen, Illinois. He directed the Board to visit the Providence Life Services website. Mr. Courtney explained that the Board members would be able to access a link on the website to an onsite camera to get a live view of the Victorian Village construction site.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil directed that Petitioner to forward some data on the parking plan to Mr. Kraus.

Mr. Ryan stated he would entertain a motion to approve permission for Petitioner to advertise for a public hearing on Park Place of St. John, 10800 Park Place, Providence Life Services. “So moved,” by Mr. Forbes. Mr. Hastings seconded the motion.

Mr. Ryan requested a roll call vote. Mr. Nietzel --- yes. Mr. Kozel --- yes. Mr. Forbes --- yes. Mr. Hastings --- yes. Mr. Redar --- yes. Mr. Ryan ---yes. The motion was unanimously carried by voice vote (6/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

OLD BUSINESS:

Mr. Ryan called for Old Business. There was no Old Business.

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 adjourned the meeting.

(The meeting was adjourned at 7:33 p.m.)

A TRUE COPY

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

04-16-2014 Plan Commission Study Session

April 16, 2014 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 St. John Plan Commission, study session, of April 16, 2014, at 7:33 p.m.

ROLL CALL:

Roll call was taken at the commencement of the special meeting.

NEW BUSINESS:

A. GREYSTONE DEVELOPMENT – AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 7, 2014 – JACK SLAGER
Mr. Ryan noted the first item on the study session agenda was Greystone Development. Mr. Forbes clarified that the Board was now in study session and Greystone Development would be discussed with no action taken, contrary to what was listed on the agenda.

Mr. Slager appeared before the Board stating he wished to further discuss the Greystone Development located on Calumet Avenue between 101st and 109th. Mr. Slager passed out documents.

Mr. Slager stated that last month Greystone Development was discussed at the study session. He stated that Petitioner also requested permission to advertise for rezoning at the last meeting, but the rezone was hung up on the sewer issue.

Mr. Slager stated that he has subsequently had discussions with Mr. Kil. He stated due to the size of the project, Petitioner is desirous of moving forward on the zoning while the Town is working on the sewer issue. Mr. Slager stated that Petitioner realizes that the sewer issue may be a year in the works.

Mr. Slager stated that if Petitioner can focus on the rezoning at this point, Petitioner will at least be able to do some marketing and engineering. He stated that he brought an article from National Builder Magazine that sums up what Petitioner is attempting to accomplish with Greystone Development. Mr. Slager read excerpts from the magazine article, as follows:

“A new paradigm for what has been termed "active adult" may be emerging in markets other than Arizona, Florida, and Southern California…. New 55-plus home buyers are "too active for active adult" in the traditional sense; and they want to be closer geographically to their children and grandchildren ... which makes pairing up the two types of communities in one broad master plan make a lot of sense.”

“We think it’s important to have a suite of builders offering a wide array of home choices. Leading edge baby boomer buyers interested in the 55-plus community show a strong preference for proximity to their children and grandchildren which makes the intergenerational approach separately amenatized, but integrated geographically to the master plan at draw.”

Mr. Slager stated that this type of development is being marketed as “creating separation and promoting integration.”

“What appears to be clear is that the days where big builders opted to take on the role of master plan developer appear to be bygone as it makes more sense from a place-making viewpoint to integrate different builders with varying product programs, varying price points and varying options for buyers to propel the uniqueness of the location.”

Mr. Slager stated that the excerpts he read to the Board sums up what Greystone Development is hoping to achieve. Petitioner would like to make Greystone Development appealable to empty nesters and young families all in the same community.

Mr. Slager stated he would like to focus on the zoning, particularly a page he submitted to the Board. He explained that this document shows the existing zoning of the property, which was granted five to seven years ago during the annexation block with Dyer. Mr. Slager directed the Board’s attention to the zoning that Petitioner is requesting at the present time.

Mr. Slager explained that the two biggest changes are, one, eliminating the majority of the commercial zoning on both sides of Calumet Avenue, and two, taking the R-2/PUD zoning that was previously granted for the west side of Calumet Avenue and moving it to the east side of Calumet Avenue. He stated that the east side of Calumet is roughly the same amount of acreage that is currently located in R-2/PUD, west side of Calumet Avenue.

Mr. Slager stated that Petitioner is proposing the creation of an R-3 pod on the west side of Calumet Avenue. He stated that the R-3 would be villas, duplexes, threes and fours. He stated the combination may not all fit into the R-3 zoning and some variances will be needed.

Mr. Slager stated that if the zoning is nailed down, Petitioner will be able to take the next step. He stated that the Petitioner will be appearing before the Board in the future submitting plans and designs and seeking subdivision approvals.

Mr. Slager stated if the Board had any additional questions, he would be happy to answer them and entertain any thoughts or ideas.

Mr. Forbes asked for clarification on the minimum lot sizes in R-3 zoning; he stated he believed the lot size requirements were 15,000 square feet. Mr. Slager concurred. Mr. Forbes stated he was not familiar with the limitations in R-3 zoning.

(General discussion ensued.)

(Mr. Kil exited the meeting room.)

Mr. Kil returned to the meeting with a copy of the Town’s zoning book.

Discussion was had on what is allowed on an R-3 lot.

Mr. Slager stated that the Petitioner realizes that as they move into the design phase of the buildings, they will have to appear before the Plan Commission numerous times to work through design issues.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Slager informed the Board that there will be a set of covenants over the entire development. He stated that though Schilling Development will not build in the development, they will have a strict set of covenants that will exceed the minimum square footage required by the Town, landscaping requirements and brick requirements. He stated that the developer intends to control the “architectural feel for every building that’s built in there.” Mr. Slager stated that the developer will share the covenants with the Board and the covenants will be strictly enforced.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Slager talked about the triangle of land that was between pipelines and the road. He stated that this parcel can’t really be developed. Mr. Slager stated there is a good possibility this parcel would end up serving as detention. He stated that if another place for detention could be found, the developer would like to keep this parcel for a professional office. He stated that the parcel was big enough for a single use building with some parking.

Zoning of PUD, R-2 and R-3 was discussed.

Mr. Ryan asked if there were any additional questions or comments.

Mr. Forbes recommended that the Board give the developer some direction on his presentation. Mr. Kozel stated he had no problems with what was presented.

Mr. Ryan stated his only concern is who is going to bear the costs of the plumbing (Lift Station One). He stated that he does not want to see the Town holding the bag on a bunch of infrastructure and no development.

Mr. Kil stated that there are many different developments that hinge on Lift Station One. He stated that the entire west side of Town is kind of in a holding pattern until the Town reaches some conclusion or decision on how the lift station project will be handled. He stated the lift station will be a huge project and Mr. Kraus is currently working on the same.

Mr. Kraus stated that the first draft of the options and preliminary costs for the lift station should be ready by the end of April. Mr. Kraus opined that the most viable option would be to place the new lift station next to the old lift station so that the old lift station could stay in service while the new one is being built.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Slager acknowledged that the Petitioner is aware that the Greystone Development hinges upon the upgrade and/or replacement of Lift Station One. He stated that he has months’ if not a year’s worth of work ahead on the Greystone project due to its size.

Mr. Ryan stated he has no objection to the project itself. Mr. Ryan stated he did not sense a strong objection to the development from anybody on the Board.

Mr. Slager reiterated his desire to move forward with the zoning.

B. THREE SPRINGS DEVELOPMENT – REZONE – AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 7, 2014 – ATTORNEY GLENN PATTERSON
There were no representatives present for Three Springs Development. Mr. Kil informed the Board that Three Springs Development is in the process of doing the work for the PUD, and he will notify the Board when they are ready to be placed back on the agenda.

OLD BUSINESS:

Mr. Ryan called for Old Business. There was no Old Business.

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 adjourned the meeting.

(The meeting was adjourned at 8:04 p.m.)

A TRUE COPY

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

05-07-2014 Plan Commission

May 7, 2014 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 St. John Plan Commission, regular meeting, of May 7, 2014, at 7:00 p.m.

(The Pledge of Allegiance was said.)

ROLL CALL:

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

Mr. Kil informed the Board that Mr. Kozel had called and told him that he would not be in attendance at tonight’s meeting due to an emergency.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: SPECIAL MEETING OF APRIL 16, 2014

Mr. Ryan noted the first item on the agenda was for a motion on the minutes of the special meeting of April 16, 2014. He stated if the Board members had had an opportunity to review the minutes, he would entertain a motion to accept the minutes.

Mr. Forbes made a motion to approve of the April 16, 2014, St. John Plan Commission meeting minutes as circulated. Mr. Hastings seconded the motion.

Mr. Ryan requested a roll call vote. Derwin Nietzel --- yes. Tom Redar --- yes. Michael Forbes --- yes. Steve Hastings --- yes. Tom Ryan --- yes. The motion was carried by voice vote (5/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

NEW BUSINESS:

A. GATES OF ST. JOHN – PUBLIC HEARING – ONE LOT SUBDIVISION – PRIMARY PLAT APPROVAL TIM AND ANGELA MASON
Mr. Ryan noted that the first order of business was a public hearing and consideration for primary plat approval on the one lot subdivision in Gates of St. John for Tim and Angela Mason.

Mr. Mason appeared before the Board seeking authorization for primary plat approval. Mr. Mason asked the Board for permission to seek a survey showing the lots merged.

(General discussion ensued.)

Attorney Kuiper noted that the notices and publications were in order for the public hearing to be properly conducted.

Mr. Kil explained to the Petitioner that when this matter was authorized for public hearing, he could have sought a survey at that time. Mr. Kil noted that the matter would have to be deferred tonight.

Mr. Ryan directed Petitioner to contact Mr. Kil with any questions related to this matter.

Mr. Ryan opened 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.

Mr. Ryan stated he would entertain a motion to defer this matter. Mr. Forbes made a motion to defer Gates of St. John, One Lot Subdivision, Primary Plat Approval to the June 4, 2014, meeting. Mr. Redar seconded the motion.

Mr. Ryan requested a roll call vote. Derwin Nietzel --- yes. Tom Redar --- yes. Michael Forbes --- yes. Steve Hastings --- yes. Tom Ryan --- yes. The motion was carried by voice vote (5/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

B. GATES OF ST. JOHN – PUBLIC HEARING – PRIMARY PLAT APPROVAL - UNIT 1E – JOHN LOTTON

Mr. Ryan noted that the Gates of St. John, Unit 1E was next on the agenda for public hearing and preliminary plat approval.

Gary Torrenga, Torrenga Engineering, and Mr. John Lotton, Petitioner, appeared before the Board seeking primary plat approval for Gates of St. John, Unit 1E. Mr. Torrenga explained to the Board that this plat was the “redo of the two, three, four units down in the southeast corner of 1E.” He stated many changes were made to the parcel at the direction of the Plan Commission.

Attorney Kuiper noted that the notices and publications were in order for tonight’s public hearing to be properly conducted.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Ryan asked Mr. Kraus if he had an opportunity to review Gates of St. John, Unit 1E. Mr. Kraus stated he had reviewed Gates of St. John, Units 1E and 1F. He stated that he submitted a letter dated March 24, 2014, referencing his review of the revised primary plat. Mr. Kraus noted that given that previous waivers that were granted have been honored for the revised site plan, the review was satisfactory. Mr. Kraus stated that fees have been paid previously.

Mr. Ryan asked the Board members if they had any comments or questions. There were no questions or comments. Mr. Ryan opened 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.

Mr. Ryan stated he would accept a motion on the Gates of St. John, Unit 1E, primary plat approval. Mr. Forbes made a motion to authorize preliminary plat approval for the revision to the remainder of Unit 1E, and incorporating the findings of fact by reference. Mr. Hastings seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously carried by voice vote (5/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

C. PARK PLACE OF ST. JOHN – PUBLIC HEARING – 10800 PARK PLACE – PRIMARY APPROVAL – PROVIDENCE LIFE SERVICES

Mr. Ryan noted that the next matter for the Board’s review was Park Place of St. John, public hearing and primary approval.

Jeff Courtney appeared before the Board on behalf of Park Place of St. John for a public hearing and seeking primary plat approval.

Attorney Kuiper noted that the notices and publications advertising tonight’s public hearing were in order and the public hearing could be properly conducted.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Courtney stated that a preliminary plat of information had been submitted to the Board. Mr. Courtney noted that the zoning for this parcel was in order and had been approved by the Board approximately one year ago. Mr. Ryan concurred. Mr. Courtney stated that a site lighting plan has not been submitted; he stated that the lighting plan would be submitted for final plat approval.

Mr. Courtney noted that landscaping plans have been submitted for the small house parcel (Tab 3).

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Courtney addressed the parking; he stated that the parking calculations are in line with what would be required. He stated other municipalities typically require one space for every three resident rooms and one parking space per staff member at the highest point of staffing. Mr. Courtney stated that Park Place would require 33 resident parking spaces and approximately 30-40 staff parking spaces. Mr. Courtney stated that 66 parking spaces have been allotted for the skilled nursing facility at Park Place.

Mr. Courtney stated that Park Place of St. John within the Gates of St. John also includes independent living, which is an approximately 200,000 square foot building with 156 independent living resident suites, with parking spaces, library, study, game room, multi-media room, exercise activity spaces, dining and support kitchen staff.

Mr. Courtney stated that Phase One development of the independent living would include the entire core and the front two wings consisting of 60 resident rooms.

Mr. Courtney stated that although this meeting deals only with the “small house” aspect of Park Place, he wanted to remind the Board that the overall development includes the independent living development which is slated to start at the same time.

Mr. Ryan asked Petitioner if he had reviewed Mr. Kraus’s letter in its entirety. Mr. Courtney stated that he had skimmed through the letter. He stated that the storm water certification would be taken care of.

Mr. Courtney stated at the present time, the overall site has an address of 10800 Park Place. He stated for ease of navigating through Park Place, individual property addresses will be designated for the “small house” project. Mr. Courtney stated that Petitioner would be happy to comply with whatever the Town recommends.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil directed Petitioner to show the buildings on the final plat with Addresses.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Redar asked about the storm drainage on the drawings submitted by Torrenga Engineering. He noted that the drainage ties into existing storm structures, runs to the east side of Park Place, runs up Park Place but “then this is supposed to dump into a pond that’s not there.” He noted that there is a drainage pond is missing.

Mr. Lotton explained that the ponds that are in Pods Five and Eight, and the small pond in Pod Seven will accommodate all of the detention for everything that is built and for all of the roads that are in. He stated that the additional pond that will go in on the east side of Pod Seven will accommodate detention for Pod Seven and Pod Four. Mr. Lotton stated that Park Place’s detention is 100% taken care of in Pods Eight and Five.

Mr. Torrenga explained to the Board, at the present time, the routing exists for water to get to the structures that Mr. Lotton is referring to.

Mr. Redar asked if the proposed development would overload anything since the proposed pond is not in existence yet. Mr. Lotton stated that during the big rain of 2008, there was still three feet of bounce before hitting the top of the ponds. Mr. Lotton stated that all of the way to Parrish Avenue, 100% of the detention is in place.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Redar noted that he recalled complaints from a few years back of A lot of water getting over by the east side of Cline Avenue that really was supposed to be diverted, at some point, to another area. He reiterated he wanted to ensure that this addition did not cause this problem resurface.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Courtney acknowledged a comment in Mr. Kraus’ letter regarding the fees in general. He stated that three of the six buildings are scheduled for Phase Two. He asked if, as each one of the buildings is tied into the intial phase, Petitioner would be responsible for fees at the commencement of the given phase. Mr. Kraus explained that the fees that are included in his letter included the entire project.

Mr. Kil stated fees are assessed per the building permit (one building permit, one fee) with the exception of the SWIPPP fee of $422.40 which was payable immediately. Mr. Kil stated for the project under discussion, at final plat approval a fee of $1,322.40 would be due.

Mr. Forbes asked about the 66 parking spaces that Petitioner referred to earlier. Mr. Courtney acknowledged that the 66 parking spaces he referred to earlier were parking spaces that would accommodate the six buildings for the skilled nursing/small houses.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kraus stated his letter of review was strictly related to the south five acres of the 15 acre parcel. He stated that the engineering that was submitted to him for review was only related to the five acres on the south.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Courtney stated it was his belief is that the approvals have already been done for the north side of the property. He stated that Petitioner would be reviewing this matter closely before final plat is submitted.

Mr. Ryan asked about the lighting plan. Mr. Courtney stated that a photometric study had not yet been done. He stated that Petitioner has only just received details on the fixtures that will be used on the entire site. Mr. Courtney stated that the photometric study would be submitted at final plat.

Mr. Kraus stated if the Board was willing to grant primary plat approval with contingencies, he would review the plans as they come in.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kraus requested a formal submittal for the primary plat rather than the reduced copy. He asked Petitioner to address the issues for the site plan to the south.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes stated that it would not be out of the ordinary for the Board to consider final plat approval and site plan at the same time.

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

Mr. Ryan stated he would entertain a motion for primary approval for Park Place of St. John, Providence Life Services contingent upon the appropriate fees being paid and addressing concerns stated in Mr. Kraus’ letter. Mr. Forbes made a motion to authorize preliminary plat approval contingent upon payment of the fees required and addressing all of the issues listed in Mr. Kraus’ letter of May 6, 2014, and incorporating the findings of fact by reference. Mr. Redar seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously carried by voice vote (5/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

Mr. Kil directed Mr. Courtney to return on June 6, 2014, for site plan approval and final plat. Mr. Courtney concurred.

D. GREYSTONE DEVELOPMENT – PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR JUNE 4, 2014 - JACK SLAGER

Mr. Ryan noted that Greystone Development, permission to advertise for public hearing on June 4, 2014, was before the Board for their consideration.

Mr. Jack Slager, Schilling Development, appeared before the Board seeking permission to advertise for a public hearing on the rezone of the Greystone Development parcel. He stated that the parcel that he is referring to is one that has been brought before the Board for review a number of times. Mr. Slager stated that he was present at the last study session and the focus was upon the rezoning.

Mr. Slager stated that the zoning is the same as has been presented to the Board for the last couple of months. He directed the Board’s attention to the second page of documents, which reflects the parcel’s current zoning and the proposed zoning.

Mr. Ryan asked for comments from the Board. There were no comments from the Board.

Mr. Ryan stated he would accept a motion granting permission to advertise for public hearing for Greystone Development on June 4, 2014. “So moved,” by Mr. Redar. Mr. Hastings seconded the motion. The motion was carried by voice vote (5/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Mr. Ryan opened the floor to public comment. Mr. Kil stated he had one item he would like to address with the Board. Mr. Kil stated that he met with a V3 representative today, V3 being the engineer for Renaissance. He stated that the Board recently approved Renaissance, Unit 5. He stated that they have run into a problem with NIPSCO. He stated that NIPSCO is requiring that easements be added to a couple of lots.

Mr. Kil showed the Board a drawing where the easements are required. He stated that the easements are strictly for gas and electric. Mr. Kil stated that Petitioner has requested a Certificate of Amendment that would add easements in the areas reflected in the drawing. Mr. Kil stated that NIPSCO refuses to install gas and electric until the easements are added.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Ryan asked if adding the easements would affect anything including the building lines and/or placement of the structures. Attorney Kuiper stated that nothing would be affected other than adding the easements to the plat. Attorney Kuiper stated that the Board would have to take formal action on approving the Certificate of Amendment in order to add the easements.

Mr. Ryan stated he would accept a motion to approve a Certificate of Amendment for Lots 510, 595, 596 and 597 referenced in the secondary plat of Renaissance, Unit 5. Mr. Forbes made a motion to approve the Certificate of Amendment for Lots 510, 595, 596 and 597 as referenced in the secondary plat of Renaissance, Unit 5. Mr. Hastings seconded the motion. The motion was carried by voice vote (5/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

Mr. Forbes informed the Board that the Town is looking to expand their TIF districts. He stated that a joint meeting of the Plan Commission, Town Council and the Redevelopment Commission is planned for May 22, 2014.

Mr. Forbes showed the Board a map reflecting the proposed expansion of the TIF district. He stated that the additions to the TIF district are located in the Route 231 and the Route 41 corridor. Mr. Forbes stated that the TIF district expansion is one of the tools needed to market the Town.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil stated that TIF is helpful in promoting new development and construction. He stated that the TIF districts will accommodate commercial growth. Mr. Kil stated that he wanted the Board to be aware of what will happen at the joint meeting on May 22, 2014.

ADJOURNMENT:

Mr. Ryan adjourned the meeting.

(The meeting was adjourned at 8:09 p.m.)

A TRUE COPY

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

05-21-2014 Plan Commission Meeting Canceled
05-22-2014 Joint Town Council RDC Plan Commission

May 22, 2014 JOINT SPECIAL MEETING OF: REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, PLAN COMMISSION & TOWN COUNCIL Meeting Minutes

ST. JOHN TOWN COUNCIL
Michael Forbes, President
Larry Bustamante, Vice-President
Gregory Volk
Mark Barenie
Ken Gembala

ST. JOHN PLAN COMMISSION
Tom Ryan, President
Mike Forbes, Vice-President
Steve Kozel, Secretary
Tom Redar
Steve Hastings
Darwin Nietzel

REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Mark Barenie
Michael Forbes
Larry Bustamante
Ken Gembala
Gregory Volk

Citizen Members: Dr. John DeVries, James Sakelaris

Also Present: Steve Kil, Town Manager
Attorney David Austgen

CALL TO ORDER:

Mr. Forbes called to order the special joint meeting of the Redevelopment Commission, St. John Plan Commission and St. John Town Council for May 22, 2014, at 7:12 p.m.

(The Pledge of Allegiance was said.)

ROLL CALL:

Roll call was taken by Clerk-Treasurer, Sherry Sury, for the Redevelopment Commission. Members Mark Barenie, Michael Forbes, Larry Bustamante, Ken Gembala and Gregory Volk were present. Attorney David Austgen was present. Steve Kil was present. Citizen Members: Dr. John DeVries and James Sakelaris were present. Susan E. Wright, Recording Secretary, was present.

Roll call was taken by Ms. Sury for the St. John Plan Commission with the following members present: Tom Ryan, Michael Forbes, Steve Kozel, Tom Redar and Derwin Nietzel. Steve Hastings was absent. Attorney Tim Kuiper was absent. Kenn Kraus was present. Steve Kil was also present. Susan E. Wright, Recording Secretary, was present.

Roll call was taken by Ms. Sury for the St. John Town Council with the following members present: Michael Forbes, Larry Bustamante, Gregory Volk, Mark Barenie and Ken Gembala. Attorney Dave Austgen was present. Steve Kil was present. Susan E. Wright, Recording Secretary, was present.

Mr. Forbes gave the floor to Mark Barenie, President, Redevelopment Commission for action on St. John T.I.F. Districts 1 and 2.

REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION:

A. CONSIDER DECLARATORY RESOLUTION CONSOLIDATING AND EXPANDING ST. JOHN T.I.F. 1.

Mr. Barenie noted that the Redevelopment Commission had before them for consideration consolidating and expanding St. John T.I.F. District 1.

He stated that there was an action pending before the Commission to adopt Resolution 14-05-22RDC. He asked if there was any discussion on this matter.

Attorney Austgen presented a brief explanation of the proceedings for the Council, Board and Commission members. He explained that the reason for the special joint meeting was in order to comply with provisions of Indiana Code 36-7-14, regarding the established T.I.F. district in St. John, to consider expansion of the existing T.I.F. district and establishing a new part of the Town to become an economic development area for T.I.F. district purposes.

Attorney Austgen stated that this matter came about as a result of the capital review activities of the Town, and to determine how to utilize the benefits of T.I.F. financing or development that would contribute to the continued infrastructure improvements that have occurred in the community.

Attorney Austgen stated that he wished to explain the statutory sequence of events that would take place in this process. He stated that the Redevelopment Commission declares its intent to establish an expanded T.I.F. district which would be T.I.F. District 1, and also to establish a new portion of the community as a separate but like T.I.F. district area. He stated that this declaration is done in the form of a separate resolution for T.I.F. District One and T.I.F. District Two.

Attorney Austgen stated upon the declaration, statute requires the Plan Commission to consider the action of the Redevelopment Commission and agree or disagree. He stated that the Plan Commission has jurisdictional responsibility over zoning controls and growth and development in the community and is in the chain of “approval review.”

Attorney Austgen explained the next step is that the Town Council would act to consider the declaration made by the Redevelopment Commission, the action taken by the Plan Commission in approving the actions of the Redevelopment Commission, and if concurrence exists in that process, approval.

Attorney Austgen stated that if the Town Council agrees at the end of the actions taken tonight, a public hearing would then be conducted to notify citizens and residents for a public review. Attorney Austgen stated, if all actions are passed, a public hearing could be held as soon as June 12, 2014, the next regular Town Council meeting, or another time as is deemed appropriate.

Attorney Austgen noted that Mr. Kil has maps that have been appended on the proposed resolutions that comprise the declaration. Attorney Austgen turned the floor over to Mr. Kil.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil made a presentation to the Redevelopment Commission, Plan Commission and Town Council. He presented a Town map that reflected the T.I.F. districts along the U.S. 41 and U.S. 231 corridors. He explained that this is where the Town’s primary commercial development will occur.

Mr. Kil noted that there are some residential parcels within the T.I.F. district. He explained that the residential parcels are a function of contiguity among the two districts. Mr. Kil stated that there would be a net zero impact for any residential property if commercial development occurred.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil explained that the colors on the map as follows, pink depicts the existing T.I.F. district, blue depicts the future proposed T.I.F district along the U.S. 41 corridor. He stated that T.I.F. District 1 contains a north and south district; he stated that north and south districts were linked some time ago. Mr. Kil stated that the pink and blue areas will now depict one T.I.F. district. He stated that the areas can be merged because the Town has retired all of their debt in the T.I.F district.

Mr. Kil stated pieces of property in Town have been tentatively identified for potential future commercial development. He showed various parcels, via map, that could be consolidated for proposed commercial development.

Mr. Kil directed the members’ attention to the district south of 93rd Avenue. He stated that the old Standard Lumber and K-Mart sits are potential sites for future commercial development.

Mr. Kil pointed out a proposed commercial development set out by Schilling Development. He pointed to property across the street from the Shrine of Christ’s Passion as a possible commercial development at a future point in time. Mr. Kil talked about residential property on the south side of 93rd Avenue which may or may not be acquired into the T.I.F. district.

Mr. Kil directed the members’ attention to U.S. Route 231 corridor and showed them the areas that are currently zoned commercial. He stated that commercial development is anticipated in the Gates of St. John. Mr. Kil pointed out the location of the new assisted living facility that is currently seeking approval at the Plan Commission.

Mr. Kil explained that any time a project comes inside the T.I.F. district; the Town can assign allocation areas. He explained the benefits of the T.I.F. districting. Mr. Kil stated the actions that are taken tonight are another step towards the Town’s economic development initiative. He stated if there were any questions from the members, he would be happy to answer them.

Mr. Kil noted that replacement/improvement of Lift Station Number One is a key component to the entire commercial corridor as well as the southwest corner of Town. He stated that there are proposals from Haas Engineering on tonight’s Utility Board agenda proposing that engineering commence for this project. Mr. Kil stated that Lift Station One work needs to be done whether or not additional commercial development is brought into Town.

Mr. Barenie asked if the Councilmen had any comments or questions. There were no comments or questions. Mr. Barenie stated he would accept a motion to adopt Resolution # 14-05-22-RDC. Mr. Forbes made a motion to adopt Resolution #14-05-22-RDC. Mr. Bustamante seconded the motion. Ayes --- all. Nays --- none. The motion was unanimously carried by voice vote (5/0).

Mr. Forbes read the resolution into the record as follows: “Resolution 14-05-22RDC is a resolution of the Town of St. John Redevelopment Commission amending prior resolutions establishing a consolidated economic development area and allocation areas therein by expanding the boundaries of the consolidated economic development area and consolidating and expanding the allocation areas therein, amending the consolidated economic development plan for the area and all matter related thereto.”

B. CONSIDER DECLARATORY RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING ST. JOHN T.I.F. 2.
Mr. Barenie noted that the Council had before it for consideration a Declaratory Resolution establishing St. John T.I.F. District Two. He requested a motion to adopt Resolution # 14-05-22A-RDC.

Mr. Forbes made a motion to adopt Resolution # 14-05-22A-RDC, as follows: “This is a resolution of the St. John Redevelopment Commission declaring an area in the Town of St. John, Lake County, Indiana, as an economic development area approving a development plan for said area and all matters related thereto.” Mr. Volk seconded the motion. Ayes --- all. Nays --- none. The motion was unanimously carried by voice vote (5/0).

Attorney Austgen recommended that attachments of the separate resolutions be appended to the minutes of the public meeting. Mr. Barenie concurred with Attorney Austgen’s recommendation.

Mr. Barenie passed the gavel to Tom Ryan, President, St. John Plan Commission.

PLAN COMMISSION:

A. CONSIDER DECLARATORY RESOLUTION CONSOLIDATING AND EXPANDING ST. JOHN T.I.F. 1.
Mr. Ryan noted that the first item on the agenda for the Commission’s consideration was a Declaratory Resolution consolidating and expanding St. John T.I.F. 1. He stated he would entertain a motion on Resolution 14-05-22-PC.

Mr. Kozel made a motion to adopt Resolution # 14-05-22-PC, “a resolution of the St. John Redevelopment Commission amending prior resolutions establishing a consolidated economic development area and allocation areas therein by expanding the boundaries of the consolidated economic development area and consolidating and expanding the allocation areas therein, amending the consolidated economic development plan for the area and all matter related thereto.” Mr. Redar seconded the motion. Ayes --- all. Nays --- none. The motion was carried by voice vote (5/0).

Attorney Austgen stated that the Plan Commission members were free to ask any questions of the Town Council and the Redevelopment Commission. Mr. Forbes commented that the Plan Commission had discussed this matter previously at one of their meetings, and they felt that they had been sufficiently informed.

B. CONSIDER DECLARATORY RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING ST. JOHN T.I.F. 2.
Mr. Ryan stated that the consideration of a declaratory resolution establishing T.I.F. 2 was before the Board. He stated he would entertain a motion. Mr. Kozel made a motion to adopt Resolution #14-05-22-PC, declaring an area in the Town of St. John, Lake County, Indiana, as an economic development area approving a development plan for said area and all matters related thereto.” Mr. Forbes seconded the motion. Ayes --- all. Nays --- none. The motion as carried by voice vote (5/0).

Mr. Ryan passed the gavel to Mr. Forbes, President, Town Council.

TOWN COUNCIL

A. CONSIDER DECLARATORY RESOLUTION CONSOLIDATING AND EXPANDING ST. JOHN T.I.F. 1.
Mr. Forbes noted the first item on the Council’s agenda was to consider a declaratory resolution to consolidate and expand St. John T.I.F. 1. He asked if there was a motion to adopt Resolution # 14-05-22. “So moved,” by Mr. Gembala.

Mr. Forbes read the title of the resolution as follows: “This is a resolution of the Town Council of the Town of St. John, Lake County, Indiana, approving an order of the St. John Plan Commission approving a resolution of the St. John Redevelopment Commission, amending prior resolutions establishing a consolidated economic development area and allocations areas therein by expanding the boundaries of the consolidated economic development area and consolidating and expanding the allocation areas therein, amending the consolidated economic development plan for the area and all matters related thereto.

Mr. Forbes noted there was a motion on the floor by Mr. Gembala; he asked for a second. Mr. Barenie seconded the motion. Ayes --- all. Nays --- none. The motion was unanimously carried by voice vote (5/0).

B. CONSIDER DECLARATORY RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING ST. JOHN T.I.F. 2.
Mr. Forbes noted the next item for the Council’s consideration was a declaratory resolution establishing the St. John T.I.F. District 2. Mr. Forbes read as follows: “Resolution # 14-05-22A, this is a resolution of the Town Council of the Town of St. John, Lake County, Indiana, approving an order of the St. John Plan Commission approving a resolution of the St. John Redevelopment Commission declaring an area in the Town of St. John, Lake County, Indiana, as an economic development area, approving a development plan for said area and all matter related thereto.”

Mr. Forbes asked if there was a motion on Resolution # 14-05-22A. “So moved,” by Mr. Volk. Mr. Gembala seconded the motion. Ayes --- all. Nays --- none. The motion was unanimously carried by voice vote (5/0).

Attorney Austgen noted in light of the actions taken tonight and at the direction of Mr. Forbes, this matter would be advertised for a public hearing to be held on June 12, 2014, the next regularly scheduled Town Council meeting. Mr. Forbes noted that the public hearing would be held on June 12, 2014, contingent upon the advertisement for public hearing being properly noticed.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Mr. Forbes opened the floor for public comment. He asked if anyone wished to comment on the T.I.F. expansion. He called for comment. There was no comment. Mr. Forbes closed the floor to public comment.

ADJOURNMENT:

Mr. Forbes stated he would entertain a motion to adjourn the special meeting of the Redevelopment Commission, Plan Commission and Town Council. “So moved,” by Mr. Gembala. Mr. Barenie seconded the motion. Ayes --- all. Nays --- none. The motion was carried by voice vote (5/0).

(The meeting was adjourned at 7:37 p.m.)

A TRUE COPY

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

06-04-2014 Plan Commission

June 4, 2014 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes

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

CALL TO ORDER:

Mr. Tom Ryan called to order the St. John Plan Commission, regular meeting, for June 4, 2014, 2014, at 7:03 p.m.

(The Pledge of Allegiance was said.)

ROLL CALL:

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

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: MAY 7, 2014, REGULAR MEETING

Mr. Ryan noted the first item on the agenda for consideration were minutes from the meeting of May 7, 2014. He stated if the Board members had an opportunity to review the minutes, he would entertain a motion to accept the minutes.

Mr. Nietzel made a motion to approve the Plan Commission minutes of May 7, 2014. Mr. Hastings seconded the motion, contingent upon a correction in the minutes to reflect that Mike Forbes is currently vice-president. The motion was carried by voice vote (5/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

NEW BUSINESS:

A. GATES OF ST. JOHN – ONE LOT SUBDIVISION – PRIMARY APPROVAL – TIM AND ANGELA MASON
Mr. Ryan noted the first order of business was primary approval for a one lot subdivision in the Gates of St. John.

Mr. Tim and Angela Mason, Petitioners, appeared before the Board seeking approval for the one lot subdivision. Mr. Mason submitted drawings to the Board.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil stated that this was a simple one lot subdivision with no outstanding issues. He stated that there are no utilities between the lots. Mr. Kil noted that the $900 developmental fee has been paid. He recommended that the Board suspend the rules and grant primary and secondary approval tonight so the mylars can be recorded.

Attorney Kuiper stated that if the rules are suspended, primary and secondary plat approval could be granted this evening. He stated that in unique situations such as this with no further review and no contingencies, the Board is authorized to grant primary approval first, suspend the rules (waive 30 days) and grant final plat approval.

Mr. Ryan stated he had no problem with granting primary and final plat approval as long as there were no objections from the Board members. There were no objections from the Board.

Attorney Kuiper noted that the public hearing on Gates of St. John, a one lot subdivision for Tim and Angela Mason, had been properly advertised for last month’s meeting, the public meeting was closed and properly continued to tonight’s meeting. Attorney Kuiper stated that the public hearing did not have to be reopened tonight.

Mr. Ryan asked if there was any further comment from the Board. There was no further comment from the Board. Mr. Kozel made a motion to grant primary plat approval for the one lot subdivision in the Gates of St. John for Tim and Angela Mason. Mr. Redar seconded the motion. The motion was carried by voice vote (5/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

Mr. Redar stated he would entertain a motion to temporarily suspend the rules so that final plat approval could be granted to Mr. and Mrs. Mason on the one lot subdivision tonight.

Mr. Kozel made a motion to suspend the Board’s rules for the Gates of St. John, one lot subdivision, Tim and Angela Mason. Mr. Hastings seconded the motion. The motion was carried by voice vote (5/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

Mr. Kozel made a motion, based on the suspension of the rules, to grant final plat approval for the one lot subdivision in the Gates of St. John belonging to Tim and Angela Mason. Mr. Redar seconded the motion. The motion was carried by voice vote (5/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

B. PARK PLACE OF ST. JOHN – 10800 PARK PLACE FINAL SITE PLAN/DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL PROVIDENCE LIFE SERVICES
Mr. Ryan noted that the Gates of St. John, Park Place of St. John was next on the agenda for final site plan/development plan approval.

Mr. Courtney appeared before the Board on behalf of Providence Life Services. He stated that the Board should have everything in their packets that they requested. Mr. Courtney stated that the parking lot lighting plan and landscape plans have been submitted and addresses have been assigned. He noted a check for the development and SWPPP fee was mailed as he was unable to hand deliver it.

Mr. Courtney stated that the Petitioner has met all of the requirements on the south end of the parcel for the small house construction. He stated that a full site plan for the north parcel along with the lighting and landscaping plans has been submitted to the Board.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kraus stated that he has reviewed the submissions, the contingencies have been met and everything was “good to go.”

Mr. Courtney stated he would submit the mylars for signature (for the south parcel) tonight in the event that the Board grants final site plan/development plan approval tonight.

Mr. Kil informed the Board that Mr. John Lotton was here tonight to explain the drainage/detention that was designed in order to handle Park Place of St. John in the Gates of St. John.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil discussed the flooding issue on Cline Avenue and it being a Lake County Surveyor issue.

Mr. Ryan asked the Board if they had any questions or comments for Mr. Courtney. The Board had no questions or comments for Mr. Courtney.

Mr. Lotton appeared before the Board to explain the Gates of St. John detention drainage design. He stated he was not aware of issues of actual drainage on the street. He stated that his understanding was that Mr. Redar had a concern about water flowing across Cline Avenue.

Mr. Lotton noted that water that is produced by Park Place of St. John will be piped to detention. He stated that it was surface water that was flowing from the streets which happened during a “200 year or 500 year event.” Mr. Lotton stated that in any type of event over a “100 year event, the streets are flood routes.”

Mr. Redar asked about the location of the piping. Mr. Lotton stated that there is significantly more detention than the project requires now. He stated that there is enough detention for the project to be built all the way to Parrish Avenue and the majority of Cline Avenue as it is.

Mr. Lotton stated he has directed Torrenga Engineering to review the storm water plan for the entire project and recalculate what is needed. He stated that there are some areas that have one hundred percent more capacity than what is necessary.

Mr. Lotton noted in the 2008 flood, there was still three feet of bounce left in one of the ponds; he stated that the pond should have been flowing over Park Place back to the power lines. He reiterated that Torrenga Engineering is recalculating the storm water plan.

Mr. Lotton stated that as far as any flooding in the Gates of St. John due to too little detention is completely inaccurate. Mr. Lotton stated that whether the streets flood when there is a hundred year event, he said it will happen every time and every project is designed this way.

Mr. Lotton noted that there is flooding all over Town. He noted that the Gates of St. John project has nothing to do with that.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Lotton explained to the Board that directly east of the water treatment plant there is a stub street that will hold water. He stated the stub street needs to go 30’ further before the first inlets are put in; he stated that the street has not been improved to the next inlet.

Mr. Kraus asked if the storm sewer system had been dedicated to the Town. Mr. Lotton stated it belonged to the Town.

Mr. Redar stated he had concerns about the state of the structure and the swale; he said he wanted to make sure it will not impact the development.

Mr. Lotton explained to the Board that the exposed pipe will be extended and gradually out into the pond. He reiterated that Mr. Torrenga will be reviewing all of the detention for possible redesign. Mr. Lotton stated as of now, the water is discharging, following the ditch and making its way, and not sitting in the field and/or flooding fields.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Lotton stated that in excess of one hundred percent storage has been found in some of the ponds. He stated this was due to lazy engineering where engineers placed caution on top of caution on top of caution and he paid for it.

Mr. Kil stated that the development is far from complete, and the development was master designed so that all of the storm water connects together in some form or fashion. Mr. Lotton concurred that the development was all integrated together. Mr. Lotton reiterated that the nursing facility will have no measureable impact on the development.

Mr. Ryan asked if adjustments are needed to the Gates of St. John storm water design, and if it would be done in the near future. Mr. Lotton stated that the only adjustments that will be necessary will be less detention. Mr. Lotton stated that when a couple of isolated areas were reviewed, there was way more detention than was necessary.

Mr. Lotton stated that as soon as Mr. Torrenga has recalculated the storm water in the Gates of St. John, it will be submitted to Mr. Kraus for his review.

Mr. Ryan asked if there were any further questions from the Board related to Park Place of St. John. There were no further questions from the Board on Park Place of St. John.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Ryan stated he would entertain a motion for primary plat approval for the south portion of Park Place of St. John contingent upon the receipt of the developmental and SWPPP fees and incorporating the findings of fact. “So moved,” by Mr. Hastings. Mr. Redar seconded the motion. The motion was carried by voice vote (5/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

Mr. Ryan stated he would entertain a motion to grant final site plan and development plan approval of the entire site for Park Place of St. John. “So moved,” by Mr. Redar. Mr. Hastings seconded the motion. The motion was carried by voice vote (5/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

Mr. Courtney thanked the Board.

C. TIBURON – LOT 156 – CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT – REMOVAL OF REAR YARD BUILDING LINE – MIKE MCCOY

Mr. Ryan noted the next item on the agenda was Tiburon, Lot 156, for consideration of a Certificate of Amendment to remove the rear yard building line.

Mr. Kil noted there was no representative present for Tiburon, Lot 156. He stated that he told them they did not have to be present tonight.

Attorney Kuiper explained to the Board that one of the subdivisions taken over by the Town that was developed in county included a rear yard setback line that was not consistent with the Town’s ordinances. He stated that the placement of this rear yard setback line has impeded the development and use of a lot of property. Attorney Kuiper stated that this matter is a simple request for the vacation of the rear building line that is reflected on the plat so that homeowners can use their lot consistent with the Town’s standards and regulations.

Mr. Kil explained to the Board that he had taken this issue to the Board of Zoning Appeals several years ago because there were problems in the Gates of St. John and other developments in Town. He stated that engineers from Illinois brought this practice (adding rear building lines) over with them for some reason. Mr. Kil stated that this rear yard building line causes confusion for everyone and wreaks havoc for Mr. Redar and him.

Mr. Kil explained that the Town’s zoning ordinance regulates the required rear yard, what can be put in the rear yard and proximity to property lines. He stated that when there is a 40’ building line, the entire use of the rear yard is lost. Mr. Kil stated there is no provision in the Town’s ordinance for this rear building line.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Ryan stated he would entertain a motion on the Petition to Vacate the Rear Yard Building Line on Lot 156 in Tiburon Subdivision, Unit 3, Plat Book 94, Page 34. “So moved,” by Mr. Kozel. Mr. Nietzel seconded the motion. The motion was carried by voice vote (5/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

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 adjourned the meeting.

(The meeting was adjourned at 7:39 p.m.)

A TRUE COPY

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

06-18-2014 Plan Commission

June 18, 2014 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes

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

CALL TO ORDER:

Mr. Tom Ryan called to order the St. John Plan Commission, study session, of June 18, 2014, 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 and Steve Kozel. Michael Forbes and Derwin Nietzel were absent. Staff members present: Kenn Kraus and Steve Kil.

NEW BUSINESS:

A. MARTIN’S COMMERCIAL ADDITION – LOT 5 – SITE PLAN APPROVAL – JOHN TEIBEL.
Mr. Ryan noted the only item under New Business is Martin’s Commercial Addition for site plan approval. He asked Mr. Teibel to present some information to the Board on the plan.

Mr. John Teibel appeared before the Board representing Martin’s Corner, which is located with the Sisters of St. Francis, Franciscan Alliance and the Subway at 109th Avenue. Mr. Teibel stated that there are currently four additional lots available behind Subway.

Mr. Teibel stated that the Lot 5 is the first lot to the north of Subway. He stated that the developer is planning an approximately 6,000 square foot single tenant building. Mr. Teibel stated that the tenant would be Anytime Fitness.

Mr. Teibel stated that Anytime Fitness has outgrown their building next to Subway and seeking to expand. He stated that the proposed building for Anytime Fitness on Lot 5, 6,000 square feet, will be almost double the size of their current building.

Mr. Teibel stated as far as style and appearance, it is anticipated that the new building will be similar to Anytime Fitness’s current building. He stated that the developer will be using the same architect. Mr. Teibel stated that the site plan reflects 48 parking spaces.

Mr. Ryan asked what would happen with the vacant building. Mr. Teibel stated that there have been several inquiries and he anticipates that the next tenant will be retail in nature.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kraus stated that he had a chance to review the plans and calculations. He stated that he has sent a list of seven items to Torrenga Engineering informing Mr. Torrenga of the requirements for the site plan; he stated the list included a lighting plan, a photometric map and details of the lighting system, a landscaping plan showing irrigation, calculations for parking spaces, calculations for the water service and sanitary sewer service and a SWPPP plan. Mr. Kraus noted that the plan reflects three service lines going into the building.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Teibel submitted some information on the lighting. He informed the Board that the lighting closest to the residential area will be pointed away from that direction. Mr. Teibel stated that the lights on the building would be decorative. He stated that the lighting plan was not done yet.

Mr. Teibel noted that there is a good amount of green space in the back. He stated that there is no anticipated future use for the northern portion of Lot 5, so this location is being allocated as green space, which will provide better screening for nearby residences.

Mr. Teibel explained the format of Anytime Fitness to the Board. He stated that the facility is open 24/7, and members gain access to the building by swiping a key card. Mr. Teibel stated there has not been a parking issue for Anytime Fitness being next to Subway, and he believes there will be no problem with parking at the new building. Mr. Kraus commented that the number of parking spaces meets with the Town’s ordinances.

Mr. Redar stated he liked the concept of all of the green space in the back, but wondered if the Fire Department should be consulted to review the accessibility. Mr. Teibel stated that the building has a 60’ depth so it would not be much different than a residence.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Hastings asked if the lighting would meet the specifications outlined in the Town’s Dark Sky ordinance. Mr. Teibel stated he was not familiar with the Dark Sky ordinance.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Teibel conceded that he would make certain that the lighting meets the Dark Sky ordinance specifications.

Mr. Teibel thanked the Board.

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.

ADJOURNMENT:

Mr. Ryan adjourned the meeting.

(The meeting was adjourned at 7:23 p.m.)

A TRUE COPY

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

07-02-2014 Plan Commission Meeting Canceled
07-16-2014 Plan Commission Special Meeting

July 16, 2014 Plan Commission Special Meeting Minutes

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

CALL TO ORDER:

Mr. Tom Ryan called to order the special meeting of the St. John Plan Commission, for July 16, 2014, 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: Tom Ryan, Michael Forbes, Steve Hastings, Steve Kozel and Derwin Nietzel. Staff members present: Steve Kil. Ken Krauss was present. Gregory Volk, Town Council liaison was also present. Attorney Timothy Kuiper was absent.

NEW BUSINESS:

A. MARTIN’S COMMERCIAL ADDITION – LOT 5 – FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL – BRAD TEIBEL.
Mr. Ryan noted that the first item on the agenda was final site plan approval for Martin’s Commercial Addition, Lot 5. Mr. Brad Teibel appeared before the Board on behalf of Martin’s Commercial Addition, Lot 5, seeking final site plan approval from the Board.

Mr. Teibel apologized for his absence last month. He stated his brother provided him with the list of issues to be addressed that were touched upon at the study session. Mr. Teibel stated that the lighting plan with revisions has been submitted to Mr. Kraus for review.

Mr. Teibel stated that he had preliminary building elevations and the landscape plans. He stated that he had the three most recent months of water usage for the current Anytime Fitness location. Mr. Teibel stated in reviewing the water capacities, a smaller water line (1 1/2” line) is being proposed for the new building.

Mr. Teibel submitted the elevations and landscape plans to the Board. He stated he would be happy to answer any questions that the Board may have. (General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Ryan asked the Petitioner to explain the reason for proposing a smaller water line. Mr. Teibel stated that that smaller water line is being proposed due to the low water consumption at Anytime Fitness. Mr. Kraus stated that the letter he submitted to the Board reflects a 2” water line; he stated that the connection fees will change if the water line is reduced to a 1 1/2” line.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes asked if fire suppression would be separate from the water line. Mr. Teibel stated that a fire suppression system was not required for Anytime Fitness. Mr. Teibel informed the Board that an irrigation system is used primarily in the first year for watering. He requested a waiver for the irrigation system from the Board for Anytime Fitness.

Mr. Teibel stated that watering systems can be brought in. He stated that watering was brought in for Subway landscaping for the first six months and not one plant was lost.

Mr. Redar noted the three man doors reflected on the back of the building; he asked where the doors would lead. Mr. Teibel stated that the doors will be used as emergency exits. Mr. Teibel stated that there have been talks of having outdoor recreation/class work at Anytime Fitness. He stated that outdoor aerobics have been discussed. Mr. Teibel stated that outdoor exercise may change the usage at the rear of the store slightly. Mr. Forbes noted that the Anytime Fitness abuts a residential area. Mr. Teibel stated that there is currently an eight foot berm with plantings on it.

Mr. Redar noted that the building and fire codes have language that includes being able to egress a minimum of 50’ away from the building to a public way. Mr. Redar stated that a sidewalk may have to be added in the rear of the building that leads to the public way. Mr. Teibel stated that if a sidewalk in the rear of the building is required, he would add the sidewalk.

Mr. Kil informed Mr. Teibel that all business for Anytime Fitness must be confined to the enclosed building. He stated that Anytime Fitness could not conduct outdoor activities unless the Board of Zoning Appeals granted a variance for the same. Mr. Teibel acknowledged Mr. Kil’s statement. Mr. Teibel stated that this matter has been discussed Anytime Fitness, and he would inform them of the variance requirement.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Ryan asked if there were any more questions from the Board. The Board had no further questions. Mr. Ryan stated he would entertain a motion for Martin’s Commercial Development, Lot 5. Mr. Forbes made a motion to grant final site plan approval to Martin’s Commercial Development, Lot 5, in accordance with the plans and drawings as presented. Mr. Kozel seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously carried by voice vote (5/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

B. PROVIDENCE LIFE SERVICES – FINAL SITE PLAN AND PLAT APPROVAL – JEFF COURTNEY.

Mr. Ryan noted that Providence Life Services was before the Board seeking final site and plat approval. Mr. Jeff Courtney, Providence Life Services, appeared before the Board seeking final site and plat approval. Mr. Courtney stated that he would entertain any questions, comments or concerns that the Board had related to the information that they have in front of them regarding the final site plan and plat for Providence Life Services.

Mr. Courtney noted that the site plans and issues have been reviewed thoroughly. He stated that the Board requested that the north and south parcels be combined into one overall site plan and a single final plat. Mr. Courtney stated that the plans before the Board reflect that the parcels have been combined.

Mr. Ryan asked Mr. Kraus if he had received the plans for his review. Mr. Kraus stated that he reviewed the secondary plat with both the northern and southern parcel on one plat. Mr. Kraus stated that the plans and plat are satisfactory and he did not see any changes that needed to be made.

Mr. Kraus stated he was a little confused about the water main easement on the north. Mr. Courtney stated that he noticed the easement as well but has not yet been able to address this issue with Torrenga Engineering.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil noted that the site is huge and complicated. He noted, undoubtedly, there would be field changes. Mr. Courtney stated that in previous developments he has been involved in when the as-builts are done the developer will provide an easement right over the as-builts. Mr. Kil recommended that the Board wait until the as-builts are done in the interior of the site, at which time easements, if needed, can be granted.

(General discussion ensued.)

The hydrants (public and private) and their locations were discussed. Mr. Kraus noted that there are seven fire hydrants around the site in addition to a fire suppression system. Mr. Courtney informed the Board that the State of Indiana has already reviewed and approved the fire suppression system and buildings slated for the southern end of the parcel.

Mr. Courtney stated, if approval is granted for the final site plan and plat tonight, by September 1 at the latest, he would have blueprints coming in for permit review.

The bike trail and its location and size were discussed.

Mr. Kraus stated that he generated two letters related to Providence Life Services. The first letter referred to the secondary plat review and the second letter relates to the site plan review. Mr. Kraus stated that there are three items that Torrenga Engineering is going to change, two sanitary sewer lines and a water valve. Mr. Kraus noted that these items are very minor but still need to be corrected.

Mr. Kraus stated the developmental fee will be $900 if the line is private. He stated that the utility connection fees of $75,000 are based on two four-inch water lines, sanitary charges are the same as the water lines based on the line sizes, a sewage treatment capacity charge is based water usage, and the fee for the SWPPP which is not completed yet. Mr. Kraus stated that he anticipates the SWPPP fee to be $712.80.

Mr. Kil stated that the developmental fee is the only fee that needs to be paid up front. He stated that the other fees are calculated on the permit when the permit is pulled. Mr. Kil reiterated that the development is large and will be built in phases.

Mr. Kraus stated that the site plan is acceptable; he recommended that the Board approve the site plan with contingencies for the three items he mentioned, the two sanitary sewer lines and the water valve.

Mr. Ryan asked if the Board members had any further questions or comments. The Board members had no further questions.

Mr. Kil recommended in the event that the Board does grant approval for the site plan and the plat, that it be done in two separate motions.

Mr. Ryan stated he would entertain a motion. Mr. Forbes made a motion to grant approval of final plat for Providence Life Service incorporating and including the findings of fact, contingent upon the removal of the easements as discussed and Mr. Kraus’s review of the mylars prior to signature. Mr. Kozel seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously carried by voice vote (5/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

Mr. Forbes made a motion to grant approval of the final site plan for Providence Life Services, contingent upon corrections being made as referenced by Mr. Kraus’s letter (to be appended to meeting minutes) and payment of the developmental fee. Mr. Hastings seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously carried by voice vote (5/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

Mr. Courtney thanked the Board.

C. ROSE GARDEN SUBDIVISION – EXTENSION OF FINAL PRIMARY PLAT.

Mr. Ryan noted Rose Garden subdivision was requesting an extension of final plat. Mr. Kil remarked that this subdivision is owned by a family of three individuals and their spouses. He stated that the subdivision is zoned R-1 with five lots and located next to Willow Ridge.

Mr. Kil stated that the family requests an extension of the plat each year.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes asked if there was a letter of credit on the subdivision. Mr. Kil stated that no improvements have been made. Mr. Kraus noted that a letter of credit has to be put up before final plat is approved. Mr. Kil misspoke; he stated that the request was for an extension of the primary plat.

Mr. Kil stated that if the extension is not approved the Petitioners would have to start all over. Mr. Forbes stated that the positive side of having a subdivision with primary plat approval is that someone may stumble upon it and want to buy it.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil pointed out the location of Rose Garden subdivision for the Board.

Mr. Ryan stated he would entertain a motion on the extension of primary plat for Rose Garden subdivision. Mr. Forbes made a motion to approve the extension of primary plat for Rose Garden subdivision. Mr. Hastings seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously carried by voice vote (5/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

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 adjourned the meeting.

(The meeting was adjourned at 7:58 p.m.)

A TRUE COPY

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

08-06-2014 Plan Commission

August 6, 2014 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes

Tom Ryan, President Steve Hastings Attorney Tim Kuiper
Michael Forbes, 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 St. John Plan Commission, for August 6, 2014, at 7:04 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, Michael Forbes, Steve Hastings, Steve Kozel and Derwin Nietzel. Staff members present: Steve Kil. Ken Krauss was present. Gregory Volk, Town Council liaison was also present. Attorney Timothy Kuiper was absent.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: July 16, 2014

Mr. Ryan noted the minutes for the July 16, 2014, special meeting were before the Board. He stated if the Board has had a chance to review the minutes from July 16, 2014, he would accept a motion for approval of the meeting minutes as is, or with any changes necessary. “So moved,” by Mr. Kozel. Mr. Hastings seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously carried by voice vote (6/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

NEW BUSINESS:

A. KILKENNY ESTATES – UNIT FOUR, BLOCK ONE ENGINEERING DISCUSSION – GARY TORRENGA.
Mr. Ryan noted the first order of New Business is Kilkenny Estates, Unit Four, Block One. Mr. Gary Torrenga, Torrenga Engineering, Munster, Indiana, appeared before the Board representing Mr. Andy James. Mr. James was also present.

Mr. Torrenga informed the Board that Mr. James is the proud owner of Kilkenny Estates. Mr. Torrenga stated that Mr. James would like to begin the development of the remainder of Kilkenny Estates. He stated that Mr. James would like to develop some eleven lots that are located along the existing Limerick Drive, which is on the east side.

Mr. Torrenga passed out copies of a plan to the Board. He informed the Board that Limerick Drive was built some time ago as a portion of Kilkenny Estates. Mr. Torrenga stated that the eleven lots that he is referring to for development were not platted. He stated that the reason these lots were not platted is because there was no sanitary sewer available.

Mr. Torrenga stated this is a rather strange situation, but relatively easily remedied. He directed the Board’s attention to the page one of three pages of the operational portion of the plans. Mr. Torrenga noted that the sanitary sewer comes along the southeast portion of the street where there is an existing 8” PVC sanitary sewer with stubs going to the lots on the southeast and the northwest.

Mr. Torrenga stated that this stands alone, with only a portion of the sanitary sewer that could potentially handle the effluent from the eleven homes, going up to the northwest. He stated that the proposed sanitary sewer goes along a proposed street and then it stops.

Mr. Torrenga informed the Board that Mr. James is new to development. Mr. James met with Mr. Kil. Mr. Kil suggested that a temporary lift station be built for the proposed 11-lot development which would be directed to into the existing sanitary sewer.

Mr. Torrenga stated with this information in mind, he started the engineering. He directed the Board’s attention to the north and northwest side of Limerick Drive where there is an existing 27” through 21” storm sewer that takes care of the drainage along Limerick Drive.

Mr. Torrenga stated a water main with all of the taps also exists. Mr. Nietzel stated that there are no taps but the water main exists.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Torrenga directed the Board’s attention to Page 2, which shows the eleven lots. He stated that the eleven lots range in size from 20,000 through 26,000 square feet, big enough to meet the Town’s ordinance on lot size. Mr. Torrenga noted that curbs also exist.

Mr. Torrenga noted that Page 2 also reflects a proposed gravel road, which will also be a future road. He stated that the gravel road will go to a lift station that the developer intends to put in northwest of Lot 10.

Mr. Torrenga stated that the temporary lift station (Structure B) is being located northwest of Lot 10, the reason being that another ten to fifteen lots will go to the southwest on the cul de sac.

Mr. Torrenga stated that the design of the cul de sac is in error. He explained to the Board that it appears that the road goes approximately eleven feet above the ground. Mr. Torrenga stated that the previous design calls for the homes to be located two feet above that.

Mr. Torrenga stated that he is in the process of redesigning the road. He directed the Board’s attention to Page 3, Structure A. He stated that there is a curved street going up to the north property line. Mr. Torrenga pointed out that this is Columbia Avenue. Mr. Torrenga stated that his field crews are currently working on establishing the actual location, elevation, curbs, etc., for Columbia Avenue.

Mr. Torrenga stated that Mr. James intends that the next phase of Kilkenny will proceed with a cul de sac to the southwest in a totally revised form. He stated that the revised cul de sac drawing will not have prospective home buyers looking down a hill as they would be with the current design. Mr. Torrenga stated that Columbia Avenue will tie in the traffic from east of Kilkenny Estates, Unit Four, and also south and it will allow an additional outlet.

Mr. Torrenga stated that some modifications have been made to rear yard drainage as the rear yard drainage for this site was excessive. Mr. Torrenga stated that there is no reason to have a catch basin on the corner of every lot. He stated he did not change the original receptacle for the rear yard drainage or the drainage in general, but merely modified how the drainage is directed to the rear yard.

Mr. Torrenga stated Petitioner is will be seeking primary plat approval at the Board’s next regular meeting for the eleven lots in Kilkenny Estates, Unit Four. Mr. Torrenga stated that the Petitioner would like to return to the study session and show the Board his plans for the cul de sac and the contact with Columbia Avenue.

Mr. Torrenga stated he would be happy to answer any questions the Board may have.

Mr. Kraus stated that he agreed with how Mr. Torrenga changed the drainage in the rear yards as it is a better system than what was there before.

Mr. Kraus stated that the location of the lift station has been changed from the original Goldberg plans where the force main went over to Lift Station #2 on Magnolia. Mr. Kraus stated that the current plan will allow more gravity sewers to come to the new location lift station and the force line will bring it to the closest existing sewer. Mr. Kraus stated this plan is better both economically and ecologically.

Mr. Kraus stated that the only thing he would want to see is easements for the sewer lines outside of the eleven platted lots. He stated there should be an easement for the sewer, the lift station and for the force main outside of the platted area. Mr. Torrenga stated that there should be a platted easement for access to the lift station. Mr. Kraus concurred.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kraus stated that the street in between Lots 9 and 10 should be paved to the back lot line. Mr. Torrenga stated that Mr. Kraus’ last statement is potentially correct. He stated he is hesitant to do this at this time because with the existing plan he does not intend to do any paving. Mr. Torrenga stated that when the connection is made to the next phase of Kilkenny Estates, (in a month or two) the connection will be made to Columbia Avenue and major paving will be done going down the cul de sac to the southwest.

Mr. Torrenga asked the Board to consider allowing the paving to take place all at once instead of a couple hundred feet of paving right now. He stated the paving would be done in the next phase of development of Kilkenny estates.

Mr. Kraus stated that the road needs to be paved because it is within the boundaries of what will become a platted subdivision. He stated all of the improvements need to be in place or a bond has to be put up for all improvements that are not in place.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Nietzel noted that there are two valves in the corner, but no water main running down this street. Mr. Torrenga stated that he plans on putting a water main in place. Mr. Torrenga stated that the water main design was an absolute wonderment to him. He stated that the water main was designed to go northwest through the road, turn south/southwest down the cul de sac, have 8” water mains on each side of the streets and loop around the cul de sac to form its own loop.

Mr. Torrenga stated that the double water mains 50 feet apart is not necessary. He stated he has different ideas for the water main and will need to secure the easements. Mr. Torrenga stated there is some work to be done in the easement beyond the curbs and pavement. He reiterated that they would like to place a hold on this work until the next phase of Kilkenny in a month or two.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil stated that he understands the desire to put off the paving, but Kilkenny, Unit Four, being proposed as a platted subdivision, could only be done with the Board’s approval and a letter of credit. Mr. Torrenga stated that he could obtain a letter of credit for the limit of the subdivision. Mr. Kil stated that this issue should pose no problem as long as a letter of credit is posted for the outstanding public improvements within the platted area.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil noted that no other public improvements need to be done as the road is already in.

Mr. Redar asked who would maintain the temporary lift station. Mr. Kraus stated it would probably be maintained by the Town. Mr. Redar stated that there would be gravel going all the way to the lift station. He stated in the Town would need some type of access to the lift station.

Mr. Forbes opined that the road should go in as a part of the development. Mr. Redar concurred. Mr. Forbes stated that the road installation is a cost associated with the development and needs to go in to the edge of the platted area.

Mr. Torrenga stated that beyond the limits of what has been platted as a subdivision, the road elevation has to be redesigned. He stated that they don’t intend changes to the road within the subdivision. He stated he is in the process of finding out what the existing elevations on Columbia Avenue to the north.

Mr. Forbes stated that the problem with the area is that there are pipeline easements, and he believes this is the pretty close to the only place the road can go without laying on top of a pipeline.

Mr. Torrenga noted there was no pipeline interference with the cul de sac at all. He stated that the road elevations would have to be substantially changed.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kozel stated that he feels as if a piece of the project is missing. He stated he would rather see the entire project and the portion that will be developed next so that the Board can ensure that everything is in place as it should be. Mr. Torrenga reiterated that they would obtain a letter of credit so that the Petitioner can get going on the project.

Mr. Kozel asked if a portion of this would be brought to the study session. Mr. Torrenga it would not be. He stated he intended to discuss the plans to the northwest, southwest and the connection to Columbia Avenue at the study session. Mr. Kozel asked when the cul de sac would come in. Mr. Torrenga stated that the cul de sac would be included in the next phase, “in a couple of months.

Mr. James addressed the Board. He stated that he understands the Board’s concerns. He stated that from a time standpoint he’s hoping that the proposed development goes very quickly. Mr. James stated it is important for the development that this phase move quickly to open up Columbia Avenue to all of the people who live there right now.

Mr. James explained that once the road is open to Columbia Avenue, it will help the current residents of Kilkenny, but more importantly, it will help the marketing of the rest of the subdivision from a development standpoint.

Mr. Torrenga stated he does not have the slightest idea why The road was designed this way. Mr. Torrenga stated he would not build the road this way; he’s going to redesign it. Mr. Torrenga stated the redesign will not affect the rear yard drainage.

Mr. Torrenga reiterated that Mr. James would like to develop the eleven lot subdivision first. He stated this is Mr. James’ first time as a developer. Mr. Torrenga stated it is his intention to help Mr. James. He stated that with the economy recovering people want to build in St. John.

Mr. Torrenga stated he would like to see the project take off. He reiterated that the Petitioner does not have a problem bonding up to the property line.

Mr. Forbes stated that the Board would take the information presented by Mr. Torrenga under advisement until the study session. He stated this would give the Board members an opportunity get out and physically walk the property if they wanted. Mr. Forbes indicated that the Board was not going to take action on this matter tonight.

Mr. Kil stated his understanding was that Petitioner was seeking permission to advertise. He stated the only outstanding issue at the present time is whether or not to extend the road. Mr. Nietzel remarked that the lift station was also an issue. Mr. Kil stated that it is understood that the temporary lift station needs to go in.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes stated he was not aware that Petitioner was seeking permission to advertise tonight. Mr. Kil stated that the infrastructure is already in on a developed street.

Mr. Forbes stated he is okay with moving forward, but the details on the lift station will have to be ironed out. He stated some understanding will have to be reached on the street and the lift station. Mr. Forbes stated he would be okay with authorizing a public hearing if the other Board members had an objection.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Ryan remarked that the Town needs access to the lift station during the winter. Mr. Kil stated that a temporary road will be installed for the temporary lift station along with a platted easement so there is no question that the Town would have access to the lift station.

Mr. Ryan stated that he gets the impression that there will be more answers at the next meeting than there has been tonight. He stated that Mr. Torrenga will likely have more information at that time. Mr. Torrenga stated that the elevations for the temporary lift station and the temporary road will not change.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil noted that the basic request is to advertise for a public hearing in September. He stated that the Petitioner would have to come back to the study session. Mr. Torrenga stated that he would have more information on what Petitioner is going to do on Unit Two, but it would not change what Petitioner intends to do on Unit One. Mr. Kil stated that Petitioner could answer some questions about the future of the development at the next meeting in order to make everyone more comfortable.

Mr. Ryan stated it was all dependent upon what the Board wanted to do, defer this matter to the next meeting, or go ahead with a vote. Mr. Torrenga stated that Petitioner wants to advertise for public hearing the next meeting.

Mr. Torrenga stated that he would provide any particular information that the Board requests at the next meeting. Mr. Ryan stated that this is what the Board is trying to ascertain right now.

Mr. Redar stated he did not have a problem with advertising, but he does not like the arrangement as it stands at the present time. He stated that they have to come to some sort of agreement on the access to the lift station. Mr. Redar stated if the Town has to maintain the lift station, there has to be something better than a gravel road.

Mr. Redar stated that his impression is that the Board wants to defer this matter. Mr. Kozel stated that he has no objection to advertising, but there are the lift station, cul de sac and road issues that must be cleared up. Mr. Forbes stated the Petitioner could advertise for public hearing for the next meeting in September, but an agreement must be reached on the lift station, cul de sac and temporary road prior to the approval of the primary plat.

Mr. Forbes stated that Mr. Torrenga must bring more information related to the cul de sac area, the lift station and the road. Mr. Forbes recommended that Mr. Torrenga consult with Mr. Kraus, Mr. Redar or Mr. Nietzel to iron out the issues on access to the temporary lift station. Mr. Forbes stated that the Town should not be hindered in any way in accessing the lift station. Mr. Torrenga stated that all of the questions that the Board has tonight, the answers are in progress. Mr. Forbes stated that the problems would have to be solved before the public hearing. Mr. Torrenga concurred.

Mr. Forbes made a motion to grant permission to authorize Kilkenny Estates, Unit Four, to advertise for a public hearing at the Plan Commission’s September 3, 2014, meeting. Mr. Kozel seconded the motion. The motion was carried by voice vote (5/1). Mr. Nietzel was opposed. Ayes --- five. Nays --- one.

The drainage, lift station and elevations were additionally discussed.

B. CERTIFICATEOF AMENDMENT – RENAISSANCE – UNIT FOUR – SIGNATURES NEEDED

Mr. Ryan noted that a Certificate of Amendment for Renaissance, Unit Four was next on the agenda. He noted that the side yard setbacks were being moved from 25’ to 20’.

Mr. Kil noted that this matter had been reviewed and discussed, but the signatures for the Certificate of Amendment were not obtained. He stated that the Certificate of Amendment just needs signatures.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

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

ADJOURNMENT:

Mr. Ryan adjourned the meeting.

(The meeting was adjourned at 8:01 p.m.)

A TRUE COPY

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

08-20-2014 Plan Commission

August 20, 2014 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes

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

CALL TO ORDER:

Mr. Michael Forbes chaired the meeting in Mr. Ryan’s absence; he called to order the study session of the St. John Plan Commission, for August 20, 2014, 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 and Derwin Nietzel. Tom Ryan was absent. Staff members present: Steve Kil. Ken Krauss was present. Attorney Timothy Kuiper was absent.

NEW BUSINESS:

A. PRESERVES AT SCHILTON HILLS – SEVEN LOTS (R1) JACK SLAGER.

Mr. Jack Slager appeared before the Board on behalf of Schilling Development. He submitted handouts to the Board for their review. Mr. Slager informed the Board that the Preserves is a 24-acre parcel located on the south side of 93rd Avenue, east of the S curve and Bramblewood and across and to the west of Schilton Hills. He stated that the parcel was annexed into Town earlier this year. Mr. Slager stated that a majority of the 24 acres is wetland, flood plain and bad ground. He stated there is one high portion of ground which will be developed with seven lots.

Mr. Slager stated all of the lots will be R1 lots with a minimum lot size of 100x200, 20,000 square feet, and with some lots up to 30,000 square feet. He stated the development will consist of one short cul de sac with seven lots around it. Mr. Slager stated that the development will line up across 93rd Avenue with Columbia Drive.

Mr. Slager stated he would happy to entertain any questions that the Board may have.

Right of way on the south side of the development was discussed. Mr. Slager stated that the south side of 93rd Avenue would have 40 feet of right of way and 30 feet on the north side.

Mr. Forbes noted that the remainder of the land in the Preserves cannot be developed. Mr. Slager concurred. He stated the remainder of the property is a combination of wetlands, flood zone/plain and bad soil.

Mr. Slager stated that Schilling Development also owns the property to the east, which is a series of ponds which are part of the Schilton Hills detention area. He stated that are some pods of ground in this area which may be developed some day. Mr. Slager informed the Board that there is a vast array of low ground, wet lands and flood zones all along the north side of the creek.

Mr. Nietzel asked if the water main would be looped. Mr. Slager stated that there is a decent-sized water main on the north side of 93rd Avenue which goes up Columbia Drive. He stated it would take approximately 300 feet of water main to get down the cul de sac. He stated all of the engineering is not complete, but there was no thought of looping the water main because there is nowhere to go with it.

Gravity sewer was discussed. Mr. Slager stated that the sanitary is on the south side of 93rd Avenue, and the water is on the north side of 93rd Avenue.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes remarked that the project was pretty straightforward. He asked the Board if they had any further questions or comments. The Board had no further questions or comments.

Mr. Slager informed the Board that Petitioner was requesting permission to advertise for public hearing at the October 1, 2014, meeting. Mr. Forbes stated that the Board would authorize Petitioner to advertise for the public hearing in October at the September meeting.

B. MARIAN WAYSIDE – PLAN REVIEW – JACK SLAGER.
Mr. Forbes noted Mr. Slager was present for the Marian Wayside Shrine plan review. Mr. Slager appeared on behalf of Marian Wayside Shrine a/k/a the Shrine of Christ’s Passion Prayer Trail. He handed out copies of the plan for the Board’s review.

Mr. Slager stated the Shrine is the brainchild of Mr. Frank Schilling. He noted over the years the prayer trail, gift shop and the parking lot have been developed. Mr. Slager informed the Board that over the last three years Christopher Burke Engineering has been working on “after the fact permits,” related to the Shrine for all of the work that was associated with the original prayer trail. Mr. Slager stated that when the prayer trail went in, the proper permits were not received for the prayer trail.

Mr. Slager stated that Marian Wayside Shrine had applied for an “after the fact fill permit.” He informed the Board that on August 1, 2014, a Certificate of Approval for “after the fact construction in a flood way,” was received from the DNR. Mr. Slager noted that this Certificate of Approval basically authorized the work that was done on the prayer trail.

Mr. Slager stated, with the DNR approval in hand, Mr. Schilling would like to proceed with the next phase of the development, Mount Sinai. He explained that there is a large mound of dirt that was intended to be shaped into a feature known as Mount Sinai. He stated that this phase of the development will involve extending a new trail from the back of the building over to the mound, and shaping and landscaping the mound into a feature.

Mr. Slager introduced Ray Lens, Redbud Landscaping, to the Board. Mr. Slager stated that Mr. Lens is the “co-mastermind” of the prayer trail project with Mr. Frank Schilling. Mr. Slager stated that there has never been any engineering for the trail project, just Mr. Schilling’s vision of what the project should look like. Mr. Slager stated that Mr. Schilling has invested millions of dollars into the project to make the Shrine a no-cost tourism attraction for the Town of St. John.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Lens approached the Board and showed (via computer) them renderings of what will be involved in the Mount Sinai project. Mr. Slager stated that Petitioner would like to take the mound of dirt currently at the site, shape it and add landscaping and features. Mr. Slager stated since Petitioner has received their “after the fact fill permit” they will only use the fill that is already there. Mr. Slager stated a portion of the parking lot will be cut in order to bring the proposed trail to it. He stated that this portion of the trail will also be landscaped.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Slager stated that the Petitioner will tie in the access to the well for the Town, but the developer is not sure exactly if the well access will come from the back, the north side or the south side. Mr. Slager stated that the well access will be in a logical place with an easement.

Mr. Lens pointed out the location of the trail, the burning bush and a statue of Moses holding the Ten Commandments. Mr. Slager explained that the hill will be almost hollow in the middle with a path winding up into it in a semicircle. Mr. Lens stated forming the hill will not affect anything already there, the dirt will just be dug out and formed into a feature.

Mr. Kozel asked about erosion protection. Mr. Lens stated that the site will be using 20-30 loads of big boulders, and the boulders will stabilize everything. He stated it will look much like the Ascension site already located at the Shrine.

Mr. Forbes asked about the height of Mount Sinai. Mr. Lens stated that the proposed Mount Sinai should not be any higher than what is there presently, but with the addition of the boulders, it might look higher.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Lens stated he hoped to have the project completed by the middle of next summer.

Mr. Slager explained that to accommodate the Mount Sinai project, the Petitioner would be cutting off the south edge of the parking lot to fit the proposed trail in. He stated, ultimately, they will be adding parking to the north of the existing parking lot.

Mr. Slager stated that this will be a long-term project, and Petitioner wanted to show the Board the plans and obtain their approval. Mr. Kil directed Mr. Slager attend the September 3, 2014, meeting to seek formal site plan approval.

Mr. Nietzel asked about flooding provisions. Mr. Slager stated that the parking lot has been completely diked and should be protected from any future flood event. He stated that there is also a pump lift station that pumps the storm water out of the parking lot up over the dike.

Mr. Slager stated that Petitioner feels confident that there will be no flooding issues going forward.

Mr. Slager acknowledged the September 3, 2014, Plan Commission meeting date at which time he will seek permission to advertise for a public hearing.

C. KILKENNY – UNIT FOUR – GART TORRENGA.

Mr. Forbes noted Mr. Torrenga’s absence. Mr. Kil stated that Mr. Torrenga apologized for his absence, but his field crew could not finish all of the engineering work that had to be done at Kilkenny. Mr. Kil stated that Mr. Torrenga plans on attending the Board’s regular meeting in October.

D. NIEMEYER PROPERTY – 109TH AND PARRISH AVENUE – JOE LENIHAN.

Mr. Joe Lenihan, representing Olthof Homes, appeared before the Board on behalf of the Niemeyer property located at 109th and Parrish Avenue. Mr. Lenihan submitted documents to the Board.

Mr. Lenihan informed the Board that Olthof Homes is proposing to call their new development Mill Creek. He directed the Board’s attention to the aerial photograph reflecting an outline of the property. He stated that the other document he submitted is a zoning exhibit that reflects the potential land plan for the property.

Mr. Lenihan informed the Board that the property is generally located at the southeast corner of Route 231 and Parrish Avenue. He noted the 108 acre parcel is outlined in blue on the aerial photograph. He stated the parcel is a mix of farm ground, woods, ponds and wet lands. Mr. Lenihan stated that the public hearing portion of the annexation was completed at the August 14, 2014, meeting.

Mr. Lenihan stated that in 2006-2007, the Town had annexed the first 200 feet of frontage along Route 231 and it was zoned as C2 at that time. Mr. Lenihan explained that when the developer, Olthof, annexed their property it was zoned as R1 and the remaining 400 feet of frontage that was annexed at the same time (by the trust) was zoned as C2.

Mr. Lenihan stated that the developer is seeking a zoning change for Mill Creek from R1 to a Planned Unit Development zoning district. He stated that the developer is seeking a PUD because it would allow them to preserve open space as the property has some nice natural features.

Mr. Lenihan directed the Board’s attention to the land plan document that he submitted. He stated that there are 38.9 acres of the property that are reserved in open space through ponds, wet lands, wooded areas and parks that will be preserved.

Mr. Lenihan stated that the Petitioner envisions three property types for Mill Creek. The first set of renderings shown to the Board was the Tradition Series, single family residences. Mr. Lenihan stated that there are five floor plans in the Tradition Series that range in square footage from 1,700 up to 2,800. Mr. Lenihan stated that this project would be located in the south/southeast part of the development. He stated architectural elements have been added to the homes, for example, cornice returns, bracketing at the gable ends, shake siding and masonry shutters.

Mr. Lenihan presented the paired cottage product renderings to the Board. He stated that the paired cottage is a new series of homes by Olthof. Mr. Lenihan stated that these homes will be marketed for active adults. He pointed out the paired cottages will be primarily craftsman and prairie style architecture. Mr. Lenihan stated that the developer is proposing to locate the paired cottage lots abutting the C2 land.

Mr. Lenihan presented the Signature Series renderings to the Board. The square footages on the Signature Series range from 2,600 to 3,100 square feet. He stated that there are four primary architectural styles for the homes, colonial, arts and crafts, French country and craftsman. He pointed out different features on the architectural styles.

Mr. Lenihan stated that the developer is planning to include a lot of amenities in the open spaces that have been set aside. He stated that the developer is willing to extend the eight foot trail that already runs through the Gates of St. John. He stated that the route can be figured out in the future. He stated that the developer intends to route other walking trails within the development to the proposed bike trail once the final land plan is finished.

Mr. Lenihan stated that most of what the developer proposes to do in Mill Creek will meet with St. John’s Subdivision Control Ordinance. He stated that the waivers that the developer will be seeking in the PUD would be related to lot sizes in order to preserve open space.

Mr. Lenihan stated he would love to get feedback from the Board.

Mr. Redar asked if the paired cottages would be on slabs. Mr. Lenihan stated that an option would be offered for the paired cottages, either slab or with a basement.

Mr. Redar asked about color tones. Mr. Lenihan stated that pretty consistent colors would be kept with the primary building materials and then mixing it up with accent colors, different color stones, roof colors, etc.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes noted that engineering still needed to be done. Mr. Kil explained that what the developer needs to do will is very much like a zoning commitment. Mr. Lenihan acknowledged he would write a zoning commitment.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil stated that with a PUD proposal, the developer should provide a very detailed zoning commitment. Mr. Kil noted that the PUD zone change is more complicated and requires more detailed use.

Mr. Forbes remarked that downsizing in order to preserve some of the open space is acceptable to him. Mr. Kozel stated that the units being built on the lots are still quite substantial.

Mr. Redar asked if there was any way to eliminate some of the cul de sacs. Water main looping was discussed.

Mr. Lenihan stated that the developer is proposing varying front setbacks. He stated the primary reason for the varying front setbacks would be to give the developer the flexibility to save some trees. The varying setbacks would also vary the streetscape.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes opined that the varying setbacks add a lot of character to a subdivision, and he would be okay with this.

Mr. Lenihan stated he would start putting the details together. He stated he is prepared to come to the first meeting in September he will attend, if not he plans to come to the study session to update the Board on his plans.

Mr. Kil recommended that Mr. Lenihan stub a street possibly through Lot 157 or around there. Mr. Lenihan concurred. Ingress/egress cuts at Parrish Avenue and Route 231 were discussed.

Mr. Forbes directed Mr. Lenihan to come back before the Board in September. Mr. Lenihan thanked the Board.

OLD BUSINESS:

Mr. Forbes noted there was no Old Business before the Board.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

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

* * * * * *

Mr. Forbes shared with the Board information on the proposed Northwoods Outdoor Music Theater. He stated that this project was proposed at the Schererville Plan Commission meeting on Monday. Mr. Forbes stated that developer is proposing to build a “Ravinia-like” music theater behind the existing Northwoods building.

Mr. Forbes stated that the developer is proposing a 3,000-3,500 seat and 1,500-2,000 lawn seat music theater. He noted the maximum capacity at the proposed music theater would be 6,000.

Mr. Forbes stated that the two topics that were focused on during the discussion were sound and traffic. Mr. Forbes stated that the developer maintains that the design of the sound system will contain the music. He stated that the developer is proposing to build a 25’ wall completely around the stage and seats to absorb sound and crowd noise.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes stated that the developer would like to schedule a joint Plan Commission meeting with St. John and Schererville.

Mr. Forbes stated that great concerns were expressed about traffic. The developer is proposing parking for the music venue at Lake Central, various businesses around Lake Central and Grimmer School. The developer is proposing to bus patrons from parking at Grimmer School to the venue. Mr. Forbes stated that the Schererville Plan Commission reacted negatively to the proposed parking at Grimmer School. The developer offered alternative parking at Kolling School in lieu of Grimmer School.

Mr. Forbes stated that the proposed frontage road in St. John was discussed, and he explained that the frontage road would not run all the way to the north boundary.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes stated that the developer stressed that Northwoods has been a “white elephant” for many years and that the proposed music theater is the best way to build up the usage of this facility. He stated that the developer is proposing that Northwoods would be a normal restaurant during non-entertainment nights, but during events the restaurant will become the VIP seating for the event. Mr. Forbes stated the project is problematic in that every time you ask a question and get an answer you have another question.

Mr. Kil informed the Board members that he e-mailed a copy of the music theater plans to them.

Mr. Forbes stated that the developer indicated he would go and discuss the proposed bridge with INDOT, and then come before the St. John Plan Commission.

Mr. Forbes stated that the developer stated he is anticipating 40 to 80 events per year (evening only) running from May until the first week of October. Mr. Forbes stated that the developer maintains there would be no conflict with the school because if the school has an event, there will not be an event at the music venue.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes stated he does not see many positives in St. John for the proposed music theater. He stated that once he receives additional information he will inform and e-mail the Board members.

Mr. Hastings stated he had one comment related to trees. He stated he is not sure how the Town handled the tree situation in Lake Hills, but if equipment is run over the area where an old tree is located the tree will die.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes asked if there were any other questions, comments or concerns. There was no further comment from the Board.

ADJOURNMENT:

Mr. Ryan adjourned the meeting.

(The meeting was adjourned at 8:14 p.m.)

A TRUE COPY

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

09-03-2014 Plan Commission

September 3, 2014 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes

Tom Ryan, President Steve Hastings Attorney Tim Kuiper
Michael Forbes, 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 St. John Plan Commission, for September 3, 2014, 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: Tom Ryan, Steve Hastings, Steve Kozel and Derwin Nietzel. Michael Forbes was absent. Staff members present: Steve Kil. Ken Krauss was present. Attorney Timothy Kuiper was absent.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: AUGUST 6, 2014

Mr. Ryan noted the first order of business was approval from the August 6, 2014, meeting. He asked the Board to please note any corrections to the minutes.

Mr. Kozel noted on Page 8, under Public Comment, Mr. Ryan should be changed to Mr. Forbes. Mr. Ryan stated with this correction, he would entertain a motion to approve the minutes. “So moved,” by Mr. Kozel. Mr. Hastings seconded the motion. The motion was carried by voice vote (5/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

NEW BUSINESS:

A. PRESERVES AT SCHILTON HILLS --- PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE --- JACK SLAGER.
Mr. Ryan noted the first item under New Business was the Preserves at Schilton Hills. Mr. Jack Slager appeared before the Board on behalf of Schilling Development seeking permission to advertise for a public hearing for the Preserves.

Mr. Slager stated he attended the study session two weeks ago to discuss the Preserves at Schilton Hills. He stated that The Preserves is a 24-acre parcel on the south side of 93rd Avenue. Mr. Slager noted the parcel was annexed into the Town of St. John earlier this year. Mr. Slager stated that the proposed project will be a seven lot, R-1 development. He stated that the development will consist of large, single family lots.

Mr. Slager stated he was seeking permission from the Board to send out Notices for a Public Hearing to be held at the October 1, 2014, meeting.

Mr. Kil stated it was basically a simple motion to authorize a public hearing on October 1, 2014. Mr. Slager stated he would return to the September study session at which time he should have some engineering drawings.

Mr. Kozel made a motion to grant permission for The Preserves at Schilton Hills to advertise for a public hearing to be held on October 1, 2014. Mr. Redar seconded the motion. The motion was carried by voice vote (5/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

B. MARIAN WAYSIDE --- SITE PLAN APPROVAL --- JACK SLAGER.
Mr. Ryan noted Marian Wayside was the next item on the agenda for the Board’s review and consideration. Mr. Slager appeared before the Board seeking site plan approval on the Shrine of Christ’s Passion trail project. He stated that this project was also presented to the Board two weeks ago at the study session.

Mr. Slager stated that the proposed trail project is a small addition to the existing walking trail. He stated the addition was spurred by the release of the site by the DNR. Mr. Slager refreshed the Board’s recollection that the DNR had granted an “after the fact fill permit,” in August, 2014, related to previous improvements at the site.

Mr. Slager stated the proposed project will be called “Mount Sinai.” He stated that a large mound of dirt that currently exists at the site will be shaped, landscaped, finished and made a part of the existing Shrine project.

Mr. Kozel made a motion to approve the site plan for Marian Wayside, Shrine of Christ’s Passion for the Mount Sinai project. Mr. Hastings seconded the motion. The motion was carried by voice vote (5/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

C. MILL CREEK DEVELOPMENT --- PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR ZONE CHANGE --- JOE LENIHAN.

Mr. Ryan noted the next item for the Board’s review and consideration was the Mill Creek development. Mr. Joe Lenihan, Olthof Homes, appeared before the Board seeking permission to advertise for a public hearing for a zone change at the Mill Creek development.

Mr. Lenihan stated he presented the proposed Mill Creek development to the Board at the last study session. He stated that he is in the process of putting together the final documents for submittal of the development plan. Mr. Lenihan stated that he plans to attend the next study session to discuss the development plans with the Board.

Mr. Lenihan stated he was seeking permission to advertise for a public hearing at the October 1, 2014, Plan Commission meeting to request a zone change for the Mill Creek development.

Mr. Kozel made a motion to authorize permission to advertise for a public hearing for the Mill Creek development for a zone change on October 1, 2014. Mr. Redar seconded the motion. The motion was carried by voice vote (5/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

D. KILKENNY ESTATES --- UNIT FOUR --- CONTINUED DISCUSSION AND PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE FOR PUBLIC HEARING --- GARY TORRENGA. ENGINEERING DISCUSSION – GARY TORRENGA.

Mr. Ryan noted the last item under New Business was Kilkenny Estates, Unit One, for continued discussion, and authorization to advertise for a public hearing. Mr. Gary Torrenga, Torrenga Engineering, appeared before the Board on behalf of Kilkenny Estates. Mr. Andy James was also present. Mr. Torrenga submitted drawings to the Board for their review. He informed the Board that Kilkenny Estates exists to some extent. Mr. Torrenga stated that Limerick Drive goes north and then northeast. He stated that there was an area of Limerick Drive that was never developed because it could not take care of its own sanitary sewer.

Mr. Torrenga stated that the Petitioner is asking to develop eleven lots and install a temporary sanitary lift station. He stated based on his last meeting with the Board, the Petitioner intends to extend the street out to the west and also to the north and somewhat to the south. Mr. Torrenga stated that there will be a hard surface roadway to the south in order for the Town to access the temporary lift station. He stated that the road will be extended to the north and connect to Columbia, as originally proposed on Kilkenny Estates.

Mr. Torrenga informed the Board that during his field work, he discovered that there are a considerable number of residents north of the proposed Kilkenny Estates, along Columbia, who do not want to see the road go through. Mr. Torrenga stated that the decision as to whether or not Columbia goes through to the north is not his. He noted that the decision as to whether or not Columbia goes through does not rest with the Town of St. John either. Mr. Torrenga stated that this area is unincorporated, and it would be a decision made between the Town and Lake County.

Mr. Torrenga stated he has bound to do the survey into this area and show the Plan Commission how the road can be tied into. He stated that there are residents in the audience tonight who are against this road tie in. Mr. Torrenga stated that Mr. James would like to see the road tied in.

Mr. Torrenga noted that the area immediately north of Kilkenny Estates, Unit One, is not a part of St. John, is not dedicated as a right of way and is privately owned. He stated that there are some underlying, substantial legal problems with making an attachment. Mr. Torrenga commented that this is not an engineering or developmental question.

Based upon his findings in the field, Mr. Torrenga stated he designed the road so that it will smoothly connect. Mr. Torrenga stated, contingent upon the Board’s judgment, Petitioner has the right to build the road to the north line.

Mr. Torrenga stated the plans he presented tonight are based on the Board’s requests and recommendations at the last meeting.

Mr. Kil explained to the Board that the development of this unit of Kilkenny Estates would be treated the same as all other developments in Town. He stated that standard operating procedure would be for the developer to stub the road to the property line.

Mr. Kil noted that the residents in the audience tonight had come to his office regarding the extension of the road. He stated that this road will be stubbed to the north or to the development’s property line.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil asked Mr. Torrenga to explain the access to the temporary lift station. Mr. Torrenga stated that the curbs and the road will be installed twenty feet south of the temporary lift station. Mr. Torrenga stated he would like to plat the lift station with Unit One. Mr. Kil noted if the developer was going to install the road and plat it to the lift station there would be no access issues for the Town.

Mr. Nietzel noted that the lift station has been labeled “temporary.” He asked if this would be the permanent spot for the lift station or if it would be moved at a later date.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Torrenga acknowledged that the lift station was temporary. He noted that the temporary lift station could potentially be brought down to the south end of the cul de sac that would go southwest. He stated that the Petitioner would like to see Unit One developed and homes built in a fashion that is palatable to the Town of St. John.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Ryan asked Mr. Torrenga whose responsibility it would be to maintain the temporary lift station while the land is being developed. Mr. Torrenga deferred this question to Mr. Kil. Mr. Kil commented that until the project is developed and with the lift station being temporary and depending upon how the lift station is constructed, he could not answer this question. Mr. Torrenga stated that however the Board would like this to happen, Mr. James would make it happen. Mr. Torrenga stated he would work out the issues for the operation of the temporary lift station with the Town’s full-time staff.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil recommended that Mr. James take care of the temporary lift station, and the Town would monitor it. He stated that when the lift station is located permanently, it would become the responsibility of the Town. Mr. Torrenga stated, “If that’s the way you want it, we’re good to go.”

Mr. Ryan asked if there were any further questions from the Board. There were no further questions or comments from the Board.

Mr. Torrenga asked the Board if the residents who attended the meeting and are opposed to Columbia Avenue extension, could speak. He stated he would like to hear their thinking. Mr. Ryan stated he would give the audience members a chance to speak.

Mr. Kil noted that Kilkenny Estates was approved for a public hearing tonight, which obviously did not take place. He stated that the public hearing date has been moved to October 1, 2014. Mr. Kil stated he wanted the Board to be aware of and acknowledge the public hearing date of October 1, 2014.

Mr. Kil directed Mr. Torrenga to attend the study session on September 17, 2014, to finalize any issues related to Kilkenny Estates and to prepare for the October 1, 2014, public hearing. Mr. Torrenga acknowledged that he would attend the September 17, 2014, study session.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Mr. Ryan opened the floor to public comment. He directed the audience members to state their names and addresses before speaking.

Thomas Alb, 8299 Columbia
Mr. Alb stated he lives in the last house on the left on Columbia Avenue. He stated it doesn’t click with him why the developer can come on to his property. He stated that the developer wants to make a road in order to alleviate all of the traffic from the proposed housing to go through his property. Mr. Alb asked what the dead end is going to do for him. He stated he understands the developer wants a way to get out, but he asked them to do it somewhere else. Mr. Alb stated he has lived in his residence for 20 years and it is his property. Mr. Alb asked why the developer has the right to go on his property.

Mr. Ryan asked Mr. Alb to point out the location of his property. Mr. Alb pointed out the location of his property.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil noted that the property depicted on the map is not platted as a road. He stated that neither the Town nor the developer is coming on Mr. Alb’s property. Mr. Kil stated that the development will not extend past the Town’s boundaries.

Mr. Kil reiterated that standard operating procedure would be followed, as it is in in any other subdivision in Town, and at the end of the developer’s property, a street would be stubbed. Mr. Kil stated that there may eventually be a street there as it is a logical connection point. He stated that the street may go in in forty years or it may never go in.

Mr. Kil stated that nobody will come on to the residents’ property. He stated that the road would be a dead end and nothing more. Mr. Kil stated it would not be a cul de sac.

Mr. Alb commented that this is not logical.

Mr. Kil stated that Lake County would have to obtain the right of way for the road and install it. He stated that would be the only way that the road would go in. Mr. Kil stated, on the record, that the Town has absolutely no plans whatsoever of annexing any property to the north where the residents are located. Mr. Kil stated that the road will be stubbed and that would be the extent of what the Town would do.

Mr. Alb stated he still does not agree with the stub and he does not understand the why the stub has to be put in. He stated that if there are no plans to join the stub it will do nothing but attract whatever it’s going to attract. Mr. Alb stated he does not understand the reason for the stub.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Torrenga commented that the stub will not connect. He stated that the stub will allow some homes to be built. Mr. Torrenga stated that the owner of the property has the right to stub the road and build some homes.

Mr. Alb stated, “If that’s what you gentlemen want, that’s what you’re going to get. There’s no arguing with that.” Mr. Ryan noted that it’s clear that the developer will not be going on Mr. Alb’s property.

Cheryl Alb, 8299 Columbia Avenue
Mrs. Alb stated that she is concerned about traffic and the impact it would have in her neighborhood. Mr. Ryan noted that Mr. Kil has addressed this issue.

Mr. Kil reiterated that the Town has no plans of annexing the location where the residents live. He stated that the road would not be put in past the limits of the Town. Mr. Kil explained that if the road gets put in (in unincorporated) it would be done by and through Lake County.

An unidentified audience member informed the Board that according to a clerical worker in the Town’s office, the statement was made that the road was going to go through. Mr. Kil stated that he is the Town Manager, and he would be the one who had knowledge of whether or not the road was going through.

Henrietta Nordyke, 8298 Columbia
Ms. Nordyke stated she has lived in her home for 54 years. She stated she settled there when it was farm land. She stated that she bought land from a farm that was divided strictly in the middle. Ms. Nordyke stated when she bought her property the road was gravel.

Ms. Nordyke stated that she lives in a nice, little community. She stated the road would change their lives completely. Ms. Nordyke suggested that the developer look into the lot behind her that extends to 81st.. She stated that the developer could butt the proposed road up to this property instead of giving anybody the idea of putting a road through on Columbia.

Ms. Nordyke stated that the road she lives on is too small. She stated she and her neighbors have a hard time getting on to 81st. She stated that traffic would be backed up, or running down the hill.

Ms. Nordyke reiterated that the road would change her life. She stated she lives in a nice, small community where nobody bothers anybody. Ms. Nordyke again suggested the developer use the land where the derelict house is located and butt the road up to this property.

Ms. Nordyke stated she does not mind having houses next to her. She said she is afraid of the traffic on the road. She stated if the developer just moves the road back so no one would be bothered the residents would appreciate it.

MaryJo Knoerzer, 8274 Columbia
Ms. Knoerzer stated she is concerned with the traffic. She noted that county limits are 18’ from the road. She stated she measured and it’s 19’7”. Ms. Knoerzer stated 19’7” is not even to the door. She stated that drivers with big SUVs trying to get through the proposed road will be flying down the road. She stated that is why the residents don’t want the road to go through.

Ms. Knoerzer noted they have no street lights and no sewers. She stated to widen the road would pose problems because of drainage. Ms. Knoerzer stated to address Mr. Torrenga’s concerns, she doesn’t see what benefit it would be to stub the road, and there is no reason to stub the road.

Ms. Knoerzer stated she has been talking to the County. She stated she has a copy of a letter from when Kilkenny Estates was originally built in 1996. The letter was sent to the Town Council by the County indicating that the County does not have any right of way to the property. She stated the County does not have an easement and has never had an easement.

Ms. Knoerzer stated that the developer can still have their two houses, or four or five houses and the cul de sac without having to put the stub to the end of Columbia. She stated if the owner is going to make money developing the property, he can put in his own road and tie into a St. John Road, he doesn’t need to tie into something that’s outside of the Town limits.

Mr. Joseph Brozowski, 8201 Columbia
Mr. Brozowski stated his concerns are that he moved into the country so they would not be incorporated. He stated once the developer puts the stub and/or the road in, the land will be incorporated. Mr. Brozowski acknowledged that even though Mr. Kil assured them that the annexation is not a possibility it still concerns him. Mr. Brozowski referred to the vacant piece of property referred to by Ms. Nordyke earlier. He stated that this vacant property with the derelict house could probably be picked up “for probably a song and put a road through there.”

Mr. Brozowski stated if the road does go through, the residents will be forced into sewers and water. He stated he is ready to retire and several of his neighbors are retired. Mr. Brozowski stated that the residents like their homes the way they are.

Mr. Brozowski stated what the developer does on his property is his business, but requested that he look for an alternative for the roadway.

Mr. Torrenga stated he does not disagree with anything the residents said. He noted that many people do not want to be annexed into the Town. Mr. Torrenga stated that if this happens in the future, it would not be a part of Andy James’ or Gary Torrenga’s problem. He stated the annexation would happen because there are folks who have the guts to run for office who will decide that this is what they want to happen.

Mr. Torrenga stated the owner would like to take advantage of the property that he purchased. He stated that the owner would like to plat the lots and build houses. Mr. Torrenga stated where the road issue goes with the politicians in the future is beyond Mr. James and his control.

Mr. Kil stated that the law will not even allow the Town to annex this property. He stated he annexes property frequently. Mr. Kil stated in order to annex the property he would have to have total control, over 51% of the property owners and 75% of the assessed value in the annexation. Mr. Kil stated he could not annex this property even if he wanted to, and the Town doesn’t want to.

Mr. Kil stated the Town’s focus on annexation is for property to the south and to the west.

Mr. Torrenga stated they don’t want to hurt, run over or abuse the long-time residents of the area. He stated that Mr. James wants to develop his property to its limits.

Mr. Alb, 8299 Columbia
Mr. Alb stated that the Board has the power right now to put an end to the residents’ misery and end the road and not allow the road to go through. He stated the Board can end it and life will go on. Mr. Alb urged the Board not to let the road go through.

Mr. Kil stated that the extension of the road is not even an issue right now. He stated that the road extension would be in the next phase of the development.

Mr. Kil stated he has made the positon of the Town Council abundantly clear, and the Town is not interested in annexing this property.

Mr. Torrenga stated he appreciated the residents coming out tonight to tell them what they’re thinking.

Mr. Ryan stated that Mr. Kil could not make it any clearer that the Town has no plans of annexing their property. He stated that the Town does not intend to extend the road either.

Mr. Ryan closed the public comment portion of the meeting.

Mr. Ryan stated he would entertain a motion to extend the public hearing for Kilkenny Estates to the October 1, 2014, meeting. Mr. Kozel made a motion to continue the public hearing for Kilkenny Estates to the October 1, 2014, meeting. Mr. Hastings seconded the motion. The motion was carried by voice vote (5/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

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

09-17-2014 Plan Commission

September 17, 2014 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes

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

CALL TO ORDER:

Mr. Tom Ryan called to order the St. John Plan Commission, study session, for September 17, 2014, 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, Michael Forbes, Steve Kozel and Derwin Nietzel. Steve Hastings was absent. Staff members present: Ken Krauss was present. Steve Kil was absent. Gregory Volk, Town Council liaison was present. Attorney Timothy Kuiper was absent.

NEW BUSINESS:

A. PRESERVES AT SCHILTON HILLS --- JACK SLAGER.

Mr. Ryan noted the first item on the agenda was the Preserves at Schilton Hills. Mr. Jack Slager, Schilling Development, appeared before the Board on behalf of the Preserves at Schilton Hills. Mr. Slager submitted a two-sided handout to the Board.

Mr. Slager stated that the front side of the handout reflected the overall development. He stated that as reflected on the handout, from the 24 acres four acres of usable, high ground will be developed. Mr. Slager stated there would be an approximate 20-acre out lot consisting primarily of wetlands and flood plain.

Mr. Slager directed the Board’s attention to the back side of the document. He stated that the back side of the document reflects a more detailed picture of the development. Mr. Slager stated that the 7-lot subdivision is zoned R-1. He stated that the development will have an approximate 300’ cul de sac. Mr. Slager stated that the sanitary sewer and water main will come off of 93rd Avenue. He stated that Columbia Street and Columbia Court will line up.

Mr. Slager stated that he is advertising for a public hearing for the Preserves development on October 1, 2014.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Nietzel stated it would be preferable to hook up to the 12” water main. Mr. Slager explained the method (under 93rd Avenue) he anticipated will be used to reach the water main.

Mr. Slager stated that the developer is currently working on the covenants. He described homes that would range in size from 2,200 to 2,600 square feet, with brick fronts and a minimum three car garage. Mr. Slager stated that Lots 4, 5, 6 and 7 would have daylight basements.

The detention basin was discussed. Mr. Slager informed the Board that the detention basin will be on one large out lot. He stated that the pond will have an outlet. Mr. Slager stated that the pond will be designed as a dry pond with a zero release rate. Mr. Slager stated that the pond calculations will be provided to Mr. Kraus by the Christopher Burke Engineering representative.

Mr. Slager stated that Land Technologies is working on the engineering and a representative of Christopher Burke Engineering is working on the storm sewer, flood plain and wetlands design.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Slager stated that the developer is open to suggestions on the out lot. He stated typically, a Homeowners Association is formed and the out lot can be deeded to the HOA. He stated that the developer owns the property to the east.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes recommended that Mr. Slager submit the engineering and other information as soon as possible. Mr. Slager stated he anticipated the engineering to be delivered by Friday.

B. MILL CREEK --- JOE LENIHAN, OLTHOF HOMES.

Mr. Ryan noted the next item on the agenda was the Mill Creek development. Mr. Joe Lenihan, Olthof Homes, appeared before the Board on behalf of the Mill Creek development.

Mr. Lenihan provided a binder to the Board containing information related to the Mill Creek development. He stated that the development is 108.6 acres located at the southeast corner of Route 231 and Parrish Avenue. Mr. Lenihan stated that the annexation of this property was completed in August.

Mr. Lenihan noted that the property was annexed in as R1 zoning, and the developer is requesting that the property be rezoned to a residential PUD. He stated that he submitted a revised site plan with a minor change to the Mill Creek site data.

Mr. Lenihan stated at the last meeting, he proposed paired cottages and duplexes along the development where it abuts the C2/highway commercial zoning. This part of the development would serve as kind of a buffer as the development moves into the single family residential phase. Mr. Lenihan stated that the developer is proposing a residential PUD in order to have flexibility in the design of the community and also allow for the preservation of open space. He stated there is almost 30 acres of open space.

Mr. Lenihan stated that the developer is proposing two single family products, the Tradition series in the southeast corner of the development and the Signature series in the southwest corner of the development. He stated that there will be lots of amenities including open space, trails and the 8’ trail that the Town wants installed so as to extend it to the south. Mr. Lenihan stated more than likely there will be some type of playground in the single family area along with a pond and a wooded area.

Mr. Lenihan stated that pursuant to the Board’s comments at the last study session, stub roads were inserted to the east and to the south and they are lined up with other roads for future connectivity.

Mr. Lenihan addressed the distribution of the lot sizes. He stated 45% of the lots are between 12,000-12,500 square feet, 14% of the lots are between 12,500-15,000 square feet and 41% of the lots are greater than 15,000 square feet.

Mr. Lenihan directed the Board’s attention to the binder, which contained a survey, site plan, floor plans, elevations and drafts of the proposed covenants.

Mr. Lenihan stated he would be glad to take any questions from the Board. Mr. Forbes commented that the binder contained a great deal of information to be reviewed.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Lenihan acknowledged that there are wet lands between the two cul de sacs that meet.

Mr. Lenihan stated that the minimum frontage for a lot was 80’.

Mr. Lenihan stated that Out Lot A would be used as a berm with landscaping and trees to serve as a buffer for the residents of Route 231 currently and future commercial development.

Water main locations were discussed.

Mr. Ryan asked if the Board had any further comments or questions. The Board had no further discussion on Mill Creek.

Mr. Lenihan thanked the Board; he stated he would appear for the Mill Creek public hearing on October 1, 2014.

C. KILKENNY ESTATES, UNIT FOUR --- GARY TORRENGA

Mr. Ryan noted Kilkenny Estates, Unit Four, was before the Board for their consideration. Mr. Gary Torrenga, Torrenga Engineering, appeared before the Board on behalf of Kilkenny Estates, Unit Four. Mr. Andy James, owner/developer, was also present.

Mr. Torrenga submitted site plans to the Board. He informed the Board that he has been before the Board previously discussing the proposed 11 lots in Kilkenny Estates on Limerick Drive. Mr. Torrenga told the Board that these 11 lots were not developed previously because there was no sanitary sewer connected to them. Mr. Torrenga stated that the developer proposes to install a temporary sanitary lift station to the northwest.

Mr. Torrenga stated at the last meeting, the Board indicated that they would prefer that a paved road lead to the temporary lift station so the Town could easily access the same. Mr. Torrenga stated since the paved road was going to be installed, they figured they might as well plat four more lots. He stated Lots 12 through 15 have been included.

Mr. Torrenga stated that Columbia Street will be stubbed at the property line. He stated it is the developer’s obligation to stub Columbia (and no further) to the property line.

Mr. Torrenga summarized: eleven lots have become fifteen, the streets and lots will be fully developed and he has provided the full engineering to the Board as well as to Mr. Kraus. He stated that the developer has advertised for a public hearing for Kilkenny Estates, Unit Four, on October 1, 2014.

Mr. Torrenga submitted a copy of the subdivision plat. He stated that the only thing not reflected in the subdivision plat are the street names. He stated he would work on the street names with Mr. Kil and Mr. Kraus.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes noted that the lift station was the outstanding issue and this issue has now been addressed.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Torrenga thanked the Board.

D. RENAISSANCE, UNIT SIX --- PLAN REVIEW --- DOUG TERPSTRA.

Mr. Ryan noted the next item before the Board was plan review for Renaissance, Unit Six. Mr. Doug Terpstra, Wyngate Development, appeared before the Board on behalf of Renaissance, Unit Six.

Mr. Terpstra stated he attended tonight’s meeting to remind the Board that Renaissance, Unit Six, is in two phases and have been done as the can afford to be done. He stated that the phase going in will be 33 lots. Mr. Terpstra stated this phase will extend to one of the entrances all the way to the back of the development.

Mr. Terpstra stated when the 33 lot phase is finished, there will be one more phase remaining and it will be located on the west end. He stated he has been discussing the last phase with Mr. Kil. Mr. Terpstra stated that in the last phase, Clarmont Street will be closed and redirected to Parrish Avenue.

Mr. Terpstra stated that that the phase currently being completed will have all of the roads paved and the final lift included. He stated that all of the storms and sewers are in, stubs are going in and the stone is in for the curbs. Mr. Terpstra stated there will be further grading on the curbs, barring bad weather.

Mr. Terpstra stated that weather permitting, the developer plans to be fully done with all of the infrastructure by the October 1, 2014, meeting. He stated that there are bond issues for the developers involved.

Mr. Terpstra informed the Board that his group of developers is not currently working with the Bank. He stated as lots are sold and money becomes available the developer goes in and does what they have to do. Mr. Terpstra stated he is in a rather fortunate position because everything that they build are “pure custom homes.” He noted that approximately 75% of the people buying the custom homes are people from Illinois.

Mr. Terpstra stated in the event the infrastructure (curbs, road, testing) is not complete by the October 1, 2014, meeting they intend to seek approval at this meeting, but have no documents signed until the roads are fully finished and inspected. Mr. Terpstra he would like to get this phase recorded so he can start selling lots. He stated if this can be accomplished, the bond issue can be waived.

Mr. Terpstra stated that if something is short, it will be put in and he would not expect a signature until this was done. He asked the Board to consider his request over the next two weeks.

Mr. Kraus noted, if, at the time of final plat all of the improvements are not in place, the Town normally requires a bond of 120%. He stated he believes if Mr. Terpstra is still under construction and getting things done, the Board, at their discretion, could issue a contingency and not sign documents until everything is completed. He stated a bond would not be necessary if everything was done.

Mr. Terpstra stated, but for the weather and moisture, he had anticipated that this project would be completed in August. Mr. Terpstra informed the Board that he initiated the process to have NIPSCO put power in February, and NIPSCO is only halfway through.

He apprised the Board about a case where local, northwest Indiana developers sued NIPSCO. He stated that the developers won the case and were given concessions by NIPSCO, but no money.

Mr. Terpstra described the inordinate amount of time it is taking for NIPSCO to run power into the developments. He stated he provided NIPSCO with the engineering for Renaissance, Unit Six on, May 23. NIPSCO was supposed to respond within 30 days of receiving the engineering. He stated, until very recently, NIPSCO could not locate the Unit Six plats that were provided to them.

Mr. Terpstra reiterated his request that the Board consider granting approval for Renaissance, Unit Six, on October 1, 2014. He stated he cannot sell anything until it is recorded, and nothing can be sold until it is signed. Mr. Terpstra stated he is going to need every available minute he can get with NIPSCO. He stated he cannot obtain a contract with NIPSCO until the property is recorded.

Mr. Ryan asked the Board if they had any further questions or comments. The Board had no further questions or comments.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Mr. Ryan opened the floor to public comment. He called for public comment.

Thomas Alb, 8299 Columbia
Mr. Alb first inspected documents submitted to the Board by Mr. Gary Torrenga. He stated he really does not want the road to go through.

Mr. Alb asked where all of the water will go when Kilkenny Estates, Unit Four is developed. Mr. Alb stated he has septic. He stated his water will Run towards Kilkenny development.

Mr. Alb inspected the storm water and sewer drawings with Mr. Kraus. Mr. Kraus explained the route of the water to Mr. Alb. Mr. Forbes commented that Kilkenny development will not adversely affect storm water, but, in fact, much of the storm water will be collected by the Kilkenny development and be routed to a storm sewer.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Alb stated that he believes that Columbia will go through eventually. Mr. Kraus stated that the road may or may not go through, but not by any actions made by the Town of St. John.

Mr. Alb stated that an extended Columbia is not big enough to handle traffic and cannot be widened. Mr. Alba stated that in order to widen the road, his property would have to be encroached upon.

Mr. Ryan remarked that the issue of the road going through was thoroughly addressed at the last meeting. He stated it was explained that the Town had no intention of annexing property in Mr. Alb’s area.

Mr. Alb stated he is just waiting for “the shoe to drop” by finding out that Columbia will go through in front of his residence. Mr. Kraus explained to Mr. Alb, that as planners, the Town has to make plans in subdivisions for future connectivity. Mr. Kraus used the Mill Creek development that was heard earlier in the evening as an example. Mr. Kraus stated that this developer is also being required to put in two stub roads, one on the east and one on the south, for connectivity in the event that there is future development.

Mr. Kraus explained that the Town’s ordinance states that roads have match up with existing right of way. Mr. Alb reiterated that Columbia is too narrow and it is not feasible to connect to Columbia.

Mr. Kraus stated that if the Lake County Commissioners intend to use this road they would have to improve it. He stated that Mr. Alb would be given the opportunity to go in front of the Lake County Commissioners and tell them he does not want the road to be extended.

MaryJo Knoerzer, 8274 Columbia
Ms. Knoerzer stated that when matching up the roads, it is one thing to do it when the roads are within the boundaries of St. John, which is what Mr. Kil talked about at the last meeting. She stated that her neighborhood is not within the St. John boundaries.

Ms. Knoerzer opined that as soon as the Kilkenny houses are built and the road gets started someone will be down at the county asking for the road to go through. She stated she is not buying the explanation that the road may not go in for 30 years.

(General discussion ensued.)

Ms. Knoerzer was informed where the advertisements for the public hearing on Kilkenny Estates could be found.

Mr. Alb and Ms. Knoerzer looked at the map with Mr. Kraus.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Alb and Ms. Knoerzer thanked the Board members for their time.

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

Mr. Volk informed the Board that there is a parking ordinance in Town addressing the parking of commercial trucks, boats, trailers, campers and other large vehicles. He stated that currently there is some confusion between the Police Department, Code Enforcement and Mr. Kil related to the parking ordinance.

Mr. Volk stated that Mr. Kil interprets the ordinance differently than the Police Department does and the varying interpretations are causing a problem for Code Enforcement in issuing citations.

Mr. Volk stated he has discussed this matter briefly with the Town’s attorney.

Mr. Volk stated that Attorney Austgen recommended that the ordinance, written by the Plan Commission approximately 13 years ago, be reviewed and updated, amended or rewritten. Mr. Volk stated it appears that the biggest problem is related to the parking and/or storage of boats, campers and trailers, with commercial trucks being the next problem.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Volk stated that he and Mr. Forbes have reached the conclusion that the parking ordinance should be reviewed by the Plan Commission. He explained that the Plan Commission is the only body authorized to amend and/or rework the parking ordinance and or make recommendations to the Town Council.

Mr. Volk stated that the Board could schedule a review the parking ordinance for the next study session.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes stated that the parking ordinance is not very clear. He suggested that the Board members review the parking ordinance, clear up the language and address some concerns. Mr. Forbes stated that the current parking ordinance is approximately four pages, but he believes some of the ordinance is missing.

Mr. Volk reiterated that the parking ordinance language should be cleaned up. The newly written and/or amended parking ordinance can then be provided to the Police Department and Code Enforcement can enforce the same.

ADJOURNMENT:

Mr. Ryan adjourned the meeting.

(The meeting was adjourned at 8:22 p.m.)

A TRUE COPY

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

10-01-2014 Plan Commission

October 1, 2014 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes

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

CALL TO ORDER:

Mr. Michael Forbes, Vice-President, chaired the Plan Commission regular meeting in Mr. Ryan’s absence. He called to order the meeting for Wednesday, October 1, 2014, 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 Kozel, Tom Redar, Steve Hastings and Derwin Nietzel. Tom Ryan was absent. Staff members present: Steve Kil. Ken Krauss was present. Attorney Timothy Kuiper was present. Town Council liaison, Greg Volk, was present.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 3, 2014

Mr. Forbes stated that the first order of business was approval of the minutes from the September 3, 2014, meeting. He asked for a motion. “So moved,” by Mr. Kozel. Mr. Nietzel seconded the motion. The motion was carried by voice vote (5/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

NEW BUSINESS:

A. GATES OF ST. JOHN --- UNIT 1E --- FINAL PLAT APPROVAL --- JOHN LOTTON.
Mr. Forbes noted the first item under New Business was the Gates of St. John, Unit 1E, for final plat approval.

Attorney Kuiper informed the Board that the Petitioner, John Lotton, requested that this matter be deferred.

Mr. Forbes stated he would entertain a motion to defer the matter of Gates of St. John, Unit 1E, final plat approval. “So moved,” by Mr. Kozel. Mr. Hastings seconded the motion. The motion was carried by voice vote (5/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

B. RENAISSANCE --- UNIT SIX --- FINAL PLAT APPROVAL ---DOUG TERPSTRA
Mr. Forbes noted the next item for the Board’s consideration was Renaissance, Unit 6, final plat approval. Mr. Doug Terpstra appeared before the Board seeking final plat approval for Renaissance, Unit Six.

Mr. Terpstra informed the Board that he discussed final plat approval with the Board at the last study session. He stated that the asphalt was completed today. Mr. Terpstra stated that the asphalt was the last of the improvements that needed to go in. He stated the infrastructure has been tested.

Mr. Terpstra stated he would answer any questions from the Board. Mr. Forbes asked if there were any questions on Renaissance, Unit Six. There were no questions from the Board.

Mr. Forbes stated since there were no questions, he would entertain a motion on the final plat for Renaissance, Unit Six, incorporating the findings of fact and contingent upon review of the mylars by Mr. Kraus. “So moved,” by Mr. Kozel. Mr. Hastings seconded the motion. The motion was carried by voice vote (5/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

C. PRESERVE AT SCHILTON HILLS --- PUBLIC HEARING --- JACK SLAGER.
Mr. Forbes noted that the next item on the agenda, the Preserve at Schilton Hills, was scheduled for a public hearing. He stated that the Preserve at Schilton Hills is a seven lot subdivision located on 93rd Avenue.

Attorney Kuiper noted that the notices and publications for the public hearing on the Preserve in Schilton Hills were in order for the public hearing to be properly conducted tonight.

Mr. Jack Slager, Schilling Development, was present, for the public hearing and seeking primary approval for the Preserve at Schilton Hills. He stated that the development will consist of seven R1 residential lots on a small cul-de-sac, Columbia Court, located off of 93rd Avenue.

Mr. Slager stated that he received a letter earlier in the day that reflected that all of the engineering issues have been resolved, aside from the SWPPP plan. He stated that the SWPPP plan is forthcoming.

Mr. Forbes asked if the Board had any questions. There were no questions. Mr. Forbes opened the public hearing for comments related to the Preserve at Schilton Hills. Mr. Forbes called two additional times for public comment. There was no further public comment. Mr. Forbes closed the public hearing and brought the matter back before the Board.

Mr. Forbes noted that Mr. Kraus will have to calculate the developmental fee and review the SWPPP plan. Mr. Kraus stated that the developmental fee will be calculated when he receives the information he needs from Land Tech. Mr. Kraus stated he had not yet had time to review the SWPPP plan.

Mr. Forbes asked if the Board had any questions on the Preserve at Schilton Hills. There were no questions. Mr. Forbes stated he would entertain a motion to approve preliminary plat for the Preserve at Schilton Hills contingent upon payment of the developmental fee, and incorporating the findings of fact. “So moved,” by Mr. Kozel. Mr. Nietzel seconded the motion. The motion was carried by voice vote (5/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

D. MILL CREEK DEVELOPMENT --- PUBLIC HEARING FOR ZONE CHANGE --- JOE LENIHAN.
Mr. Forbes noted that the next item on the Board’s agenda was a public hearing for a zone change for the Mill Creek development. He noted that the development is located on Route 231 at Parrish Avenue, on the southeast corner.

Attorney Kuiper informed the Board that the notices and publications were in order for the public hearing for Mill Creek to be properly conducted tonight.

Mr. Joe Lenihan, Olthoff Homes, appeared before the Board, on behalf of the Mill Creek development. He presented the plan for the rezone for the Mill Creek community. He stated that the property is slightly over 108 acres located at US Route 231 and Parrish Avenue.

Mr. Lenihan stated that he has submitted all of the information required by the Town’s ordinances for the development. He stated that a Planned Unit Development (PUD) will allow the developers to save almost 30% of the property as open space. Mr. Lenihan stated that the primary stage of the development will include a detailed plan for the amenities to be included at Mill Creek, parks, open spaces, a playground and trails.

Mr. Lenihan stated he would be happy to answer any questions. The Board had no questions.

Mr. Forbes opened the public hearing for the Mill Creek development.

PUBLIC HEARING

Dave Kleine, 11315 Parrish Avenue:
Mr. Kleine stated he owns and operates a dairy farm which is directly south of the proposed subdivision. He stated that the dairy farm has been in business in this location for 97 years, milking cows and grain farming.

Mr. Kleine stated he has a concern about a development this close to his dairy farm. He stated he has 200 head of livestock on his farm and he is concerned about odors with the earth handling from the development. He stated he has done research on the placement of buffer zones, tree lines, etc., that would protect a farmstead from the dust, odors and debris that accompany developments.

Mr. Kleine submitted handouts to the Board on wind breaks and buffer zones that have been successfully used in similar situations. Mr. Forbes noted that tonight’s hearing was strictly dealing with the rezoning. Mr. Forbes stated that the information presented by Mr. Kleine will be taken into account and discussed with the developer.

Mr. Forbes called for additional public comment.

Dale Booth, 11010 Parrish Avenue:
Mr. Booth asked the Board if he would be zoned into St. John Township on his side of Parrish Avenue. Mr. Forbes answered, “No.” He stated that the Mill Creek zoning will take place within the corporate boundaries of the Town of St. John.

Mr. Booth stated that there is a stream flowing across the road just south of his residence, and he is located on the west side of Parrish. He stated there is a culvert under the road and when it rains heavily the stream flows over the road 30-40 feet. Mr. Booth asked if he would still get water from this side of the road.

Mr. Forbes stated he did not have an answer for Mr. Booth at the present time. He stated during the subdivision planning process, all of these issues will be taken into account. He stated he could not guarantee that what is going on near Mr. Booth’s house won’t continue, but most likely Mr. Booth would see a reduction in the amount of water.

Mr. Forbes called two additional times for public comment on Mill Creek. There was no further public comment. Mr. Forbes closed the public hearing and brought the matter back before the Board.

Mr. Forbes asked if the Board had any questions. The Board had no questions. Mr. Forbes stated he would entertain a motion to send a favorable/unfavorable/no recommendation to the Town Council related to the rezone of the Mill Creek development from R1 to a Planned Unit Development, incorporating the zoning commitment and all other relevant materials presented by Petitioner.

Mr. Kozel made a motion to send a favorable recommendation to the Town Council to rezone the Mill Creek development from R1 to a Planned Unit Development, incorporate the zoning commitment and relevant documents submitted by the Petitioner. Mr. Redar seconded the motion. The motion was carried by voice vote (5/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

E. KILKENNY ESTATES --- UNIT FOUR --- PUBLIC HEARING. GARY TORRENGA.
Mr. Forbes noted that Kilkenny Estates, Unit Four, was scheduled for a public hearing. He stated that this development is located in the northwest corner of Town.

Attorney Kuiper noted that the notices and publications were in order for a public hearing to be properly conducted tonight on Kilkenny Estates, Unit Four.

Mr. Gary Torrenga, Torrenga Engineering, appeared before the Board on behalf of Kilkenny Estates and Petitioner, Mr. Andy James. He stated that Kilkenny Estates is a 15-lot, single family subdivision on property that is presently zoned R2. Mr. Torrenga stated that he wished to make it clear that the R1 and R2 designations in the Town of St. John, represent strictly single family homes. Mr. Torrenga stated that he was informed that a modified, handwritten notice had been sent out to the adjacent property owners indicating that the development would be a multi-family development. Mr. Torrenga stated that nothing could be further from the truth. He stated that the proposed 15-lot single family residences will be large, beautiful houses.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kraus stated that the original Kilkenny Estates, as designed by Earl Goldberg, was done in 1996-97. Mr. Kraus stated that in 2004, DVG took over the engineering and made changes to the development. Mr. Forbes remarked that the eleven lots belonging to this developer have been in existence since 1996. Mr. Kraus concurred. Mr. Forbes stated, for purposes of clarification, the only reason these eleven lots were not built on was due to sewer access issues.

Mr. Torrenga stated that the Kilkenny Estates design has always called for a possible connection to the north at Columbia Avenue. Mr. Torrenga acknowledged that a lot of people present in the audience live on Columbia. He reiterated that the developer understands that Columbia Avenue is privately owned and not dedicated. Mr. Torrenga stated that the Petitioner has no intention of forcing a connection to Columbia Avenue.

Mr. Torrenga stated that the developer does not have to tie into Columbia Avenue to make the subdivision work. He reiterated that the developer does not own the land. Mr. Torrenga stated that any decision related to the further development of Columbia Avenue would likely be far into the future.

Mr. Torrenga stated a decision likely was made long ago that Columbia Avenue should go through. He reiterated that nobody knows when Columbia Avenue will go through. Mr. Torrenga stated that Mr. James inherited a set of plans that had been prepared by and for other individuals. Mr. Torrenga stated that the Petitioner is merely bringing the development plan up to code.

Mr. Torrenga reiterated that the developer is proposing 15 single family lots. He stated that no utilities will be extended into anyone’s property that is not involved in the development, nor will the utilities be extended outside of the Town of St. John. Mr. Torrenga stated he is asking for the right for Petitioner’s clients to live in the Town of St. John on lots that have been appropriately sized and with appropriately designed utilities that adhere to today’s requirements, codes and laws. Mr. Torrenga reiterated that it is not Petitioner’s intent to infringe on the existing residents. He stated that the developer will build their roads to their property lines and not one inch further.

Mr. Torrenga stated he would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Forbes asked the Board if they had any questions. The Board had no questions.

Mr. Forbes stated that he wanted to stress that all of the lots in Kilkenny Estates, Unit Four, are designated R1 (a minimum 20,000 square feet), single family homes. He stated that the property is and was long ago rezoned R2. Mr. Forbes stated that R2 zoning is also a single family designation (a minimum of 15,000 square feet). Mr. Forbes stated that the lot sizes for the proposed homes range from 20,000 to 30,000 square feet, which actually meet the R1 designation.

Mr. Kil stated that the lot sizes clearly meet the R1 requirements even though they are zoned as R2 lots. Mr. Forbes reiterated that the eleven lots on Limerick Drive have existed on paper since 1996. He stated that since the lots are designated R1, there will be no negative impact on anyone’s property values.

Mr. Forbes stated that the bulk of the discussion amongst the Board and Petitioner on Kilkenny Estates, Unit Four, was on the lift station, which is what spurred the addition of four lots that sent James Lane off to the spur of Columbia Avenue. Mr. Forbes stated that Columbia Avenue will eventually continue on down to the southwest into additional parts of Kilkenny Estates.

Mr. Forbes opened the public hearing. He noted that he would limit the amount of time for an individual to speak to three minutes, given the amount of people in attendance.

Mr. Torrenga explained that Columbia Avenue, as it might extend to the southwest, is limited in length to a relatively short cul-de-sac because there is a great deal of low-lying wet lands. He stated that Columbia Avenue will not be a through street to the southwest, but a cul-de-sac with approximately eight or nine lots.

PUBLIC HEARING

Mary Joe Knoerzer, 8274 Columbia, Dyer, IN:
Ms. Knoerzer stated that she twice requested an opportunity to see an application that was on file because of her concern about the wetlands. She stated that she was informed the application was not filed.

Ms. Knoerzer noted that the Town’s ordinance requires that the application must be on file thirty days prior to the public hearing. She stated if these documents are not on file, it is a fatal error and the hearing cannot proceed any further.

Ms. Knoerzer stated that the legal notice or something is incorrect because Mr. Kil stated that the parcel is zoned R1 and the notice was sent out as R2. Mr. Kil noted that the lot sizes meet the R1 requirements but the development’s zoning is R2.

(General discussion ensued.)

Ms. Knoerzer stated that the zoning ordinance states that corner lots have to be a minimum of 120 feet and only two of the lots meet this requirement. She stated that there are issues with the environmental and wet lands. Ms. Knoerzer stated that the permit issued in 2006 has expired. She stated before any development can take place the Petitioner must contact the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Water Quality, and address the wet land issues.

Ms. Knoerzer stated that she wanted to comment on the stub road to Columbia. She stated “We met with the Board of Commissioners.”

Ms. Knoerzer read a portion of a letter as follows: “It has come to our attention by local residents a proposed subdivision in the Town of St. John wants to tie into Columbia Street south of 81st as a point of access to the subdivision. This tract of land is not platted and subdivided. There is no right of way dedicated for roads and the lots are of metes and bounds descriptions with ownership described to the center of Columbia Street. Some easements may have been granted for roadside drainage over years past.

Columbia Street, as it exists today, does not meet current minimum subdivision standards for improved roadway. For the above stated reasons, the Board of Commissioners stands firmly against the connection of another subdivision road to connect to Columbia and recommends a different point of access be sought.”

Ms. Knoerzer stated that back in 1996 the Highway Department recommended against connecting Columbia Street, and they are still saying the same thing 20 years later. She recommended that the stub be eliminated, enlarge the two lots and curve the road to turn left.

Tom Alb, 8299 Columbia:
Mr. Alb stated he was concerned about water coming off of his property. He stated he received a notice in 2006. Mr. Alb stated he called Marty and Marty informed him that “this is expired,.” (referring to document.)

Mr. Alb asked if there was a new permit on file.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil stated that this phase of the development (Unit Four) will not have an impact on the wet lands. Mr. Torrenga concurred. Mr. Kil stated that the document Mr. Alb is referring to encompasses the entire Kilkenny Estates, over 100 lots.

Mr. Alb stated he is referring to right next to his property. Mr. Kil reiterated that the proposed project will not impact any wet lands. Mr. Alb stated there is a designated wet land located where his water shed goes. Mr. Alb stated he had photographs for the Board.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Alb stated that the he was informed that the permits must be on file in order for the hearing to be held. He stated that the hearing should not continue if the permit was not in order.

Mr. Alb stated that Mr. Kraus explained to him that the road has to match up with existing right of ways. He stated that the road is not an existing highway. Mr. Alb stated that the tract of land is not platted and subdivided and is not a dedicated right of way. Mr. Alb reiterated the Town’s ordinance states that there must be an existing right of way.

Mr. Alb asked the Board to think about this matter. He asked the Board to “leave us be.” He reiterated that he is concerned about the water shed.

Cheryl Alb, 8299 Columbia Avenue:
Mrs. Alb stated her property is directly adjacent to the development. She stated as a property owner and a resident she is strongly opposed to and objects to St. John’s plan to build a stub road up to the north end of the property development. Mrs. Alb noted that the purpose of building a stub road to the corresponding location of Columbia Avenue in St. John Township indicates the threat of a through street connecting Kilkenny Estates to tie into Columbia Avenue.

Mrs. Alb stated she objects because the area of tie-in would be her front lawn and private property. She stated it is not a paved road; she stated it is actually grass, pine trees, bushes and shrubs. Mrs. Alb reiterated it is her lawn and the lawn of Mrs. Nordyke who lives directly across the street, and it is not an existing street.

Mrs. Alb stated that the undedicated road is privately owned to the center of the street by the property owners of Columbia Avenue. She stated that the Lake County Board of Commissioners has verified that the road in question is undedicated roadway in unincorporated St. John Township. Mrs. Alb stated that this road is not governed by the Town of St. John.

Mrs. Alb stated that connecting Kilkenny Estates to Columbia Avenue would create a volume of traffic that would be funneled into her area which would have a severe, negative effect on her family, the peacefulness of the neighborhood and her home’s value. She stated that home values in Dyer plummeted when Calumet Avenue was connected from US Route 30 to 77th. Mrs. Alb stated that there would also be an increase in the threat of crime and injury should the road go through.

Mrs. Alb reiterated that Columbia is not designed for additional traffic volume. She stated the proposed stub road will have no curb appeal for Kilkenny Estates homeowners either. Mrs. Alb stated that it would be very disruptive to homeowners to be subjected to misguided traffic and constant turn-arounds.

Mrs. Alb stated that she’s sure the proposed homes will be lovely, but she is objecting to the stub road. She stated eliminating the stub road would immediately alleviate the threat and concern she has as a property owner. Mrs. Alb respectfully requested that the Plan Commission of St. John reconsider its current plan of stubbing the road to the north Town boundary line and reconfigure it to a curved roadway to the west.

Joel Bayer, 13901 West 81st:
Mr. Bayer stated that his property is located directly north of the proposed Kilkenny Estates, Unit Four. He stated he has aerial photos dating back to 1974 that show that the back of his property was a farm field. He stated he has lost 2.5 acres of tillable ground due to flooding. Mr. Bayer stated that the previous Kilkenny development installed “storm sewer lines that were just run wild out back in that wet land area.”

Mr. Bayer stated that this condition has caused his property to flood. He stated that this flooding has had an economic impact on him. He stated he has a picture of his son on a kayak on his property in three feet of water that came from Kilkenny Estates. He stated that Kilkenny Estates storm water is not in a retention pond but that it just runs wild back on the wet lands.

Mr. Bayer stated that if the Petitioner does not want impact him economically, they should come and fill in his property three to four feet so Kilkenny’s water doesn’t come on his property. He stated that a storm sewer was installed previously by the subdivision of Kilkenny and regulated by the Town of St. John.

Mr. Bayer reiterated that his property floods and is not tillable.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil stated that Mr. Bayer’s property is north of Kilkenny and to the west of the proposed development. He stated when the rest of Kilkenny is developed and Mr. Torrenga designs the detention, he will pick up the problem that Mr. Bayer is experiencing. Mr. Kil stated that Mr. Kraus, the Town’s engineer and Gary Torrenga, Torrenga Engineering will take a look at this issue at that time.

Mr. Bayer stated that the proposed subdivision will have an immediate impact on him because 15 additional houses will be added along with 15 more parking lots for the homes. He stated storm water will be coming off these 15 additional homes and driveways and the storm water will run to the storm water line that affects him. Mr. Forbes stated that the storm water from the proposed homes will run into the Town’s sewer system.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Torrenga stated that the old V3 designs reflect a detention pond. He stated that the detention pond had not been built because there was nothing built that would run into it. Mr. Torrenga stated that he does not doubt what Mr. Bayer is saying, but the rains in the last few years have been hundred year rains three years in a row.

Mr. Bayer stated he has walked the property and he has observed six inches of water coming out of the storm water. He said something is hooked up to it. He stated he would like Mr. Torrenga to come out there and look at it and convince him that nothing is hooked up to the storm sewer.

Mr. Kil stated that Mr. Bayer is not close to the proposed development. He stated that Mr. Bayer’s issue will be brought to the attention of Mr. Kraus and Mr. Torrenga. Mr. Kil stated that the Town looks closely at storm water. He stated when the cul-de-sac is designed, which will impact the wet lands, the other engineering will be reviewed. Mr. Kil stated Mr. Bayer’s issue will come into play at this point.

(General discussion ensued.)

Paul Panczuk, 8410 Magnolia Street:
Mr. Panczuk stated he could help clarify Mr. Bayer’s comment on the storm sewer. He stated that there is a lake that’s right in the wet lands and it drains out behind Mr. Bayer’s property. He stated that the entire lake is bordered by Lantern Woods and Kilkenny, Block One, and has a drain right behind Magnolia Street which is set at a specific overflow. Mr. Panczuk stated that the storm sewer runs very far. He explained that there is a point where the sewer takes a turn and goes behind Mr. Bayer’s property. Mr. Panczuk stated that all of the lots here are part of a gulley that runs on the lake. He stated that he doesn’t know if all of this water can be captured. Mr. Panczuk stated the water feeds the lake which then feeds Mr. Bayer’s problem.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Panczuk stated that he lives on Lot 67, which is in the lower right corner of Magnolia Street. He stated that Kilkenny, as-built, had a no fence covenant. Mr. Panczuk stated he wants to ensure that the proposed homes have a no fence covenant. He states he has a view of all of this property and it is beautiful and he does not wish to see an ocean of fence lines. Mr. Panczuk asked that the developer incorporate the no fence covenant and keep the view unobstructed.

Mr. Panczuk stated that he would give the Board some logistics on Columbia Avenue, from a St. John resident’s perspective. He stated that he has sent a letter to the Plan Commission, which hopefully will be placed on the public record.

Mr. Panczuk stated he was aware of the back and forth regarding Columbia Avenue back in 2000. He stated that these streets are not designed to be collector streets. Mr. Panczuk noted that there is Sun Meadows, Lantern Woods, Lantern View Estates, Kilkenny Estates and Schilton Hills. He stated that all of the residents that are slightly north of 93rd Avenue and west of Patterson most likely go out to 85th, a designated collector street, and out to Patterson. He stated that this is a popular route for those who commute to Illinois.

Mr. Panczuk stated if the Columbia Avenue connection is ever made, there will be local residential streets that turn into collector streets. He stated that the aforementioned five subdivisions will be dumping onto the Columbia Avenue connection to get to Illinois. Mr. Panczuk stated that even if Columbia was a designated right of way and a four lane highway, the residential streets he’s referring to were never designed for this volume of traffic.

Mr. Panczuk opined that the individual that designed the initial stub to Columbia was basically connecting dots on a CAD drawing. He stated that no one has ever said this was a good idea or did the research. Mr. Panczuk stated that if Columbia had been designed as a collector street, the subdivision would have been designed differently in order to funnel the traffic.

Mr. Panczuk stated that his letter to the Board also refers to the thoroughfare plan. He stated that this thoroughfare plan shows that future designs call for White Oak Avenue to stub through, which is shown on the Town’s Comprehensive and Thoroughfare Plan. He stated that he believes that this is what the Town intended to be the future, alternate possible access road if more property is annexed or in the event of future development. Mr. Panczuk noted that the Columbia Avenue stub is not on the Comprehensive Plan other than just being a drawing that some developer came up with.

Mr. Panczuk asked that the Plan Commission adhere to the Comprehensive and the Thoroughfare Plan as it is written. He stated he agrees with other residents in that if Columbia is not going to be connected let Mr. Torrenga redesign the stub, put a house there and be done with it,

(Audience applause.)

Tim Boyle, 8442 Magnolia Street:
Mr. Boyle stated when the Galloway Bay Association was opened from the lake the Kennedys (previous owners) assured him that there was a utility access area by Lot 45, of ten foot area each way. He stated that there was also an access at 85th that was purportedly sold off to two neighbors, which he does not understand.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil summarized Mr. Boyle’s comments as follows: Mr. Boyle is maintaining that the ten foot utility easement should be fifteen feet. Mr. Boyle concurred.

Mr. Boyle stated he is relaying to the Board what “the young Mr. Kennedy had told us at our Galloway Bay Association. Mr. Kil explained that the width of easements depend on the purpose of the easement. Mr. Boyle stated that the easement he is referring to is a utility easement. He stated that he wanted to make sure that there is a utility easement present for access in the event it is needed.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Boyle stated that he has had 21” of water in his yard from the rain in August. He stated that the sewers cannot handle all of the rain and the water builds up. Mr. Boyle stated that the water comes up and rushes between his home and his neighbor’s home and back towards the pond.

The access easements were further discussed. Covenants, enforcement of covenants and fencing was discussed.

Mr. Boyle reiterated that he wanted to ensure that the utility access easements were reflected on the drawings. Mr. Kil stated that the utility easement is clearly reflected on the plat.

(General discussion ensued.)

Attorney Kuiper remarked that the drawing reflects there is a fifteen feet of easement on the back, and a minimum of twenty-five feet total.

Ron Reichelt, 8250 Columbia Avenue:
Mr. Reichelt stated that he wanted to address a safety issue at 81s Street. He stated that traffic comes and goes out of Illinois, He stated at the end of the street you cannot make a left or right turn. Mr. Reichelt stated that there is another access to St. John behind his property. He explained that there are five acres that run from the three-way stop that could potentially run back to Kilkenny Estates with room to put in another access for the future.

Randy Eenigenburg, 8648 Tapper Street:
Mr. Eenigenburg stated his concern is that Kilkenny has had some issues with waste handling. He stated that his understanding is that a temporary lift station to be built.

Mr. Eenigenburg asked why a permanent lift station is not being required. He stated that the rest of the St. John residents should not have to pay to upgrade the temporary lift station to something permanent.

Mr. Forbes explained that the cost for the lift station would not be on the residents, but on the developer.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil stated that the temporary lift station will eventually be taken over by a permanent lift station, with the costs to be borne by the developer. He stated that any improvements that are built including a temporary and/or permanent lift stations and water mains are expenses that are shouldered by the developer. Mr. Kil stated that the Town then inspects the improvements, and if they meet the Town’s standards the Town will accept them.

Mr. Eenigenburg asked if compromises are being made to develop a piece of property wherein the residents will end up suffering.

Attorney Kuiper stated that there is a Master Plan for this property. He stated that the Master Plan includes the addition of a permanent lift station or a different location to service the development. He stated that “temporary” is probably not the best term to use for the lift station.

Mr. Eenigenburg stated that there are manifold covenants that cover much of the existing Kilkenny Estates. He asked if the developer intends to continue these covenants.

Mr. Torrenga stated that he and Mr. James have never spoken of any existing covenants at Kilkenny. He stated that they will have this conversation. Mr. Torrenga stated that the covenants should not be an encumbrance on what Mr. James, the developer, intends to do. Mr. Torrenga stated if Mr. James wishes to institute the covenants he is free to do so.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil stated, to his knowledge, Mr. James intends to put housing in the development, and at a minimum, the housing will be like and kind to what exists in Kilkenny right now. Mr. Kil stated that he is not sure what will be done about the covenants.

Mr. Forbes explained that the Plan Commission does discuss covenants when they are presented to the Board. He stated the Board will accept the covenants when they are presented, but the Town is not able, legally, to enforce covenants. Mr. Forbes stated enforcement of covenants is typically the purview of the homeowner’s association.

Ralph Larson, 8554 Tapper Street:
Mr. Larson stated he is new to the neighborhood. He noted there has been some discussion of a Master Plan for the area being discussed tonight. Mr. Larson asked if the Master Plan was available to the public for viewing.

Attorney Kuiper instructed Mr. Larson to call the Building and Planning Department and schedule a time to come in and inspect the Master Plan. Mr. Kil stated he would be happy to go through the Master Plan with Mr. Larson.

Jim Turnoble, 8458 Magnolia:
Mr. Turnoble stated he is a representative of the Galloway Bay Homeowner’s Association, which consists of the common land surrounding the lake. He stated that the drawing on the screen reflects Lots One through Five. He stated that the old plan reflects Lots One through Four and the lots were linked to the common land area.

Mr. Turnoble stated that whoever moved into homes on these lots was required to pay an initial fee and also an association fee for the upkeep of the land. He asked if this requirement would still be in effect since the drawing reflects it has been changed from four lots to five lots.

Mr. Forbes stated that this matter is the purview of the homeowner’s association. Mr. Turnoble stated that the wet land in this area is followed the Department of Natural Resources. He stated that he wanted to make sure that the aforementioned lots are still linked to the common land. Mr. Turnoble explained that whoever moved into the homes on these lots had the responsibility of taking care of the wet lands.

Mr. Turnoble stated he hoped this matter would be addressed. Mr. Forbes stated he did not have an answer on this issue.

Mr. Forbes called two additional times for public comment. There was no further public comment. Mr. Forbes closed the floor and brought the matter back before the Board.

Mr. Forbes asked if there was any further discussion by the Board. There was no further discussion.

Mr. Forbes stated he would entertain a motion on Kilkenny Estates, preliminary plat approval along with the incorporation of the finding of fact by reference. Mr. Kozel made a motion to grant preliminary plat approval of Kilkenny Estates and incorporate the findings of fact. Mr. Hastings seconded the motion. The motion was carried by voice vote (5/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

Mr. Torrenga thanked the residents who came to the meeting in the right frame of mind. He stated that the comments have not gone unheeded. Mr. Torrenga guaranteed that all of the comments that were relevant to Kilkenny Estates, Unit Four, will be taken under consideration. He thanked the residents again for their comments.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Mr. Forbes opened the floor to public comment. He called two times for public comment. There was no public comment. Mr. Forbes closed the floor to public comment.

ADJOURNMENT:

Mr. Forbes called for a motion to adjourn. “So moved,” by Mr. Kozel. Mr. Nietzel seconded the motion. The motion was carried by voice vote (5/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

(The meeting was adjourned at 8:18 p.m.)

A TRUE COPY

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

10-15-2014 Plan Commission

October 15, 2014 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes

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

CALL TO ORDER:

Mr. Tom Ryan called to order the study session of the St. John Plan Commission, for October 15, 2014, 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, Michael Forbes, Steve Kozel and Derwin Nietzel. Tom Redar and Steve Hastings were absent. Staff members present: Steve Kil. Ken Krauss was present. Gregory Volk, Town Council liaison was also present. Attorney Timothy Kuiper was absent.

NEW BUSINESS:

A. MILL CREEK DEVELOPMENT --- PRIMARY PLAT APPROVAL --- JOE LENIHAN --- OLTOHOFF HOMES
Mr. Ryan noted the first item on the agenda was Mill Creek Development. Mr. Joe Lenihan, Olthoff Homes, appeared on behalf of the Mill Creek development.

Mr. Lenihan informed the Board that he has started working on the engineering. He stated that the drawings should be ready to be submitted to Mr. Kraus for his review in the next week. He stated that the engineering will show the layout of the water main, storm/sanitary sewer and rough calculations on the storm water retention.

Mr. Lenihan stated he plans to attend the November 5, 2014, regular meeting at which time he will request permission to advertise for a public hearing to be held at the December 3, 2014, regular meeting. He stated he will attend the November study session to update the Board on the drawings.

Mr. Lenihan stated he believes he can follow the exact plan that he presented to the Board. He stated that the sanitary sewer and water main will be located at the intersection of Park Place and Route 231. Mr. Lenihan stated that there will also be a water main located at the northeast corner of Parrish Avenue and Route 231. He stated this water main will be extended to the southernmost boundary on Parrish Avenue for future connection as well as to loop it within Mill Creek.

Mr. Lenihan stated that the storm water will basically exit the site along Parrish Avenue in a ditch/creek. He stated he is preparing a full storm water report. Mr. Lenihan stated he would be happy to answer any questions.

(General discussion ensued.)

A traffic signal was discussed. Mr. Kil stated that a traffic count would have to be done by INDOT to get a signal put in in this area.

Mr. Ryan asked if there was any further discussion. There was no further discussion. Mr. Lenihan stated he hoped to be able to submit the engineering plans by the middle of next week.

B. ROSE GARDEN --- DISCUSSION ON DEVELOPMENT --- SUBLIME DEVELOPMENT --- BRIAN RAIMONDI AND MIKE GRANICZNY.

Mr. Ryan noted Rose Garden was the next item on the agenda for the Board’s consideration.

Mr. Brian Raimondi and Mr. Mike Graniczny, Sublime Development, appeared before the Board for discussion on the Rose Garden Development.

Mr. Raimondi informed the Board that Rose Garden is located in the northwest corner of the Willow Ridge development. The developer is proposing an 11-lot subdivision on the west of Parrish Avenue.

(Mr. Raimondi submitted drawings)

Mr. Raimondi stated that Parrish Avenue would be the entrance to the subdivision. Mr. Kraus asked if a wet land delineation study had been done yet. Mr. Raimondi stated that the wet land delineation was done, but he has not received the report yet.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil recommended that a deceleration lane around the curve at 89th Avenue. A four-way stop sign for this area was discussed.

Mr. Ryan asked about the lot sizes in the development. Mr. Raimondi stated that the lots are 120 feet wide and depths varying from 160 to 180 feet. He stated the average lot size was 183x110, and zoned R2.

Mr. Raimondi proposed that the developer be allowed to avoid extending the south end of Parrish Avenue to the property line. He stated that Lot 11 is non-buildable at the present time.

Mr. Graniczny stated that they own half of Lot 11 at the present time. He stated that they are working with the landowner and anticipate purchasing the rest of this land, at which time they would extend a road to the boundary line.

(General discussion ensued.)

The road extension was discussed. Mr. Forbes stated that if the developer wanted to move forward, they should probably stop at nine lots provided that the delineation works out.

Mr. Forbes remarked that once the wet land delineation figured out, he didn’t see any other issues. Mr. Kil stated that they would review the four-way stop sign at 89th and Parrish Avenue, a stop sign at Highland Court and another at 90th.

Mr. Kil recommended that the developer switch the drawing to nine lots, and come back with plans that reflect the street designs, etc.

C. PARKING ORDINANCE #1322 --- REVIEW OF ORDINANCE.

Mr. Ryan noted Parking Ordinance #1322 was before the Board for their review. Mr. Volk stated that there is a problem with enforcing the parking ordinance due to varying interpretations.

Mr. Kil explained that the issue with the parking ordinance is related to boats and RVs. He stated language in the ordinance reflects that a boat cannot be at a residence principally for storage. Mr. Kil stated in the warm months, there are people who use their boats frequently. He stated that it is difficult to police every boat in Town.

Mr. Kil stated that his interpretation of the ordinance is that from May to October residents can leave their boats at their homes as they are used frequently.

Mr. Volk informed the Board that the ordinance allows for a boat on a trailer to be parked on the side of a residence, behind the front building line, on a hard, paved surface. Mr. Kil stated that the issue is boats being parked in driveways.

Mr. Volk stated that the question is if the Town wants to allow boats to be parked on driveways seasonally.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Ryan recommended that the Board members investigate (on-line) parking ordinances from other upscale communities to see how they are written. He stated he will look into other ordinances, specifically boating ordinances. Mr. Ryan concurred that the language is up to interpretation.

Mr. Ryan stated that this matter would be tabled while more information is collected. Mr. Kil recommended that any parking ordinances that are found and reviewed by the Board be e-mailed to him. Mr. Kil stated he would place this matter on the next study session agenda.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

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

ADJOURNMENT:

Mr. Ryan adjourned the meeting.

(The meeting was adjourned at 8:01 p.m.)

A TRUE COPY

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

11-05-2014 Plan Commission

November 5, 2014 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes

Tom Ryan, President Steve Hastings Attorney Tim Kuiper
Michael Forbes, 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 St. John Plan Commission, regular meeting, for November 5, 2014, at 7:03 p.m.

(The Pledge of Allegiance was said.)

ROLL CALL:

Roll call was taken by Susan E. Wright, Recording Secretary, with the following Commissioners present: Michael Forbes, Steve Kozel, Tom Redar, and Derwin Nietzel. Tom Ryan and Steve Hastings were absent. Staff members present: Kenn Kraus and Steve Kil. Attorney Kuiper was not present.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: OCTOBER 1, 2014 REGULAR MEETING

Mr. Forbes noted the first item on the agenda was consideration of the minutes from the meeting of October 1, 2014. He asked if there were any comments or questions on the minutes. There was no discussion on the minutes.

Mr. Forbes stated he would entertain a motion to approve the minutes of October 1, 2014. “So moved,” by Mr. Kozel. Mr. Nietzel seconded the motion. The motion was carried by voice vote (4/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

NEW BUSINESS:

A. MILL CREEK DEVELOPMENT --- PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON DECEMBER 3, 2014 (PRIMARY APPROVAL) --- JOE LENIHAN.
Mr. Forbes stated the first item under New Business for the Board’s consideration and review was Mill Creek development. Mill Creek development was requesting permission to advertise for a public hearing for preliminary plat approval at the regular meeting on December 3, 2014. Mr. Forbes asked the Board if they had any questions. There were no questions.

Mr. Joe Lenihan, Olthof Homes, and representative for Mill Creek Development appeared before the Board. He requested the Board’s permission to advertise for a public hearing to be held at the regular Plan Commission meeting on December 3, 2014.

Mr. Forbes stated he would entertain a motion on Mill Creek’s request to advertise for a public hearing. Mr. Kozel made a motion to authorize Mill Creek Development permission to advertise for a public hearing for primary plat approval on December 3, 2014. Mr. Nietzel seconded the motion. The motion was carried by voice vote (4/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

B. GATES OF ST JOHN --- UNIT 1E --- FINAL PLAT APPROVAL --- JOHN LOTTON.
Mr. Forbes noted the next item on the Board’s agenda was the Gates of St John, Unit 1E, seeking final plat approval. Mr. Forbes noted that the section under discussion is by the water tower. He stated his understanding is that the Petitioner is waiting for the roads to be paved.

Mr. John Lotton, representing the Gates of St. John, appeared before the Board. He stated that the roads are scheduled to be paved on Monday.

Mr. Redar asked about a section of sidewalk that was to be installed near the water tower.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Lotton stated that there is nothing in the design that calls for the carriage walk to continue past the end of the residential area, per the original plans. He stated there was no provision to put a sidewalk in front of the water tower. Mr. Kil stated that there is a walk that goes along the water tower at the present time and it ends right at the road.

Mr. Kil showed the Board a drawing reflecting the sidewalk. Mr. Redar noted that the plat reflects that the new road that is put in will tie into Sagebrook next to the water tower; he asked if there was going to be a sidewalk located here to get back out to Sagebrook. Mr. Lotton noted that this was not a request that was made previously. He stated both the north and south side of Sagebrook will have sidewalks.

Mr. Redar stated he is just trying to figure out how it will all tie together. Mr. Kraus stated that when the future fire station is built the adjacent sidewalk could go in at that time.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil explained that when the fire station is built sidewalks will be put in along Sagebrook and connected to the development as a part of that project.

Mr. Forbes asked if there were any further questions. The Board had no further questions.

Mr. Forbes referred to the letter of November 5, 2014, received from Mr. Kenn Kraus. Mr. Kraus indicated in his letter that a revised plat had been submitted to him and he found the same to be satisfactory.

Mr. Kraus also indicated in his letter that it is undetermined if the developmental fee for this unit has been paid, the asphalt intermediate course and asphalt surface course for the streets has not been installed and as-built drawings have not been delivered for this project. Mr. Kraus recommended that in lieu of receipt of an irrevocable letter of credit for the items cited in his letter, that the plat not be signed until the aforementioned work is completed.

Mr. Forbes noted based upon the information provided by Mr. Kraus, the Board could elect to grant final plat approval but withhold signature until all items are completed.

Mr. Lotton acknowledged that the developmental fee is due and will be paid.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes asked if there were any further questions. There were no further questions.

Mr. Forbes stated he would entertain a motion to approve final plat with the following contingencies: receipt of developmental fees, the road paving is completed and the as-builts are received, and incorporating, by reference, the findings of fact. “So moved,” by Mr. Redar. Mr. Kozel seconded the motion. The motion was carried by voice vote (4/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

C. KILKENNY ESTATES – UNIT 4, BLOCK 1 --- FINAL PLAT APPROVAL --- GARY TORRENGA.

Mr. Forbes noted Kilkenny Estates, Unit Four, Block One was before the Board for their review and consideration of final plat approval.

Mr. Andy James, Kilkenny Estates developer, appeared before the Board seeking final plat approval. He noted that the Board was in receipt of the plans.

Mr. Forbes acknowledged that the developmental fee of $4,962.72 was received along with a check in the amount of $283,949.60, received in lieu of a letter of credit.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kraus acknowledged that he had reviewed the SWPPP. He stated he issued a Form 1, and forwarded a copy to the appropriate parties.

Mr. Forbes asked if there were any other questions or comments. There were no questions or comments.

Mr. Forbes stated that the would entertain a motion to approve final plat for Kilkenny Estates, Unit Four, and incorporate the findings of fact by reference. “So moved,” by Mr. Kozel. Mr. Nietzel seconded the motion. The motion was carried by voice vote (4/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

D. DEVELOPMENT PLAN PRESENTATION --- DENNIS MEYERS --- DOUG RETTIG.
Mr. Forbes noted the next item on the agenda was a development plan presentation for the Lake Central Plaza by Mr. Dennis Meyers.

Mr. Dennis Meyers, Meyers Development, and Doug Rettig, engineer, appeared before the Board to make the presentation on the development plan for a project that would extend Lake Central Plaza.

Mr. Rettig showed a Power Point presentation to the Board. He stated the commercial development would be extended. He noted that Mr. Kil has been hard at work on reworking the traffic signal on Route 41.

Mr. Kil stated that this overall development project has been approved by the Town Council. He stated that any day now the Town will take possession of the property that was acquired for this project. He stated that once the property is acquired the road will be put in and the traffic signal from Route 41 will be reworked.

Mr. Kil informed the Board that the road and traffic signal will be the Town’s portion of the project while Mr. Meyers will develop the commercial and residential portion of the project. Mr. Kil stated that the Town will be a joint petitioner with Meyers Development because all of the land will need to be platted at the same time.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Rettig pointed out on the drawing the end of the Town’s property, the commercial location and location of 16 duplex lots. He stated that Mr. Meyers is pursuing the purchase of some platted lots in Gardenia Gardens, specifically, Lots 3 and 4 and the back of Lot 1. Mr. Rettig stated these parcels would be included in the resubdivision. He pointed out some property that is currently owned by Mr. Plaskota which Mr. Meyers also intends to purchase.

Mr. Rettig stated there is a long, skinny pond behind the car wash that serves Gardenia Gardens. He stated that this pond will be eliminated and the drainage from the pond will be incorporated into the new pond. Mr. Rettig stated Mr. Meyers is purchasing property to line up with the north line of Speedway. He stated that the overall watershed is approximately 20 acres including the commercial frontage.

Mr. Rettig stated the lift station at the south end of the pond will be eliminated. He stated all of the water will drain by gravity to the new pond which will be located behind the duplexes. Mr. Rettig stated that there is a flood zone, and the detention will be located back in the flood zone.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Rettig noted that there is a sanitary sewer and a water main located behind the car wash with two manholes, one at the southeast corner and one at the northeast corner. He stated that the developer will be able to utilize this sewer for the entire project. Mr. Rettig stated that the developer will also be able to tie into the water main.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Rettig stated that the proposed duplexes will be similar in size to the ones in Golden Pond. He stated that the buildings in the “island” are much the same as the buildings in the island at Golden Pond.

Mr. Kil asked Mr. Rettig to explain Mr. DeYoung’s proposal to the Board. Mr. Rettig explained to the Board that the new road will be sort of parallel to DeYoung Furniture’s north line. Mr. Rettig pointed out the location of the road the Town is putting in and the road that the developer will be putting in. Mr. Rettig stated that Mr. DeYoung wants to tie into the road and also extend the frontage road and tie into it.

(General discussion ensued.)

Traffic was discussed. Easements and out lots were discussed.

Mr. Redar asked how the proposed development would blend in with Mr. Myers current development. Mr. Rettig stated that the two Developments do not connect. He stated that there will be easements through the commercial parking lot to grant access.

Mr. Kil stated that the road will continue behind the Lake Central Plaza buildings and tie into the frontage road. He stated that this will give the residents of Golden Pond access to the signal light.

Mr. Forbes stated that he previously mentioned a walking connection between the cul-de-sac in Golden Pond and the new development.

Mr. Meyers stated that this matter has been discussed and the residents of Golden Pond did not want the connection. Mr. Forbes opined that the residents will most likely want the walking connection “after the fact.”

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Rettig stated that the developer is proposing the development as a Planned Unit Development (PUD). He stated showed the Board the public roads and a private road. The public and private road(s) were discussed.

Traffic and stacking by DeYoung’s Furniture was discussed. Turn lanes and their widths were discussed. Mr. Kil commented that there will be a designated left turn lane on the highway.

Mr. Kraus stated he is in the process of preparing bid documents. He stated he has not prepared the specifications, but is working on the drawings.

Mr. Kil stated he would like bids to be opened at the first meeting in February and award bids at the first meeting in March, with work to be tentatively scheduled to begin at the end of March.

Mr. Kil informed the Board that the dual left turn lane at Lake Central will be eliminated. There will be a single left turn lane, which was agreed to by Lake Central School Corporation representatives, which has been reduced to writing. He stated the Lake Central School Corporation representatives have been included in the development process every step of the way.

Mr. Forbes asked if there were any further questions or comments.

There were no further questions or comments.

Mr. Kil recommended that the developer come in for rezoning as soon as possible.

E. DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW OF FUTURE LAKE CENTRAL DRIVE.
Mr. Forbes noted this matter was addressed and discussed under Item D.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Mr. Forbes opened the floor to public comment. He called for public comment.

Thomas Alb, 8291 Columbia Avenue
Mr. Alb stated he was concerned about the construction sewers in the wetlands (for Kilkenny Estates) at the side of his house. He asked if there was a permit for this work.

Mr. Kraus stated if there is construction in the wetlands and a permit is necessary, a wetland construction permit will definitely have to be secured by the developer. Mr. Kil commented that the developer did apply to IDEM for their sewer permit. Mr. Kil stated that the permit was applied for but not yet received.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes called for additional public comment. There was no further public comment. Mr. Forbes closed the floor to public comment.

ADJOURNMENT:

Mr. Forbes stated he would entertain a motion to adjourn. “So moved.” Mr. Nietzel seconded the motion. The motion was carried by voice vote (4/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

(The meeting was adjourned at 7:58 p.m.)

A TRUE COPY

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

11-19-2014 Plan Commission

November 19, 2014 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes

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

CALL TO ORDER:

Mr. Tom Ryan called St. John Plan Commission, study session, to order for November 19, 2014, at 7:03 p.m.

(The Pledge of Allegiance was said.)

ROLL CALL:

Roll call was taken by Susan E. Wright, Recording Secretary, with the following Commissioners present: Tom Ryan, Michael Forbes, Steve Kozel and Steve Hastings. Tom Redar, and Derwin Nietzel were absent. Staff members present: Kenn Kraus. Steve Kil was absent. Attorney Kuiper was not present. Gregory Volk, Town Council liaison, was absent.

Mr. Volk informed the Board that he had communicated with Mr. Volk, who would not be present at tonight’s meeting due to urgent family business.

NEW BUSINESS:

A. MILL CREEK DEVELOPMENT --- PRIMARY APPROVAL --- JOE LENIHAN.

Mr. Ryan noted the first item on the study session agenda was Mill Creek Development.

Mr. Joe Lenihan, Olthof Homes, and representative for Mill Creek Development appeared before the Board. He stated he was present tonight to discuss the progress on the Mill Creek subdivision, located at the southeast corner of Parrish Avenue and Route 231 behind the commercial frontage.

Mr. Lenihan stated that the annexation and zoning process have been completed. He stated that the Petitioner is currently working on obtaining primary plat approval and engineering is ongoing. Mr. Lenihan stated that engineering has been submitted to Mr. Kraus; he stated he appreciated his quick turn-around on a very large set of plans.

Mr. Lenihan stated that he has had a chance to review Mr. Kraus’s comments on the plans. He stated that Mr. Kraus and the Mill Creek engineer have also communicated and there is still some work to do on the plans. He stated there are additional calculations that he will supply to Mr. Kraus related to individual overflow routes.

Mr. Kraus commented that there was a lot of information to review. He opined the design is good. Mr. Kraus stated he communicated with the project’s engineers.

Mr. Kraus stated that the biggest issue is the downstream system. He stated that the project engineers are going to gather this information and provide it to him for his review. Mr. Kraus stated there were clerical type corrections to be made on the plans.

(General discussion ensued.)

The downstream system was discussed. The discharge rate was discussed.

Mr. Kraus informed the Board that there will be two water system connections, one located at Park Place to a 12” main, and a 12” main located at Parrish Avenue and 109th. He explained the water main routing to the Board.

Mr. Kraus stated that the sanitary sewer will tie in to the 24” system with a route to Park Place and along to the Gates of St. John with future connections to the south and east. Mr. Kraus stated that there are five detention basins and a wet land complex. Mr. Lenihan stated that they will be able to provide some amount of excess retention and additional free board in the ponds.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Lenihan stated he hopes to have the amended plans to Mr. Kraus for his review in time for the December meeting.

Mr. Forbes asked if a berm would be built near the duplexes. Mr. Lenihan stated a berm would be built and it should be reflected on the plan. He stated the buffer would shield the dwellings from Route 231.

Mr. Forbes asked if there had been any discussion with Mr. Lotton regarding the entrance on to 109th and/or the street light. Mr. Lenihan stated he has had a slightly hard time trying to get ahold of INDOT.

Mr. Lenihan stated that INDOT will inform him of the regulations that are in place, and he will be bound to follow any regulations set forth by INDOT. Mr. Forbes stated the 109th Avenue intersection is “a mess.” Mr. Lenihan stated he will obtain information including INDOT’s future plans for the intersection.

Mr. Forbes commented that the development is nicely laid out and should work well.

Mr. Kozel noted that the handicap directional plates seemed to be missing in a few places on the plan. Mr. Lenihan stated he would review the plan and take a close look at this issue.

(General discussion ensued.)

A future traffic light at the intersection of 109th was discussed.

Mr. Hastings asked if there was a scheme where the sizes of the single family dwellings and duplexes would vary. Mr. Lenihan stated that Olthof Builders self-imposes anti-monotony regulations. He stated that the developer will be following the Town’s anti-monotony ordinance. Mr. Lenihan stated that the paired cottages will have a little more uniformity, but there will be some distinct elevations.

Mr. Lenihan thanked the Board.

B. OAK MEADOWS, UNIT FOUR --- THREE LOT SUBDIVISION --- JIM BUCHANAN.
Mr. Ryan noted Oak Meadows, Unit Four, a three lot subdivision is the next item on the agenda.

(Mr. Buchanan submitted drawings to the Board.)

Mr. Jim Buchanan appeared before the Board to apprise them of his proposed plan for Oak Meadows, Unit Four. He informed the Board that Oak Meadows is a 19 acre parcel that he is proposing to subdivide into two lots fronting White Oak Avenue. Mr. Buchanan stated one lot will be slightly over two acres and the other parcel approximately five acres.

Mr. Buchanan stated that there are really only two buildable sites on the parcel. He proposed to subdivide the parcel with one lot line running down the middle of Bull Run ditch, and the other lot line located by a drainage ditch that runs under White Oak Avenue from a pond located to the west. Mr. Buchanan proposed to build a view-scape down the stream. He stated one lot would be on the north side and one on the south.

Mr. Buchanan stated the main topic he wanted to bring to the Board’s attention was the water main. He explained that there is a 12” water main that dead-ends in the northwest corner of the property near Rosewood. Mr. Buchanan stated that the water main was previously discussed with the Board, but the development plans feel through.

Mr. Buchanan requested that the Board consider allowing him to run the 12” water main past the proposed driveway (approximately 400’) in lieu of running the water main down the entire 1,400 foot parcel along White Oak Avenue to the old lift station. Mr. Buchanan stated that he would install a fire hydrant and other qualifications that the Town would set forth.

Mr. Buchanan stated at the present time, he is only going to work on the two lots he presented and not the back section of the parcel. He stated there is a sewer located in the back of the property for the dwellings to attach to.

Mr. Buchanan discussed the proposed development with Mr. Kraus. He pointed out the proposed location of the driveways for the lots. He stated he is not sure what he will do with the back parcel.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Buchanan referred to aerial photos.

Mr. Kraus stated putting two dwellings on a parcel of this size is a good idea.

Mr. Forbes stated that the actual length of the parcel will have to be determined. He stated he would be agreeable to negotiating the length of water main. Mr. Kraus stated it would be possible to work something out.

Mr. Buchanan informed the Board he would obtain a survey.

C. PARKING ORDINANCE --- CONTINUED REVIEW.

Mr. Ryan noted the next item on the agenda for the Board’s consideration and review was the parking ordinance. He noted the absence of Mr. Kil and Mr. Volk.

Mr. Forbes informed the Board that Mr. Volk has obtained some documentation related to the parking ordinance. He recommended that the Board table this meeting.

(General discussion ensued.)

The matter was tabled.

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 adjourned the meeting.

(The meeting was adjourned at 7:44 p.m.)

A TRUE COPY

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

12-03-2014 Plan Commission

December 3, 2014 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes

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

CALL TO ORDER:

Mr. Michael Forbes chaired the St. John Plan Commission meeting in Mr. Ryan’s absence; he called the meeting to order for December 3, 2014, at 7:02 p.m.

(The Pledge of Allegiance was said.)

ROLL CALL:

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

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: NOVEMBER 5, 2014.

Mr. Forbes noted that the meeting minutes for the regular meeting of November 5, 2014, were before the Board for their review and action. He asked if there were any questions or amendments to the meeting minutes. There were no amendments or questions.

Mr. Forbes stated he would entertain a motion on the meeting minutes. “So moved,” by Mr. Kozel. Mr. Redar seconded the motion. The motion was carried by voice vote (4/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

PUBLIC HEARING:

A. MILL CREEK DEVELOPMENT --- PUBLIC HEARING --- PRIMARY PLAT APPROVL --- JOE LENIHAN.
Mr. Forbes noted the first item on the agenda for the Board’s consideration was a public hearing/primary plat approval for Mill Creek Development. Mr. Joe Lenihan, Olthof Homes, was present to represent Mill Creek Development.

Mr. Forbes asked Attorney Kuiper if the Proofs of Publication were in order for the public hearing on the Mill Creek Development. Attorney Kuiper stated that the notices and publications for Mill Creek Development’s public hearing were in order and the public hearing could be properly conducted tonight.

Mr. Lenihan informed the Board that he was ready to talk about the Mill Creek Development located roughly at the southeast corner of Parrish Avenue and Route 231. He stated that he submitted the engineering at the last meeting. Mr. Lenihan stated that there were three issues he wished to address.

Mr. Lenihan stated that his engineer had met with Mr. Kraus and discussed the engineering review comments. He stated that he appreciated all of the time that Mr. Kraus put into the project.

Mr. Lenihan stated that he has confirmed that the plans include sidewalk connections at “T” intersections, and no manhole covers at the same.

Mr. Lenihan stated that he has made contact with the highway permit coordinator at INDOT. He stated that a meeting is scheduled with INDOT next week. Mr. Lenihan stated that the development has all of the space that is needed for the road, but will have to adhere to INDOT standards and specifications. He stated he would keep the Town updated on the highway design and submit drawings when they were done. Mr. Lenihan stated he would know more about the INDOT regulations that are in place next week after meeting with INDOT.

Mr. Lenihan stated he would be happy to answer any questions the Board may have. Mr. Forbes asked if there had been any discussion with INDOT about signalization at the intersection. Mr. Lenihan stated if INDOT authorizes a traffic signal, one will have to be put in. He stated he had no knowledge of any provisions that may have been put in place in the driveway permit for the development across the street from Mill Creek Development.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Lenihan stated he would keep the Board updated on his discussions with INDOT. Mr. Forbes stated that his concern is the traffic coming in and out onto Route 231 in this area as it is very busy.

Mr. Forbes stated he would open the floor to public hearing regarding the Mill Creek Development.

PUBLIC HEARING

Dave Kleine, 11315 Parrish Avenue:
Mr. Kleine stated his family represents a dairy farm that is directly to the south of the Mill Creek development. He stated the grain/dairy farm has been at this location for nearly a century. Mr. Kleine stated the business currently milks 100 cows and there are heifers on the farm as well.

Mr. Kleine stated he has several concerns with his dairy farm in such close proximity to a housing development. He stated during fall harvest time there are grain dryers that point to the northeast and they run twenty-four hours a day seven days a week throughout the fall. Mr. Kleine stated that there is dust stirred up during spring planting time, and during fall harvest there is debris coming out of the fields.

Mr. Kleine stated that there is also a manure handling issue. He stated manure is spread on every acre of the farm. Mr. Kleine stated that the manure is a viable asset to the farm as it provides plant food for their crops. He stated that future residents may not be real happy from time to time with regard to the odor, not being livestock people.

Mr. Kleine requested that the developer provide a wind break/buffer zone. He had in his possession NRCS studies on wind breaks/buffer zones, He stated that the wind breaks, consisting of three rows of trees are effective in helping buffer the dust, noise and the odors. Mr. Kleine opined that the buffer is a reasonable request.

Mr. Kleine stated he plans to continue farming and has plans to grow his herd size. Mr. Kleine stated that the buffer zone would be a win-win situation for everybody.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil stated he had talked to Todd Olthof. He stated that the stub road to the south would be something that would have to be discussed with the developers. Mr. Kleine stated that a stub road to the south would lead directly to his farm. He stated he is opposed to the stub road to the south that would lead into his farm. Mr. Kleine stated that the “roads that lead nowhere turn into a dumping zone.”

Mr. Kleine stated there is another development down the road. He said if his farm is ever sold there would be Parrish Avenue/117th access, two access roads.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kleine outlined the property boundaries of his farm for the Board.

Mr. Forbes called two additional times for public comment. There was no further public comment. Mr. Forbes closed the public hearing and brought the matter back before the Board.

Mr. Kozel asked Mr. Lenihan for his comments. Mr. Lenihan stated he had no objection to removing the stub road to the south especially if the Town doesn’t want it.

Mr. Lenihan stated the buffer zone is something he is willing to look at, but he would like to learn more about it. He stated a lot of the property in the development is already wooded. Mr. Lenihan stated that he expects the development to stay well-wooded as the developer has no intention of clearing-cutting it.

Mr. Lenihan reiterated he did not know what the buffer zone entailed and whether it could be worked into the project. He stated he would take a look at it, know what it was, and it was something he was willing to consider.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kleine commented that the buffer zones are effective. Mr. Lenihan reiterated that he would be more than willing, in good faith, to take a look at a buffer zone. Mr. Lenihan stated he wants the same thing the Kleines want, peace.

Mr. Lenihan stated that past practice of the Olthof Homes when building next to a farm is to place specific language into the covenants related to living adjacent to an agricultural development. He stated everyone who purchases a home in the development receives a copy of the covenants. Mr. Lenihan stated that special effort is made to emphasize to buyers certain language in the covenants, such as use restrictions. He stated that the covenants will include language, for example, as follows: “The adjacent properties are agricultural in nature. Here are the type of activities you should expect...”

Mr. Lenihan stated he would be more than glad to place such language in the covenants that would clearly disclose the adjacent property is “agricultural in nature.” He stated he would be happy to meet with Mr. Kleine to discuss the tree break. Mr. Lenihan stated he could not make any promises about the tree break.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Lenihan stated that the south side of the property would be the last phase of the development. He reiterated that he would certainly take a look at the tree break. Mr. Kleine reiterated that he would love to see a good buffer zone put in the area in question. He stated he is a good neighbor and wants to continue to be a good neighbor.

Mr. Forbes noted that there is no language in the Town’s ordinances that would require Mill Creek Development to place a tree break. He stated that even if there were a buffer of trees it probably would not fix the whole problem.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes stated he would like to see the buffer zone, but it was not within the Board’s power to enforce the placement of a buffer zone. Mr. Kleine opined that it would be responsible on the developer’s part to place a buffer zone. Mr. Forbes remarked that Mr. Kleine’s concerns are not being dismissed.

Mr. Forbes stated that the road needed to be discussed. Mr. Lenihan stated that the right of way could be left in the middle ground (referring to drawing). Mr. Lenihan stated he would do everything in his power to disclose the location of the right of way to potential homeowners. He stated the Homeowner’s Association will maintain the right of way.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes stated if the Daisy Lane extension were moved, he would like to see Summerland Street extended to the east to make up for the connection. He stated this connection would promote development to the east in the future. Mr. Forbes stated if the Kleine farm ever sold, it could be connected the other way.

(General discussion ensued.)

Stub roads and private right of way were discussed.

Mr. Lenihan stated the Homeowner’s Association will be maintaining the common areas within the subdivision. He stated that he can plat a right of way and put in a split rail fence around it so there is no question who the property belongs to.

Attorney Kuiper suggested placing an easement instead of a right of way.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil suggested that the curbs be turned to the south and a right of way line be platted by the road where the cul de sac is located. Mr. Forbes noted that there should be a notation that the Homeowner’s Association would be maintaining this property. Mr. Lenihan stated he would place this language in the covenants as well as on the primary plat.

Mr. Kil stated that Mr. Lenihan has agreed to work on access to the signal light with the commercial property owners on either side of the main road. Mr. Lenihan stated that it has not been decided if Phase One of the development will be started off of Parrish Avenue or Route 231.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Lenihan stated he has already had communications with the commercial property owners to the west regarding access. He stated he would be glad to sit down and talk with the commercial property owners to the east.

Mr. Kil stated that he does not want private property on either side of a public road where commercial property would not be allowed to tie into the traffic light.

Mr. Forbes remarked that the Town needs to be able to guarantee that there would be access to the commercial properties. He stated he does not want vehicles to be “held hostage” or have to go out onto Route 231 in order to access the commercial development.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes reiterated he wanted to guarantee access with the commercial property. Mr. Kil stated that access to the commercial property would have to be reflected on the final plat. Mr. Kil stated that he and Mr. Lenihan have discussed that, one way or the other, the need to plat an ingress/egress and/or a right of way to the commercial property and for the same to be reflected on the final plat.

Attorney Kuiper suggested that primary plat approval could be contingent upon access being granted, but with the details being worked out later. He stated, much like the Gates of St. John, there must be a way to access the commercial property. He stated it could be platted now because it is going to serve as a main entrance to the area (indicating on map) from Route 231. Attorney Kuiper stated that connectivity needs to be reflected on the plat.

Attorney Kuiper explained that the Board could plan for what is in front of them right now, but there needs to be some future connectivity to Route 231.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Lenihan stated he would be glad to contact the commercial property owners on the east and west sides and have a dialogue about access points into the commercial property.

The median breaks for turnarounds were discussed. Mr. Kil stated that the median will have to be extended to the north, much like what is in the Gates of St. John.

Mr. Kil stated, ideally, if Mr. Lenihan worked out a deal with the two property owners (indicating on the map) he could draw lines (indicating on map) and plat the rest as right of way. Mr. Kil then said whomever comes in to develop the commercial property would be responsible for cutting into the curbs and doing the improvements.

Mr. Lenihan stated that there could be a private agreement for a private commercial driveway, and not a publicly dedicated road. He reiterated that he needs to have the ability to sit down and talk to the commercial property owners to ascertain their interests and his own interests.

Mr. Lenihan stated he was not aware of any interest, from property owners to the east to have access to the commercial property. Mr. Lenihan stated, “If you make it a contingency to the approval, frankly, you’ve just provided someone private access without me having the ability to go sit down and talk with them and find out what our mutual interests are...”

Mr. Kil stated there is commercial property at 600’ and then residential. He stated there is a stub provided for the residential but no stub provided for the commercial for the traffic light that is going to go in this location. Mr. Lenihan stated they’re not even sure that there’s going to be a traffic light in this location.

(General discussion ensued.)

Attorney Kuiper stated that the Town must provide for connectivity when there is restricted access like Route 231.

Mr. Kil stated that there is no way that this will go through without having access to the signal light from the commercial development. He stated it would be “ridiculous.”

Mr. Lenihan reiterated he had no knowledge of anyone expressing interest in connecting to the road from the east, only what he was told shortly before the meeting. He stated that private access from a public road that he’s building has value. Attorney Kuiper concurred.

Mr. Lenihan stated he would be happy to discuss the road access with the interested land owners to the east. He stated in the event that the Board makes the primary approval contingent upon this matter, it should be clearly stated to the landowners that reimbursement would have to be worked out related to the access point.

Mr. Forbes noted that the plan that’s being presented to INDOT does not show a connection to a commercial center, therefore, INDOT will not be considering any potential cars coming in this street. Mr. Lenihan stated it can’t because there’s no proposal.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Lenihan stated that there’s a right and a wrong way to go about these things. He stated he’s had two hours to react to the issue of “forced access,” if it comes to that. Mr. Lenihan stated he just needs time to sit down with the individual(s) to find out what they want. He stated that this is what he did with the individuals on the west, and it’s really very easy.

Mr. Forbes stated that there’s enough discussion going on with this matter that he would feel more comfortable deferring it. He asked Mr. Lenihan if he was going to start building in the spring. Mr. Lenihan stated he would really like to get started on bidding as it is a good time of year to get pricing from contractors.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil stated, ultimately, he’d like to see the right of way platted, but this is difficult to do without a site plan. He stated, at the same time, Mr. Lenihan should have the opportunity to work this issue out rather than place a bunch of contingencies on the approval that would hinder him. Mr. Kil stated it would be fair to defer this matter.

Mr. Lenihan agreed to the deferral so he could look into how many accesses there are on the right side. Mr. Kil stated he is not suggesting that Mr. Lenihan should spend one dime on improvements, only that the developer who comes in has the ability to make improvements.

Mr. Kil stated that Mr. Lenihan should be able to work with the landowners. He recommended deferring this matter until January, 2014.

Mr. Forbes asked if there were any other comments or questions. There were no further.

Mr. Forbes asked for a motion to defer the Mill Creek matter and continue the public hearing. “So moved,” by Mr. Kozel. Mr. Redar seconded the motion. The motion was carried, (4/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none. The matter was rescheduled for January 5, 2015.

NEW BUSINESS:

A. PARK PLACE --- REQUEST PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE FOR PUBLIC HEARING.

Mr. Forbes noted Park Place was requesting permission to advertise for a public hearing.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes stated he would entertain a motion to authorize Park Place to advertise for a public hearing. “So moved,” by Mr. Kozel. Mr. Redar seconded the motion. The motion was carried by voice vote (4/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none. The matter was rescheduled for January 5, 2015.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Mr. Forbes opened the floor to public comment. He called for public comment.

Mr. Volk noted that the Board had discussion on amending language in the Town’s parking ordinance related to recreational vehicles a few months’ back. He stated he has done some research into parking ordinances in towns that are comparable to the Town of St. John, and will continue to research this matter. He asked that this matter be scheduled for the upcoming study session.

Mr. Forbes called for additional public comment. There was no further public comment. Mr. Forbes closed the floor to public comment.

ADJOURNMENT:

Mr. Forbes requested a motion to adjourn. “So moved,” by Mr. Kozel. Mr. Redar seconded the motion. The motion was carried by voice vote (4/0). Ayes --- all. Nays --- none.

(The meeting was adjourned at 8:21 p.m.)

A TRUE COPY

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

12-17-2014 Plan Commission

December 17, 2014 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes

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

CALL TO ORDER:

Mr. Michael Forbes chaired the St. John Plan Commission study session in Mr. Ryan’s absence; he called the meeting to order for December 17, 2014, at 7:01 p.m.

(The Pledge of Allegiance was said.)

ROLL CALL:

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

NEW BUSINESS:

A. PARK PLACE --- ZONE CHANGE --- DENNIS MEYERS.

Mr. Forbes noted that the first item under New Business was a zone change for Park Place. Mr. Kil noted Mr. Meyers’ absence. Mr. Kil explained that Mr. Meyers was seeking a zoning change to accommodate the proposed duplexes in Golden Pond. Mr. Kil stated that he could put the zoning map up on the projector screen for the Board’s perusal.

Mr. Kraus stated he had a concern about the name “Park Place” because it is the same name Providence Life Services is using for the medical facility that is being built. Mr. Kil stated that “Park Place” would be reflected on the plat but that is not what it is going to be called.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil presented the zoning map for the Board. He pointed out the parcel of property slated for the zone change in order to accommodate the proposed extension of Golden Pond. Mr. Forbes noted all of the residential property would be zoned R-3, and all of the property fronting US Route 41 would remain commercial, C-2.

Mr. Forbes asked if the Board members had any questions or comments. Mr. Kozel agreed that the parcel needed a name change. Mr. Kozel commented that he did not want to see confusion due to the name.

Mr. Kil stated that Mr. Meyers submitted a new plan and he would e-mail a copy of the same to the Board members. Using the map, Mr. Kil explained the layout of the parcel to the Board.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kil informed the Board that Mr. Meyers would be at the January, regular meeting requesting permission to advertise for a public hearing. Mr. Kil stated he would ensure there was a name change.

B. VENTURA ESTATES --- UNIT FOUR --- SEVEN FIVE LOT SUBDIVISION --- ROBBINS RUN PROPERTIES.
Mr. Forbes noted that Venture Estates, Unit Four, a seven lot subdivision was the next item for the Board’s review.

Mr. Larry Ponziano, Robbins Run Properties, appeared before the Board representing Ventura Estates. Mr. Ponziano noted that the drawing should reflect a five lot subdivision. Mr. Forbes acknowledged that the drawing reflects a five lot subdivision.

Mr. Ponziano stated he had made some changes to the drawings. Mr. Kraus stated he received the revisions to the drawings earlier in the day. Mr. Kil noted that the footprint had not changed. Mr. Ponziano concurred.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kraus informed the Board that Ventura Estates had received preliminary plat approval, but to his knowledge, was not final platted. He stated this parcel was a part of the Ventura Estates approval back in approximately 1992.

Mr. Forbes asked if this approval included Lots 88 through 91. Mr. Kraus stated to his knowledge, these lots were included in the approval process. Mr. Kraus stated since that time there has been significant change to wet land laws and the requirements for filling and mitigating. Mr. Kraus stated that the developer did secure a permit to fill in the road right of way and the area of the wet land located on the east side of Deana. Mr. Kraus stated that the permit for this work expired on the 15th of December, 2014, and all of the fill has been placed.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Redar asked if soil testing had been done. Mr. Ponziano stated that nine, 14’-15’ soil borings had been performed. He stated, from a hydrology standpoint, the west side of the street would have been very expensive and difficult to develop. He stated that the soil character is “really pretty good.” Mr. Redar asked that the soil boring test results be forwarded to the Building and Planning Department.

The fill procedure was discussed. Mr. Kozel requested that the locations of the soil borings also be submitted to the Building and Planning Department.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Ponziano informed the Board that he will most likely be involved in some of the building in the development, and there will be other builders also. Mr. Redar stated if there were any soil issues at inspection time, he would expect Petitioner to be ready to address the same. Mr. Ponziano stated that the soil engineer told him that he should put basements on these lots.

Mr. Kil recommended that the Petitioner attend the regular meeting on January 7, 2015, to request permission to advertise for a public hearing on February 4, 2015. Mr. Ponziano stated he would follow the procedure outlined by the Board.

Mr. Kraus stated he would review the plan in depth. He stated there were some changes that needed to be made.

Mr. Forbes asked if Lots 88 through 91 were going to be eliminated. Mr. Ponziano stated there was discussion with Mr. Kil of donating this land (lots) in the form of a park. Mr. Ponziano stated the developer is certainly in agreement with this suggestion.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Forbes stated that the biggest issue to be addressed was the technical aspects of the wet lands. He stated he did not see much issue with the subdivision. Mr. Forbes stated the Board would authorize permission to advertise for a public hearing at the January 7, 2015, meeting, and directed Mr. Ponziano to attend the January 21, 2015 study session. Mr. Ponziano stated he would be out of town on January 21, but he would send a representative in his place.

Mr. Ponziano thanked the Board and complimented them on the beautiful meeting room. He stated it was by far the nicest meeting room he had ever visited.

C. PARKING ORDINANCE --- CONTINUED REVIEW.

Mr. Forbes noted continued review of the Town’s parking ordinance was the next item on the agenda for the Board’s review.

Mr. Volk informed the Board that he had researched small towns and cities comparable to St. John and their parking ordinance language. He stated that he was looking for an ordinance with language that was better and more specific than St. John’s but was not able to find any. Mr. Volk cited some of the language in the Homer Glen parking ordinance to the Board.

Mr. Volk recommended that the Board “review and tweak” the existing parking ordinance, and make a decision as to whether or not it should be enforced. Mr. Volk stated that his and Mr. Kil’s interpretation of the ordinance is different. Mr. Volk opined that the parking ordinance should be enforced year round.

Mr. Kil noted that the ordinance states that an RV/boat cannot be stored principally at a residence. He stated from May to October, the requirements are a bit more relaxed because these are the months of peak usage for recreational vehicles.

Mr. Volk stated his interpretation of the ordinance is that it should be enforced “equally all year round.” Mr. Kil stated that this is a very difficult ordinance to enforce.

Mr. Kil recommended that the Board members review the parking ordinance language and give it some thought. Mr. Kil stated he would e-mail a copy of the existing ordinance to the Board members for their review.

(General discussion ensued.)

Mr. Kozel recommended starting the review on the parking ordinance language that is posing the most difficulty.

The Board agreed to review the parking ordinance at the next study session.

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 adjourned the meeting.

(The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m.)

A TRUE COPY

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

Accessibility  Copyright © 2020 Town of St. John, Indiana Accessible Version