(Note: One appointee was unable to accept the position; the Town Council will be appointing a replacement at their January 8, 2020 Special Meeting.)
Mr. Kennedy declared a quorum.
Mr. Eberly provided the members a hard copy of the Town’s Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Control Ordinance, and Comprehensive Plan and noted that those are available electronically.
Mr. Eberly conducted a training session utilizing a PowerPoint Presentation; Key points included:
Multiple scenarios were presented to reinforce the topics covered, then a QA session ensued.
Mr. Kennedy advised the board members to take time and sit with Mr. Eberly if they have questions on any agenda items. He cautioned that the job can be difficult at times because the board must follow the rules and regulations set forth and make hard decisions that may conflict with public opinion.
Mr. Eberly explained the difference between a Study Session and a Regular Meeting.
Attorney Decker provided materials to the board to help prepare them for situations they may encounter. He explained concrete standards and how they apply to decision making for primary plat approval; advised approving a plat that meets all the requirements is a ministerial act; and noted if the Town Council fails to act within 90 days on any recommendation from the Plan Commission, that proposal is defeated.
Attorney Decker advised, while there is no statutory prohibition for a Plan Commission regarding ex-parte communications, it is best to avoid it and further advised that a conflict of interest should be disclosed if a member has or may have either a direct or indirect a financial interest in any matter in front of the board.
Mr. Panczuk stated his policy on ex-parte communication is to share information that is already public knowledge or to discuss what has been discussed in a public meeting. Mr. Panczuk advised using Mr. Eberly’s petition summaries of agenda items for guidance, cautioned that rezoning can have a very significant impact on the town, and asked the members to study plats carefully to ensure those plats follow our ordinances. He stressed that he is not a fan of waivers and that consistency with adhering to our rules helps developers know what to expect.
Respectfully Submitted;
Margaret R. Abernathy, Recording Secretary
St. John Plan Commission
Mr. Panczuk recommended that the Public Hearing be deferred until the March 4, 2020 meeting due to ongoing litigation. Mr. Kennedy advised the public that the comments for this rezone will be had when the public hearing is continued due to the litigation; however, anyone wishing to speak will be able to do so during Public Comment.
Ms. Cardona made a motion to defer this Public Hearing to the March 4, 2020 meeting; Mr. Birlson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Birlson made a motion to defer this matter to the March 4, 2020 meeting; Ms. Cardona seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Jim DeBoer (10655 Bell Street, Crown Point) – Mr. DeBoer spoke in support of rezoning the 111-acre subdivision from R-2 to R-1, stating that 350 homes is better than over 700 homes. He disapproves of R-2 zoning due to the small lot sizes, increased traffic, and the lack of green space or trails.
Dennis DeVito (10341 Silver Maple Drive): Mr. DeVito read from two prepared remarks. Said prepared remarks are attached hereto and made a part thereof as Exhibit Nos. 2020-01-15-PC1 and 2020-01-15-PC2.
Nick Crnokrak (10656 Bell Street, Crown Point): Mr. Crnokrak stated that he was prepared to read for parts A and B but will reserve those comments for the March 4th meeting and thanked the board for giving the public an opportunity to address them. Mr. Kennedy asked Mr. Crnokrak would consider turning in his prepared remarks so the Plan Commission members can read them ahead of time. Mr. Crnokrak agreed to do so. Said remarks are attached hereto and made a part thereof as Exhibit No. 2020-01-15-PC3.
Kevin Chase (10647 Cranberry Drive): Mr. Chase thanked the board for having the courage to take this back on and reverting it back to an R-1. He stated that there are issues at Cline Avenue and US 231 and this subdivision will make it a worse safety issue if it is allowed to go through.
James Guritz (7715 W 101st Avenue, Crown Point): Mr. Guritz stated that the 111 acres is behind his house and that there is a problem with flooding because of the existing Gates of St. John subdivision that should be handled before developing more land. He asserted that less houses would be better but no houses would be best. Mr. Guritz stated that he is concerned with traffic; however, his biggest concern is stormwater.
Donald Barman (7910 W 109th Avenue): Mr. Barman stated that the drainage issue started when Lotton installed a storm sewer into their field tile on the Barman Farm property. He thanked the board for reconsidering this matter and is opposed to R-2 zoning. Mr. Barman stated that the traffic is a mess at Cline Avenue and US 231 and indicated that there isn’t enough ingress and egress for what is proposed. Mr. Barman offered his assistance to the Plan Commission.
Having no one else wishing to speak, Mr. Kennedy closed Public Comment.
Respectfully Submitted;
Margaret R. Abernathy, Recording Secretary
St. John Plan Commission
Mr. Tim Kuiper, on behalf of John Lotton, LBL Development, LLC, described the property. Subdivision plans were filed on December 31, 2019 for single-family homes in an RC-2 PUD development that will consist of 78 lots. Mr. Kuiper indicated that discussion has been had with staff about installing a trail in lieu of sidewalks leading into the Olthof Subdivision; otherwise, they will put in sidewalks along 109th Avenue and White Oak Avenue. Mr. Kuiper asserted that the subdivision meets the requirements of the Subdivision Control Ordinance, the ordinance for the zoning on the property, and the annexation agreement for the property.
Mr. Kennedy asked how many acres are environmentally sensitive. Mr. Kuiper responded that he does not have an exact number but that it is the southwest corner of the property.
Mr. Eberly explained the difference between an R-2 PUD and an RC-2 PUD for the edification of all present and stated that an RC-2 PUD allows a developer to cluster homes in order to avoid environmentally sensitive areas.
Mr. Kuiper stated that they would request permission to advertise at the February Regular Meeting.
Mr. Kuiper advised that this item, as well as the next two, are all part of what is being referred to as the Gates East lying east of Cline Avenue. Mr. Kuiper noted that this part of the plat, which contains 38.557 acres, lies south of what was approved at the December 5, 2019 meeting and meets the requirements of the Subdivision Control Ordinance, the ordinance for the zoning on the property, and the annexation agreement for the property.
Mr. Birlson asked if this zoning has already been approved. Mr. Eberly responded in the affirmative. Mr. Kraus asked what the big lot in the southwest corner is to be used for. Mr. Kuiper responded that there are currently buildings there that they want to preserve.
Mr. Kennedy asked if there is connectivity to the south. Mr. Kuiper responded in the negative.
Mr. Birlson asked if this is part of the 111 acres. Mr. Kuiper responded in the affirmative.
Ms. Little expressed concern for the lack of green space.
Mr. Kuiper noted that this area provides the northern leg for the bike path and complies with the requirements of the Subdivision Control Ordinance, the ordinance for the zoning on the property, and the annexation agreement for the property.
Ms. Cardona asked if they are seeking Primary Plat approval in March. Mr. Eberly responded in the affirmative and explained that the Public Hearing they are requesting is for a Primary Plat approval of these units.
Mr. Kennedy noted that Mr. Kraus will have to review the plats. Mr. Eberly confirmed the same.
Mr. Kuiper stated that this is an amendment to the Primary Plat, approved in December, changing some of the lots as well as the lot lines inside the drainage area.
Mr. Kennedy informed the board that the average lot size equals 11,200 square feet for the entirety of the subdivision, including the property that was already in town and the property that was just annexed into town.
Mr. Kraus advised that area has not been approved yet for those lots and needs to be submitted for review.
Mr. Birlson asked for clarification if each lot had to meet the 11,200 lot size. Mr. Eberly responded in the negative and explained that the 11,200 square feet is the average lot size for all lots collectively.
Mr. Kennedy asked if Lot 2461, the large lot, is included in the average. Mr. Eberly responded in the affirmative and stated that there is also a large lot on the northeast corner of the annexed area that is roughly 7.5 acres that also counts towards the average lot size.
Ms. Little asked how many lots there would be in the entire plan. Mr. Eberly responded that it will be 600 lots, plus or minus. Mr. Kuiper stated that he believes it is 615 lots at this time.
Mr. Kuiper stated that they are asking for a review of those pods and a reduction in the Letter of Credit amounts that are required.
Mr. Kraus advised that he has Public Works checking the work to verify it is done and that some of the pods came with a request to withhold signatures on the Mylars until the work was completed. Mr. Eberly confirmed that all the pods except for Pod 7E were going to have the Mylars withheld for signatures until the improvements were installed.
Mr. Birlson inquired if Public Works was doing due diligence when reviewing the infrastructure. Mr. Kraus responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Tsahas explained that Lake Hills’ covenants require a side-loading garage. They had originally purchased Lot 5, which was not wide enough; so they purchased Lot 6 in order to combine the lots to build a home with more space and a large yard.
Mr. Eberly explained that the Town does not allow secondary structures on a lot without a primary structure or a house to straddle the common property line.
Mr. Kennedy asked if there is a driveway issue that needs to be addressed. Mr. Eberly responded that Mr. Tsahas will have to decide which street will be his access street, Lakeside Court or Winding Trail. Mr. Tsahas responded that they are thinking of angling the home on the corner and have the driveway on Lakeside Court.
Mr. Eberly advised that it is best to have a house facing the street that it is addressed on in the event of an emergency to make it easier for first responders to locate the residence. Mr. Eberly further advised that on a simple petition where it is a one-lot subdivision, Primary Plat and Secondary Plat can be approved in the same meeting. The Secondary Plat would not be signed until 30 days after the Primary Plat is signed.
Mr. Kraus advised that it is coming in for Primary Plat approval but will be reviewed as a Secondary Plat because it is in an existing subdivision that has had all of its engineering review completed.
Mr. Eberly advised that there are conflicts in the Zoning Ordinance, that they would tackle this a bit at a time would be, and that it may take most of the year to complete the project. The plan is to bring the Zoning Ordinance in a few sections at a time with recommended changes including explanations for those changes. Both Mr. Kraus and he have things they would like to see changed in the Subdivision Control Ordinance. The Subdivision Control Ordinance is going to be a little easier to tackle with less changes proposed, so they will likely start with that.
Mr. Eberly explained that the changes will be discussed at Study Sessions until they are ready to put together an ordinance that Attorney Decker will draft it in the proper legal form, then they will hold a Public Hearing on those changes, and then make a recommendation to the Town Council asking them to adopt said changes.
Mr. Eberly noted that the Comprehensive Plan was last updated three years ago; typically they are looked at and amended every five years and sometimes as few as every ten years for communities that are not growing rapidly. Mr. Eberly noted that they would start the process at the next Study Session.
Mr. Panczuk stated that he believes the Comprehensive Plan is fresh and doesn’t need to be updated yet. The proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Control Ordinance are revisions to eliminate conflicts, give clarity, and create more concrete standards.
Mr. Panczuk commented that the Subdivision Control Ordinance dictates how a subdivision should be built, including specifications for street widths, sidewalk widths, etc. Mr. Panczuk would like detention areas to be excluded from lots; easement encroachments to be excluded from smaller lots, or a minimum setback, giving concrete standards for safety purposes because the Vector Pipeline is only approximately 15 feet away from some residences. Mr. Panczuk would like to see wider sidewalks be a concrete standard instead of a discretionary request of the Plan Commission.
Mr. Kennedy requested that we make the wider sidewalks a concrete standard but made with asphalt.
Mr. Birlson stated that he would like to see public comment put in front of a public hearing. Mr. Kennedy, et al, explained that there is comment for Public Hearings before any action is taken.
Respectfully Submitted;
Margaret R. Abernathy, Recording Secretary
St. John Plan Commission
Mr. Kennedy declared a quorum.
Mr. Michael Tiller, representing Hickory Terrace, LLC, stated that he is present to request a 6-month extension for their PUD development. He noted that development is continuing and that they would be back later in the year to plat more lots.
Attorney Decker stated that the Primary Plat and the Secondary Plat were approved; and in his legal opinion, once those approvals are made, PUD zoning approval would not require any renewal. He added that it is within the ability and purview of the board to give that comfort measure to the developer as an assurance that development can continue.
Ms. Wohland made a motion to grant the PUD Zoning Approval extension; Mr. Birlson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Attorney Tim Kuiper noted that he is providing notice that they will be present for Public Hearing on March 4, 2020, for this item and the following three agenda items and to answer any questions the board may have.
Mr. Eberly stated that Mr. Lotton proposed that we find a creative way to find connectivity through the extension of a bike path/walking path through the development as opposed to sidewalks in front of the development that wouldn't connect to anything in the current condition. He stated that the process of determining how that would happen is ongoing and that they are hoping to tie into the Silver Leaf development. Discussion ensued regarding possible ways to connect a pathway and the surrounding properties.
Mr. Kennedy asked how many acres of environmentally sensitive land there is. Mr. Lotton responded that they are not impacting any of the wetlands at this time. Mr. Kennedy asked if the property in the far southwest corner would stay untouched. Mr. Lotton responded in the affirmative.
Attorney Kuiper stated that they would be happy to provide a stub and cautioned against allowing the stub to become a thoroughfare in the future.
Mr. Kennedy stated that they are concerned with the need for more access points and that there have been complaints about the traffic on Cline Avenue.
Mr. Kennedy asked if there are sidewalks Attorney Kuiper responded in the affirmative and reviewed the path of the bike trail for the board members.
Mr. Eberly noted that lots do extend into the detention pond, which is not a concern for the Town of St. John because the HOA will maintain it.
Mr. Birlson made a motion to accept the revised Letters of Credit for The Gates of St. John for Pod 7E in the amount of $215,418.80, Pod 7F in the amount of $277,345.00, Pod 9B in the amount of $79,671.35, and Pod 17B in the amount of $71,573.26, as per Mr. Kraus' review letters; Ms. Wohland seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Gill made a motion to send a favorable recommendation to the Town Council to accept the revised Letters of Credit for The Gates of St. John for Pod 7E in the amount of $215,418.80, Pod 7F in the amount of $277,345.00, Pod 9B in the amount of $79,671.35, and Pod 17B in the amount of $71,573.26; Mr. Gillette seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Tiller stated that they were with Centier Bank and would be changing to People's Bank with one Letter of Credit replacing the current three Letters of Credit.
Mr. Birlson made a motion to accept the Letter of Credit from People's Bank in the amount of $74,080.60 to replace and release the existing Letters of Credit from Centier Bank for Unit 1, Block, 4, in the amount of $20,515.00; Unit 2, Block 3, in the amount of $23,661.00; and Unit 2, Block 4, in the amount of $29,904.60; Ms. Wohland seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Ms. Wohland made a motion to send a recommendation to the Town Council to accept the Letter of Credit from People's Bank in the amount of $74,080.60 to replace and release the existing Letters of Credit from Centier Bank for Unit 1, Block 4, in the amount of $20,515.00; Unit 2, Block 3, in the amount of $23,661.00; and Unit 2, Block 4, in the amount of $29,904.60; Mr. Gill seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted;
Margaret R. Abernathy, Recording Secretary
St. John Plan Commission
Mr. Kennedy advised that Oakridge Estates is an RC 2 PUD, single-family development containing 40 acres on the northwest corner of White Oak Avenue and 109th Avenue.
Attorney Kuiper presented on behalf of the petitioner, John Lotton, and noted that the subdivision has not changed over the last month and a half. It contains 78 lots on 40.33 acres.
Mr. Kennedy inquired about the potential bike path. Attorney Kuiper responded that they would install the required sidewalk but are willing to work on that connectivity, which could be done at a later time without affecting the plat or the engineering.
Mr. Kennedy asked if the width of the sidewalk would be 5 feet. Attorney Kuiper responded in the affirmative. Mr. Kennedy asked how wide the bike trail on White Oak Avenue is. Mr. Kraus responded that he believes it is 8 feet. Mr. Kennedy asked if the bike path were continued, would it be an 8-foot bike path. Attorney Kuiper responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Eberly stated that he had asked the developer to show an option for connectivity to Silver Leaf and displayed possible connections locations on the Lake County GIS.
Mr. Panczuk suggested running a sidewalk along 109th Avenue since there is a dedicated right of way at Silver Leaf.
Mr. Birlson asked what the right of way dedication is on 109th. Mr. Eberly responded that it should match the 50 foot right of way dedication in Silver Leaf.
Mr. Gill suggested running the path on the east side of White Oak Avenue. If it could be run to Patnoe Park, it could tie into the bike trail that goes across to Heartland Park and continue to The Preserve. Discussion ensued.
Attorney Kuiper stated that they were asking if there were alternatives the board wanted to explore, but they are willing to put in the sidewalk, per the Subdivision Control Ordinance. If they have any ideas, they can run them through Mr. Eberly.
Mr. Kraus commented that there is a street that runs through Candlelight Trails and into Homestead Acres named Oakridge, which causes him some concern that there may be confusion between the street and the subdivision. Mr. Eberly stated that there is a similar situation with Summerlin Estates and Summerlin in Mill Creek.
Mr. Gill stated there is a bigger problem with the street named James. Mr. Eberly responded that the name is to be changed. Attorney Kuiper confirmed the same.
Ms. Cardona asked if the petitioner has considered anything in terms of the bike path Mr. Gill described. Attorney Kuiper responded in the negative.
Mr. Kuiper stated that the only change is a cut in at the south end to create a stub into the Barman property for possible future connectivity.
Mr. Kennedy asked Mr. Eberly if the Subdivision Control Ordinance requires any subdivided plan to provide a stub. Mr. Eberly confirmed that it does and noted that he had a conversation with Mr. Lotton regarding having a stub. The proposed stub provides connectivity without providing a straight shot through the subdivision to avoid creating a raceway from 109th Avenue to 101st Avenue.
Mr. Kennedy asked Mr. Eberly if this plat meets all the subdivision standards. Mr. Eberly confirmed the same. Discussion ensued regarding access points.
Attorney Kuiper stated that there are no changes to the plat.
Mr. Kennedy asked if there are curbs, gutters, and a sidewalk on the north side. Attorney Kuiper responded in the affirmative. Mr. Kraus commented that there is no curb.
Mr. Kennedy asked if there would be signage. Attorney Kuiper responded that it would only be what is allowed by sign ordinance. They are not planning anything large.
Mr. Eberly advised the board that there are no regulations in the sign ordinances regarding subdivision signage. That is to be presented to the Plan Commission at the time of Primary Plat Public Hearing so the Plan Commission can render a decision on it.
Mr. Kennedy asked how many signs they intend to have. Attorney Kuiper responded that it would be similar to The Gates where signs are at the main entrances.
Attorney Kuiper stated that it is the same plan and is consistent with the overall design.
Mr. Eberly stated that they must meet an average of 11,200 square feet lot size, and they exceed that amount. With this replat, the average lot size is 11,679 square feet per lot.
Mr. Tsahas stated that he wishes to change two lots that he purchased in Lake Hills Subdivision and combine them into one lot and build one house on the newly subdivided lot.
Mr. Eberly advised that no engineering needs to be completed as it is in an existing subdivision.
Mr. Kennedy asked Mr. Tsahas what street address he would be using. Mr. Tsahas responded that they would like to have the 10351 Lakeside Court address.
Mr. Eberly noted that the setbacks presume the home will have a Lakeside Court address. The minimum front-yard setback is 25 feet; the maximum is 40 feet, and the side-yard setback is 20 feet.
Mr. Kraus commented that often we do Primary Plat and Secondary Plat approval at the same meeting when a petitioner is taking two lots in an existing subdivision and combining them into one. He further commented that there is usually a $900 minimum fee for preliminary review and another $900 for a secondary review. He will only be reviewing one plat for this, so the Plan Commission may wish to waive one of the review fees. Mr. Eberly commented that he agrees with the waiver as suggested by Mr. Kraus.
Mr. Eberly explained that the Plan Commission would approve Primary Plat and Secondary Plat on March 4, but they would not sign the Secondary Plat until after thirty days have passed.
Mr. Doug Rettig, DVG, stated that he has a client who purchased Lots 11 and 12 in Castle Rock and wants to combine them into one lot of just over 2 acres and build a house. All the improvements are in as it is a previously platted subdivision. Mr. Rettig commented that they would like to request both Primary Plat and Secondary Plat approval at the Public Hearing in April.
Mr. Eberly asked Mr. Kraus to confirm that the same conditions, in terms of fees, would apply to this request as the previous petition. Mr. Kraus responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Anthony Casboni advised that the petitioner should be AC Group Holdings, LLC, and described the project. He is requesting a rezone from Open Space to R-1 for an approximately 2.3-acre parcel of land located at 9541 White Oak Avenue.
Mr. Eberly advised that the lots exceed the 20,000 square-foot minimum for R-1. Open Space requires a minimum lot size of 2 acres. He further advised that Mr. Casboni shows the property laid out in lots; he is going to leave the platting of the development up to the buyer or buyers, but he has provided a legal description of each lot and does intend to sell the properties that way.
Mr. Eberly noted that he has had conversation with Mr. Kraus regarding a water main on the west side of White Oak Avenue that will serve all four lots; however, the sanitary sewer only runs through the easement along the north side of Lot 1, so sanitary services would have to be extended to the lots south of Lot 1. Mr. Kraus advised that it should be a public sewer if more than one property is being serviced.
Mr. Eberly added that it could go through the proposed utility easement along the east side of the property, or it could be out in the right-of-way. Someone will be dedicating an additional 30 feet of right-of-way off of White Oak Avenue; these lots already reflect that dedication.
Mr. Kennedy asked Mr. Eberly what the White Oak Avenue right-of-way requirements are. Mr. Eberly responded that in some of the older areas, it is probably still 40 feet, but it should be at least 60 feet.
Mr. Kennedy asked how much The Preserve gave. Mr. Kraus responded that he believes it was 50 feet. Mr. Kennedy asked if there is a road classification for White Oak Avenue. Mr. Kraus replied that it is a collector street. Mr. Eberly agreed that it is a collector and could be an arterial road.
Mr. Kennedy asked Mr. Casboni if the corporation would be adding drives to the lots onto White Oak Avenue. Mr. Casboni responded in the affirmative and commented that it would be up to the individual who buys the lots. He is only asking for the rezoning.
Mr. Kennedy explained that the Thoroughfare Plan calls out that the number of private drives onto a collector and minor arterial streets by residents should be reduced or minimized. Mr. Kennedy stated that he would consider White Oak Avenue as a major north-south route through the town and feels the driveway access should be limited. Mr. Birlson concurred that the number of driveways accessing White Oak Avenue needs to be limited.
Mr. Birlson asked if Mr. Casboni owns the property to the east. Mr. Casboni responded in the affirmative and stated that it would be phase two. Mr. Birlson asked why he wouldn't do it all at one time instead of in phases, which would allow the Plan Commission a better chance of eliminating some driveway access on White Oak Avenue. Mr. Casboni responded that this is something his brother started before he passed away and something he would like to get done. The surveyor already platted the lots out in December.
Mr. Birlson commented that he would like for this project to be approached all at once. Mr. Casboni responded that he would like to keep part of his property private for now and sell more of it off as he gets older.
Mr. Kennedy asked if this would be on the March agenda to be announced for Public Hearing at the April meeting. Mr. Eberly responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Kennedy advised the members to keep the Thoroughfare Plan in mind because, sooner or later, they will need to figure out the best approach for White Oak Avenue and what needs to be done with that.
Mr. Gill noted that there is a connection to 96th that goes nowhere.
Mr. Casboni asked Mr. Eberly if the 15-day notice for the papers has a maximum. Mr. Eberly responded that there is only a 15-day minimum.
Mr. Kennedy asked Mr. Casboni if he understands the concerns regarding limited driveway access on White Oak Avenue. Mr. Casboni responded in the affirmative and commented that there are driveways on White Oak Avenue and that this is in the old part of White Oak Avenue.
Mr. Panczuk noted that the Thoroughfare Plan labels White Oak Avenue as a minor arterial road, and at least a 90-foot right-of-way is needed, which is 45 feet per side. Further, he agreed that they should mirror what The Preserve did.
Discussion ensued regarding limiting driveway access on busy roadways.
Mr. Panczuk stated that Attorney Decker has created a rough draft which addresses pipeline easements and impact areas to provide a buffer between pipelines and residences or structures. This Subdivision Control Ordinance revision would minimize the risk human activity over pipeline easements and minimize the encroachment of pipelines through lots and onto lots. Pipelines are a safety and general welfare issue.
Mr. Panczuk commented that Attorney Decker had outlined a two-pronged approach to minimize human activity over pipeline easements. One would be to have a minimum-sized lot in a given zoning district. For example, an R-1 lot has a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet, and only a lot that is greater than 20,000 square feet could have an encroachment with regulations for a certain distance from the building setback line, which is the impact area. There shall be a 50-foot impact area from the edge of the pipeline easement and any building setback lines. Mr. Panczuk commented that this would provide developers a concrete standard in the Subdivision Control Ordinance.
Mr. Kennedy asked if there is 50 feet between the property delineation and a structure or a house if a pipeline easement abuts the property line of a property owner. Attorney Decker responded that the 50-foot impact area is intended to delineate the area, and there would be the setback required for the zoning classification.
Mr. Kennedy asked about pools. Mr. Eberly responded that it is referring to an occupied structure.
Mr. Panczuk stated that the building setback lines are like invisible lines and any pipeline easement would require 50 feet be added to that setback line for the impact area.
Mr. Birlson asked how they arrived at 50 feet. Attorney Decker stated that he reviewed other municipalities that have adopted similar regulations, there is a formula that is used and promulgated by the department of transportation that takes into consideration the pipeline diameter and the pressure being used. He noted that he did not investigate or determine for the Vector or other pipelines, but in general, the calculation for a 36 or 42-inch pipeline that might be at 1000 psi or more transferring natural gas would be much greater than 50 feet. The calculation is called an impact radius area and determines what area around the pipeline would be affected adversely if there were some type of failure.
Attorney Decker stated that the 50 feet is not written in stone, and adjustments can be made based on the size and type of pipeline. For the purposes of drafting something, he was focused on the Vector Pipeline, which is the most significant pipeline in the town.
Mr. Panczuk stated that they are trying to set minimal guidelines to minimize human activity over the pipelines and pipeline activity in residents' backyards. Currently, the easement could run right up to your backdoor, and the Vector Pipeline could be 15 feet from your backdoor step, which is the case currently in Three Springs, Phase 3.
Mr. Eberly stated that he thinks we need to keep pipeline easements off of lots regardless of the lot size, because the setbacks remain the same. Someone could set a house all the way against the setback line, which is an unknown at the platting stage. Mr. Eberly stated that he likes the 50-foot buffer, but he believes it will have to be from the property line.
Mr. Eberly asked Attorney Decker if we are using the range of 500 to 1400 pounds as high pressure. Attorney Decker responded that the ordinance doesn't intend to define the standards of what a high pressure line is; however, it is a range he found in his research of natural gas transmission lines. The intent is to try to define a pipeline that has a minimum diameter or radius that would need to be included for purposes of defining what pipeline would be the subject of the impact area.
Mr. Eberly noted that he doesn't know what we will consider high pressure, but we need to know that information before we can regulate it.
Mr. Panczuk asked if the intent of the ordinance was to keep it simple and not differentiate the pipelines. Attorney Decker responded that it was his intent, but there needs to be a distinction drawn between a service line and a transmission line. This is the first draft, and it is important to make a clear distinction between a transmission line, a distribution line, and a service line. The intent of the ordinance is to regulate transmission lines.
Mr. Eberly asked if the term "high pressure" should continue to be used, or if that term should be eliminated and only refer to transmission lines. Attorney Decker stated that it may not be necessary to include "high pressure" to ascertain a minimum pressure above which the ordinance would apply. Using the diameter or radius of the pipeline itself would simplify it.
Mr. Eberly commented that RC-1 and the RC-2 are PUDs, so they will need to be called out as such where the various districts are listed, if we will continue to have those zoning districts. Mr. Eberly further commented that he doesn't know how we could keep the separation if we try to do it according to setbacks because the house can be built anywhere on the lot within those setbacks. He stated that he believes that the intent is to say 50 feet plus the setback, but he doesn't feel it reads that way.
Mr. Panczuk stated that we could strike the entire section about whether or not the easement is in a lot and simply use the setback lines. If the impact area is 50 feet from the setback lines, it would be off the lot. With a 40-foot setback line, the easement would have to be at least 10 feet off of the lot. Mr. Birlson concurred that it should be 50 feet plus the setback.
Attorney Decker noted that if someone has a really large lot, you could easily have the 50-foot impact area beyond the easement for the pipeline and then a setback for the building. Mr. Eberly responded that the setback line is from the property line, not from the house.
Mr. Gill commented that if the distance of the impact area is greater than the lot line, it would only increase the distance between the home and the impact area.
Mr. Panczuk advised that we should not make it a hardship on the developers, because we would run into problems if we did. The idea is to keep it isolated from the home, business, or structure. A large lot with 5 acres might be okay with a pipeline easement at the far back side of the property.
Mr. Eberly advised that the intent is to modify the Subdivision Control Ordinance with this language. The board can grant waivers, so if someone has a 5-acre lot, the Plan Commission can identify the buildable area for that lot and allow a pipeline to be somewhere on the 5-acre lot. For the typical situation, it doesn't work because the building could be anywhere on the property.
Mr. Birlson asked what the ultimate goal is. Mr. Panczuk stated that the goal is to minimize the chance of any incident happening from human activity, trying to create space between where the home is to that pipeline, and minimize impact if anything were to happen.
Mr. Eberly stated that Industrial Districts require a minimum 10-acre lot size, so there may be room on a 10-acre site to allow for a pipeline to run through. Mr. Eberly commented that he likes the idea of a setback plus 50 feet, but it creates a 50-foot area between an easement and a lot line.
Mr. Rettig spoke from the audience and stated that you have to be able to have easements on the lots. If you have a 30,000 square-foot lot, you could have an easement in the back and still get your 20,000 square feet outside of the easement, but they need to own it because there's no other way to do it.
Mr. Eberly asked if he is saying the lot owner needs to own it. Mr. Rettig responded that it's the easiest way. Mr. Panczuk stated that it is the ideal way, which is why he was asking Attorney Decker if there is a different way to calculate it based on structure.
Mr. Rettig recommended having an impact building line so many feet from the edge of the easement that is a no-build zone. Mr. Eberly stated that it would create a different setback.
Attorney Decker stated that if there is a transmission pipeline, we would increase the floating line or minimum setback.
Mr. Rettig suggested calling it an impact building line or an impact zone building line, a different type of line that could run from the edge of the easement or the center of the easement; however, sometimes the easements are not centered.
Mr. Eberly and Mr. Panczuk responded that they like the edge of easement as it is easier to identify. Mr. Gillette concurred that he likes the edge of the easement. Attorney Decker stated that it makes it a clean standard that can be readily apparent to an engineer or developer.
Mr. Kennedy asked if there is an impact zoning in any other community in Northwest Indiana. Mr. Panczuk stated that there are some communities that have these and are very strict; Austin, Texas, has some incredible standards. Attorney Decker noted that Champagne County, Illinois, has adopted an ordinance.
Mr. Panczuk stated that currently the Subdivision Control Ordinance gives the Plan Commission the option of requiring a wider sidewalk on a major artery. On major arteries like US 41, Joliet, Patterson, we would require an 8-foot sidewalk instead of a 5-foot sidewalk. Mr. Panczuk commented that concrete is a better option than asphalt, because it would be very costly for the Town to maintain, and there are numerous deteriorating asphalt pathways around town.
Mr. Kennedy stated that it is nice to have a wider path. While understanding the maintenance cost to the Town, it is more costly to the developer because concrete is more expensive than asphalt. Mr. Panczuk responded that this would only impact the outer areas of the subdivisions along arterial roads.
Mr. Eberly commented that we would select the classification of the roads, which would give us a concrete standard. The Thoroughfare Plan identifies the various types of streets, we just need to select what the applicable roadways are.
Mr. Panczuk addressed the use of detention areas in meeting minimum or average square-footage of lots, stating that it takes control of the lots sizes away from the Town, and recommended changing the Subdivision Control Ordinance to exclude detention areas,
Mr. Eberly advised that Willow Ridge is platted into a wet retention pond that was done that way because the homeowners want to own that lake, and only those who live around that lake can use it, so there could be an instance where you would want to allow that. What you might want to do is make sure you achieve your minimum lot size outside of that detention pond or retention pond. If you plat it into the pond, the buildable area should meet or exceed the minimum lot size for that given zoning district.
Mr. Panczuk commented that we could exclude it and grant a waiver allowing it.
Mr. Eberly asked how you would keep a developer from using it for credit of the lots size when you grant a waiver. Mr. Gill asked if language could be put in there specifying that the detention/retention area cannot be included to meet the minimum lot size requirement, but it can be owned above and beyond the square footage. Discussion ensued.
Mr. Rettig recommended using a gross lot area and having no more than 10% of said lot encumbered by a detention easement.
Mr. Panczuk asked if any other nearby municipalities have anything that we might be able to work from as well. Mr. Eberly stated that Dyer has language in terms of the wet area. They addressed it in Dyer by saying if a minimum of a 15,000 square-foot lot is required, you can't have any portion of that lot in a wet pond and take credit for the lot size. The 15,000 square feet has to be outside of that. There is no language prohibiting it for a detention basin or a basin that is dry most of the time.
Mr. Rettig stated that unincorporated Lake County makes them add the detention ponds to lots, so the homeowners have to mow it.
Mr. Eberly stated that the Town doesn't want ponds anymore, so we require the HOAs to own and care for them, typically as an outlot.
Attorney Decker agreed to investigate other municipalities to see what they do.
Mr. Eberly stated that there are some things in the Subdivision Control Ordinance he would like to address at next month's Study Session, like the way we bill developers for our developmental fees. We don't collect that until the secondary plat stage, and we get billings for these developments far before the secondary plat stage, and some of them may never go to secondary plat.
Mr. Eberly stated that when he was at Dyer, they charged 1% at the time of primary plat and the second 1% at the time of secondary plat so that they got money from the developer early on when we were getting billed for review of that development. Perhaps we could bill 1% at primary plat or the time of application 1% at secondary plat. We need to ensure we are charging enough to cover our costs.
Mr. Birlson recommended charging a base price per acre upfront.
The board discussed having the Public Hearing for the Subdivision Control Ordinance in April or May.
Mr. Gill asked if the development standards are going to be reviewed for the Subdivision Control Ordinance. Mr. Eberly responded in the affirmative and noted that the street light standard is another item that needs to be reviewed.
Mr. Kraus noted that the standard was written before LED lights were invented. Mr. Eberly stated that we might need language incorporating using the most recent advancement in lighting, whatever that might be.
Respectfully Submitted;
Margaret R. Abernathy, Recording Secretary
St. John Plan Commission
Absent: Michael Gillette and Donna Little, Executive Secretary.
Mr. Kennedy introduced Mr. Phillips, the new Town Manager for the edification of all.
Attorney Decker advised that the Town of St. John and BLB St. John LLC, are currently involved in litigation. On February 20, 2018, BLB St. John initiated a lawsuit against the Town of St. John in Lake Superior Court. In that lawsuit, BLB St. John sought compensation and a declaratory judgment arising from the construction of a sanitary interceptor sewer line through the subdivision known as The Gates of St. John. On Monday, March 2, 2020, the Court in that litigation held a hearing in regard to certain aspects of the litigation. The Court has requested the parties submit proposed findings and conclusions for its consideration by March 23. The Court is expected to rule after that date, but it is uncertain as to when that ruling will be forthcoming. As a result, the Town and BLB St. John have agreed to defer any action on items A, B, C, D, and E on the agenda.
Attorney Decker stated that in addition Item F, which involves the replat of Pod 22, is arguably also part of that litigation. Its determination may be determinative on the result of the litigation. For those reasons, Attorney Decker recommended the Plan Commission consider approving a motion to defer items A-F, including the Public Hearing to the April 1, 2020 meeting.
Ms. Cardona asked if there is a staggered timeframe that the Court has set for the parties. Attorney Decker responded that it is his understanding that all parties’ submissions are due on March 23, so they were not staggered.
Mr. Kennedy asked if there is a timeframe for a decision after March 23. Attorney Decker responded that he is not aware that the Court indicated that it would rule within a specific period of time.
Attorney Tim Kuiper, on behalf of BLB and LBL, asked to address the board.
Mr. Kennedy asked Attorney Decker if it is all right to allow Attorney Kuiper to speak. Attorney Decker responded that, as the chair, Mr. Kennedy has the option to recognize Attorney Kuiper if he wishes to do so, but he is not required to do so.
Mr. Kennedy permitted Attorney Kuiper to address the board.
Attorney Kuiper stated that he concurred with most of what Attorney Decker said and that he had recited most things correctly. Based upon a prior agreement that was submitted to the Court on January 14, in this matter, it stated that no public hearings would occur where a motion could be made on any items that related to Resolution No. 2020-01-01. That is the 40 acres that is over by White Oak and 109th Avenue and is also the 111 acres that is on top of and below the other things, so Items A-E would be properly continued tonight based upon that agreement of parties.
Attorney Kuiper stated that he has a challenge with Item F; that is a replat of part of that unit that was in town that was rezoned last year that is not subject to the lawsuit. It’s not subject to the annexations, or anything else. It was zoned R-2 PUD. Again, it is not part of the lawsuit, any annexation, or anything else; there is no legal basis tonight to continue that item. He continued that it is proper; it has been posted; it has been noticed in the paper and certified letters were sent out per the Plan Commission’s requirement; so they respectfully request that that item still be heard tonight and that the public hearing be conducted.
Mr. Kennedy questioned whether that was based on the square footage of the development in its entirety. Attorney Kuiper responded that it is. Mr. Kennedy added that it is part of the whole development, which is in litigation, and we don’t know the outcome of that zoning of the additional acreage outside of this unit. Attorney Kuiper asserted that that doesn’t matter to the outcome of this replat because if it is R-1, the density can’t go down. The average would go up.
Attorney Kuiper noted that if we were to proceed on all the items, except for the two rezoning matters, the average across the project meets it right now as an R-2 PUD as they submitted it. It can’t be made any denser, and the ruling of the Court would only make it less dense. Ordinance No. 1695, the Zoning Ordinance the Town Council adopted last year, put it to R-2 PUD with a requirement of 11,200 average lot size across the project. The argument last year is that the other two parcels were not technically in town. Technically, that’s correct; the parcels came in January 1 at midnight. Now that the project is completely in the jurisdiction of the town, Item F is appropriate for your consideration tonight regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit.
Ms. Cardona asked Attorney Decker to elaborate on how Item F is connected that would explain Attorney Kuiper’s position. Attorney Decker responded that his understanding is that the property which was annexed into the Town of St. John last year, which was annexed as of January 1, 2020, is part of a zoning commitment that was made by the developer LBL Development. That commitment provides that the average lot size for all of the lots in the entire development, which consists of 220 acres, would meet an average lot size of 11,200 square feet. The court has not yet ruled on the legal issues concerning the annexation ordinance and the ordinance that annexed the property as R-2 PUD.
Attorney Decker stated that his understanding is that the developer, with the original plat of subdivision, which has been previously approved by the Plan Commission, presented that meeting that criteria. The amended plat is seeking to reduce the size of certain lots and without knowing what the developer intends to do with the other property in the 220 acres, it is difficult, if not impossible, for the Plan Commission to fully understand whether the developer would meet the zoning commitment that meets the 11,200 square-foot average lot size throughout the entire development.
Attorney Kuiper stated that the issue with that is that the lot average could only go up if the Court were to find in favor of the Town. The lot sizes would have to go up, and as presented today, across the entire project, all of those exceed, on average, the 11,200 square feet.
Mr. Kennedy brought the matter back to the Board and advised that the parties agree on Items A-E. The question brought up by the petitioner is related to Item F.
Mr. Panczuk cautioned the Plan Commission that they can only judge on the parcel itself, not judge it on what might happen on the other parcel. Once primary approval is given for this parcel, secondary approval is only ministerial, and there are no guaranties with what could happen with the other parcel. They could sell it; it could be rezoned. Anything is possible, so without primary plat on both, in parallel, they have no true test of the Zoning Commitment and cannot guaranty it will meet the 11,200 square-foot average lot size. The Zoning Commitment binds the two parcels; therefore, you cannot make a true decision on whether the Zoning Commitment has been met, or not.
Attorney Kuiper addressed the board and stated that he understands the attorneys speaking, but the liaison has spoken since that time and he would like a chance to respond.
Attorney Kuiper stated that the board is concerned with the R-2 PUD on these other properties. He further stated that there is no way that anyone, them or any further owner of the property, could come in and get anything less than R-1 at this point in time. There is no way that they can get less than 11,200 square feet across the property. They have submitted fully for the entirety of the project and are exceeding the average lot size as required by the commitment. There is no way legally, physically possible that they can dip below that requirement.
Mr. Kennedy asked if the replat were to be approved today, would he be at 11,200 or under. Attorney Kuiper said, “For the project, yes.” Mr. Kennedy requested confirmation of Attorney Kuiper’s statement. Attorney Kuiper said, “For the project. Now, the project is the 219.” Mr. Kennedy asked for the section of 108 acres. Attorney Kuiper said, “No, but the commitment is for across the project.” Mr. Kennedy said, “Which part of it is still under litigation.” Attorney Kuiper responded, “That’s correct, but we can’t dip below that average. Last year the issue was the property wasn’t technically annexed in, so we couldn’t guarantee that the property would come in. When we could, it was just ministerial. Thank you.”
Mr. Kennedy brought the matter back to the board and entertained a motion.
Ms. Cardona made a motion to defer Agenda Items A-F to the next regular Plan Commission meeting on April 1, 2020; Ms. Wohland seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Tsahas stated that he is wanting to combine Lots 5 and 6 into one lot, he further stated that no improvements are needed as the infrastructure is already in since it is in an established neighborhood.
Mr. Eberly advised that all items are in order for this Public Hearing to proceed. He further advised that Mr. Tsahas will be seeking both his Primary Plat and Secondary Plat approvals at this meeting with the understanding that the Secondary Plat cannot be signed until 30 days have expired from the date of Primary Plat approval, which is typical for a one-lot subdivision.
Mr. Kennedy opened the floor for Public Hearing. Hearing none, Mr. Kennedy closed Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the board.
Mr. Kennedy read Mr. Kraus’ review letter, which finds that the plat is satisfactory. The Developmental Fee for this project is $900.00 as there are no associated public infrastructure improvements and is to be paid prior to the Plan Commission President and Secretary signing the Secondary Plat. All public improvements have been installed as part of the existing subdivision.
Mr. Eberly advised that the Developmental Fee has been paid.
Mr. Kennedy entertained a motion to approve the Primary Plat.
Mr. Gill made a motion to grant Primary Plat approval for the Tsahas addition; Mr. Birlson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Kennedy entertained a motion for Secondary Plat approval.
Mr. Gill made a motion to grant Tsahas addition Secondary Plat approval, withholding signatures for 30 days; Mr. Birlson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Bruce Boyer of Boyer Properties, representing the Shops 96 project, stated that there is a minor revision to the plat. Due to the realignment of the proposed 96th Place extension to Joliet Street, there has been a shift in the lot layouts and the outlot layouts. He explained that Lots 1A and 1B were one lot in the original recorded plat and is now being subdivided into two lots, and Outlot 2 used to be Outlots 2 and 3. Some of the lots were renumbered. Lots 3 and 4 in the rear are being combined to one large lot of 8.3 acres of Lot 3, and Lot 3 remains the detention pond lot. Outlots A and B are due to the realignment of the road and the old Lot 5 is being eliminated. Mr. Boyer advised that the Town is buying Lot 5 as per an amendment to the Economic Development Agreement to realign the road and miss all the bad soil areas.
Mr. Eberly advised that Mr. Kraus’ review letter and an email received from Scott Kuchta of Haas & Associates; he further advised that there are enough concerns with the plat that we may have to defer the action on the plat. Mr. Eberly stated that he may be asking the Plan Commission to conduct a special meeting in advance of the March 18 Study Session for consideration of a slightly different plat. Lot 5 has not yet been purchased, and if this plat were to be approved and recorded as is, it may have an impact on the purchase of the property.
Attorney Decker advised that when the plat is recorded it defines the lots within a subdivision. Currently, the Town and the developer have an agreement in place that provides that the Town will purchase what is identified as Lot 5 pursuant to the original plat of subdivision. If the plat presented this evening is recorded, Lot 5 would no longer exist.
Discussion ensued regarding the difference in the lot layout differences using visuals on the media screen in the room.
Mr. Eberly asked Mr. Phillips to speak to the timeline of the purchase of the land from Mr. Boyer by the Town being fast tracked. Mr. Phillips responded that there have been discussions regarding that; however, nothing has been decided as yet.
Mr. Kraus read his review letter into the record which outlined the changes from the original plat and noted that a preliminary review of the plat and finds that it has not received certification from a professional land surveyor; there are several different owners of parcels within the plat area with the names of the representatives not provided, nor which properties they own, which is especially important regarding Outlot A, Outlot B, and/or Lot 4, as ownership of said parcels affect the ongoing redesign of West 96th Place and the detention basin by the Town. The loss of the 230-foot wide detention at the rear of the original Lot 4 may also make redesign of the basin problematic.
Mr. Boyer advised that the certification is done at the time the mylars are presented by the surveyor. He stated that there are different owners and that they weren’t aware names were required as a signature line, but they can provide that on the mylars. He advised that Outlots A, B, and Lot 4 are going to be owned by the Town.
Mr. Kraus asked Mr. Boyer if there is any place that says which one the bank owns, which one the Town owns. Mr. Boyer responded that SJ-96 owns everything, and that he will be signing as SJ-96 as the ownership entity.
Mr. Birlson asked which lots the Town will own. Mr. Boyer responded that the Town will own Outlot A, B and Lot 4.
Mr. Boyer explained that the loss of the 230-foot wide detention pond at the rear of the old Lots 3 and 4, currently Lot 3, was provided at the last minute of the previous plat when there was discussion that the retention pond might have to be shifted farther to the west due to some wetland issues, which were resolved by off-site mitigation. The detention pond is fully within Lot 4.
Mr. Kraus advised that there is a problem building the berm for the detention basin, and they are looking at the drainage easement as a possible place to have additional detention and make the original basin smaller. Mr. Boyer stated that there has been no discussion of that in any meeting he has been in over the last two years. He further stated that he has no knowledge of what Mr. Kraus just referenced.
Mr. Birlson asked if Lots 1A and Lot 1B would have separate driveways. Mr. Boyer responded in the negative. Mr. Birlson asked if the Town is comfortable with the findings of the questionable soils. Mr. Eberly stated that there are still a couple of borings that we are waiting for the result. Mr. Boyer stated that there were four soil borings completed today.
Mr. Boyer stated that before they prepared this plat, they had meetings with members of Haas to ensure the alignment they are showing is what Haas said they would follow. He further stated that Mr. Rettig received the coordinates and the plotting to verify what they did is what the Town Engineer asked them to do, and if it is an incorrect alignment, it is news to him.
Mr. Kennedy asked Attorney Decker if there is a question regarding the plat with what’s being recorded. Attorney Decker responded that his concern has to do with defining the property that the Town is going to purchase. If this plat revision were to be approved and recorded, the Town would be considering purchasing the outlots as opposed to Lot 5.
Mr. Boyer stated that their intent was to have this approved tonight but not recorded until the Town purchased Lot 5 under the old recorded plat.
Discussion ensued.
Mr. Panczuk noted that the Town Council and RDC are considering having special meetings a week from tonight to approve the purchase, so in two weeks, perhaps, the engineers could work through all their checkpoints and then the Plan Commission would have the option to approve that amended plat contingent upon the completion and recording of the sale.
Mr. Phillips asked Attorney Decker if only the approval of the purchase has to take place or does the closing and consummation of the purchase have to take place first. Attorney Decker responded that he believes whether the purchase occurs before or after the recording of the first amended plat is not critical as long as it can be defined.
Mr. Rettig stated that the legal description that was written for the purchase was a part of Lot 5, which coincides with the west line of Outlot A; so it is the same lot. He further stated that Lot 2 is getting bigger and Lot 5 is getting smaller. The Town is only buying part of Lot 5, but the line between Outlot A and Lot 2 is the defined line of what the Town is purchasing.
Mr. Kennedy brought the matter back to the board and entertained a motion to defer the matter to a special meeting just prior to the March 18 Study Session.
Mr. Birlson made a motion to defer the Shops 96 plat revision to March 18, 2020 at a special meeting; Ms. Wohland seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Eberly advised that Mr. Boyer does have the Outlot 2 Crew Carwash.
Mr. Boyer stated that Crew Carwash will be located on the new Outlot 2. It is an all brick and limestone building with decorative architectural metal panel elements on the roof. They have an extensive amount of landscaping on second drawing. The monument signage and the building signage is in accordance with the PUD documents and the Economic Development Agreement.
Mr. Kennedy asked if it would be like the one in Merrillville. Mr. Boyer responded in the negative and stated that they have eliminated some of the footprint of the building and the architectural elements and the look is much different than what is in Merrillville. The vacuums are on the back of the building towards Earl Drive on the east side. This design is a new prototype that he influenced Crew Carwash to build.
Mr. Eberly explained that when the Shops 96 PUD was approved, Mr. Boyer agreed to come back on a lot-by-lot basis and show the plan for each lot. As long as he complies with the PUD, this is just a matter of showing it to the Plan Commission and not a matter of the board acting on the same. Mr. Eberly advised that he will be reviewing this plan to ensure it complies with the terms of the Rezoning PUD Ordinance for this property.
Ms. Wohland asked who attends the construction meetings that Mr. Boyer referenced earlier in the meeting. Mr. Boyer responded that it is a construction meeting to discuss the construction being provided by the Town for 96th Place and Earl Drive, as well as the improvements along US 41, and the engineering for the same to track the progress. He commented that there is a representative from his company, DVG sometimes, Mr. Panczuk or a member of the Council, Haas Engineering, Mr. Eberly has been at most of them. Mr. Eberly noted that Mr. Phillips will be attending those as well.
Mr. Panczuk explained that the Town is installing a new road to make the exit from Joliet Street to US 41 safer by rerouting it to a stoplight and the Town is also installing the detention basin. The Town will own and maintain those improvements and Mr. Boyer will be filling in businesses around there.
Respectfully Submitted;
Margaret R. Abernathy, Recording Secretary
St. John Plan Commission
Mr. Kennedy thanked everyone for their patience as the boards start to return to meetings in light of the pandemic and explained that no decisions would be made at this Study Session.
Mr. Kennedy asked Attorney Decker if he concurred with Attorney Kuiper. Attorney Decker responded in the affirmative.
Attorney Kuiper stated that it is the same plan that has been discussed in the February and March Study Sessions. He further stated that this is eligible to move forward with its Public Hearing on June 3, 2020.
Mr. Kennedy asked Attorney Decker if the Board could hold a Public Hearing on this matter. Attorney Decker responded that this petition is eligible for Public Hearing on June 3, 2020.
Mr. Eberly advised that Mr. Casboni informed him earlier in the day that he would be unable to make the meeting and that he does want to proceed with the rezoning. Mr. Eberly recapped the petition.
Mr. Kennedy noted that there should be a 45-foot dedicated right-of-way for White Oak Avenue and stated he feels there should only be a single-point access road to the lots to minimize the number of private drives on White Oak Avenue for safety purposes. Mr. Birlson and other members concurred.
Mr. Eberly advised that the best time for the Plan Commission to address the access limitations is during the rezoning process.
Mr. Eberly advised that the petitioner had contacted him in early March for the extension, but due to meeting delays as a result of COVID, this couldn’t be heard sooner.
Mr. Doug Rettig gave a brief history of the parcel of land to explain the necessity of the extension and stated that they would be at the June 3 meeting to request the same.
Mr. Kennedy asked Mr. Eberly to explain the process to the Plan Commission.
Mr. Eberly explained that a primary plat is approved for a period of twelve months. If the project does not begin within 12 months, the petitioner is entitled to come back and request an extension. The maximum allowed extension is six months, but there is no limit on the number of extensions a petitioner may request. There is no specific guidance for the Plan Commission as to granting or denying an extension.
Mr. Dave Barick commented that the need for the extension arose due to engineering changes to the subdivision at the request of the Plan Commission when he was asked to come back in and rezone the property, which stopped everything with the bank. It also resulted in them losing the people that were lined up to work. Mr. Barick noted that Mr. Rettig had redrawn the plans thirteen times, and there is a fortune of money invested in redrawing the plans.
Mr. Jeff Yatsko, present virtually, stated that they would be requesting Secondary Plat approval at the June 3 meeting for 18 lots. He advised that this would finish the platting for the property north of 93rd Avenue and leave only one more phase to complete on the south side of 93rd Avenue. Mr. Yatsko noted that all the utilities are installed, and they will start on the roads right after the holiday.
Mr. Kraus advised that he would be providing his review letter the following week and that it would include bond amounts for the roads and approximately half of the erosion control issues.
Mr. Michael Tiller stated that this is the final phase. The only remaining work is the surface course and submission of the Mylars, which should be done within the next week.
Mr. Kraus advised that he would submit his review letter by the end of the week.
Mr. Eberly presented the draft Subdivision Control Ordinance changes to the Board. Mr. Eberly reviewed the changes page by page and said changes were discussed.
(A copy of bullet-point of changes is attached hereto and made a part therein as Exhibit No. 2020-05-20-PC.)
Note: The Draft Subdivision Control Ordinance that was presented at the meeting can be reviewed in the St. John Building & Planning Office.
Respectfully Submitted;
Margaret R. Abernathy, Recording Secretary
St. John Plan Commission
Absent: None.
Mr. Birlson Aye
Ms. Cardona Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Mr. Gillette Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Mr. Birlson made a motion to defer the March 4, 2020, Regular Meeting and the May 20, 2020, Study Session minutes; Ms. Wohland seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote.
Mr. Birlson Aye
Ms. Cardona Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Mr. Gillette Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Mr. Birlson made a motion to approve the February 19, 2020, Study Session minutes; Mr. Gill seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote.
Mr. Birlson Aye
Ms. Cardona Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Mr. Gillette Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Mr. Kennedy entertained a motion to defer Agenda Items A-E to the July 1, 2020, Regular Meeting.
Mr. Gill made a motion to defer Agenda Items A-E to the July 1, 2020, Regular Meeting based on pending litigation; Ms. Wohland seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote.
Mr. Birlson Aye
Ms. Cardona Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Mr. Gillette Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Mr. Eberly advised that all items are in order for this Public Hearing to proceed.
Attorney Kuiper summarized the history of this portion of The Gates of St. John East. He briefly described the reason for the replatting of a portion of this subdivision. The long lots have been replatted, and it complies with the Zoning Commitment that was agreed to in 2019.
Mr. Kennedy read Mr. Kraus’ review letter which finds the plat to be satisfactory. The Developmental Fee and SWPPP are not yet calculated and will be determined at the time of review.
Mr. Kennedy opened the floor for the Public Hearing and read a Public Comment letter dated 06-03-2020 from Dennis DeVito.
(Mr. DeVito’s letter is attached hereto and made a part thereof as Exhibit No. 2020-06-03-PC1)
Having no one present wishing to speak, he closed the Public Hearing brought the matter back to the board.
Mr. Birlson made a motion to approve Primary Plat for The Gates of St. John, Lots 2249-2258, referencing the Findings of Fact; Mr. Gill seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote:
Mr. Birlson Aye
Ms. Cardona Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Mr. Gillette Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Mr. Eberly advised that all items are in order for this petition to proceed.
Mr. Rettig explained that this is a 2-acre lot that is being put together from two lots and that each lot is close to 1 acre in size. All the infrastructure is already in place as it is in an established subdivision, Castle Rock.
Mr. Kennedy read Mr. Kraus’ review letter, which finds that the plat is satisfactory.
Mr. Kennedy opened the floor for the Public Hearing. Having no one wishing to speak, Mr. Kennedy closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the board. He advised that the Primary Plat and Secondary Plat will be two different motions.
Mr. Gill made a motion to grant Primary Plat approval, referencing the Findings of Fact; Mr. Birlson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote.
Mr. Birlson Aye
Ms. Cardona Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Mr. Gillette Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Mr. Birlson made a motion to grant Secondary Plat approval, referencing the Findings of Fact; Ms. Cardona seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote.
Mr. Birlson Aye
Ms. Cardona Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Mr. Gillette Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Mr. Birlson made a motion to defer AC Holding Group’s petition to the July 1, 2020, Meeting; Mr. Gillette seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote.
Mr. Birlson Aye
Ms. Cardona Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Mr. Gillette Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Mr. Eberly advised that all items are in order for this petition to proceed and stated that he would answer any questions that the public may ask during the Public Hearing. He further advised that Attorney Decker conducted his review and prepared the form of ordinance. Mr. Eberly thanked Jason Dravet for his assistance in improving and preparing the document.
Mr. Kennedy opened the floor for the Public Hearing. Having no one wishing to speak, Mr. Kennedy closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the board.
Mr. Gill made a motion to make a favorable recommendation to the Town Council to accept the changes to Subdivision Control Ordinance; Mr. Birlson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote.
Mr. Birlson Aye
Ms. Cardona Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Mr. Gillette Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Mr. Kennedy advised that the petitioner requested the item be deferred.
Mr. Birlson made a motion to defer this matter to the July 1, 2020, Meeting; Mr. Gillette seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote.
Mr. Birlson Aye
Ms. Cardona Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Mr. Gillette Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Mr. Michael Tiller, Schilling Development, advised that the infrastructure is installed and that they have submitted their Letter of Credit.
Mr. Kennedy read Mr. Kraus’ review letter, which finds that the plat is satisfactory.
Mr. Birlson made a motion to approve the Secondary Plat, referencing the Findings of Fact; Ms. Wohland seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote.
Mr. Birlson Aye
Ms. Cardona Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Mr. Gillette Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Ms. Wohland made a motion to send a favorable recommendation to the Town Council to accept the Letter of Credit in the amount of $28,195.20; Mr. Birlson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote.
Mr. Birlson Aye
Ms. Cardona Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Mr. Gillette Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Mr. Ed Recktenwall, Olthof Homes, requested a reduction in its Letter of Credit to include the balance for the final surface and common walks.
Mr. Kennedy read Mr. Kraus’ review letter, which finds that the current bond may be released and replaced with a bond in the amount of $61,629.75.
Mr. Birlson made a motion to send a favorable recommendation to the Town Council to release the original bone and accept the new bond in the amount of $61,629.75 Ms. Little seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote.
Mr. Birlson Aye
Ms. Cardona Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Mr. Gillette Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Mr. Recktenwall noted that this is for 18 lots, which completes the platting for the north side of 93rd Avenue.
Mr. Kennedy read Mr. Kraus’ review letter, which finds that the plat is satisfactory.
Mr. Gill made a motion to approve Secondary Plat for Walden Clearing Unit 2; Mr. Gillette seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote.
Mr. Birlson Aye
Ms. Cardona Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Mr. Gillette Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Mr. Birlson made a motion to send a favorable recommendation to the Town Council to accept the Surety Bond in the amount of $353,786.88; Mr. Gillette seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote.
Mr. Birlson Aye
Ms. Cardona Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Mr. Gillette Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Mr. Doug Rettig, DVG, stated that Dave Barick is here with him and summarized the history of the petition and noted that Mr. Barick wants to start Block 1 of the project soon.
Mr. Kennedy read Mr. Kraus’ review, which finds the plat to be satisfactory. The Developmental Fee and the SWPPP fees will be determined at the time of review.
Extensive discussion ensued regarding pipeline easement safety concerns, the impact more duplexes would create, potential rezoning, and the extension being requested.
Attorney Decker advised that the agenda item is the extension of the Primary Plat approval. The Plan Commission cannot extend only a portion of the Primary Plat. It is an all or nothing on the Primary Plat as approved from a legal standpoint.
Mr. Kennedy advised that they can only consider the extension at this meeting and entertained a motion regarding the same.
Ms. Little made a motion to deny the extension of the Primary Plat approval; Mr. Birlson seconded the motion. Motion to deny carried 5 ayes to 2 nays by roll-call vote.
Mr. Birlson Aye
Ms. Cardona Aye
Mr. Gill Nay
Mr. GilletteAye
Ms. Little Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Kennedy Nay
Mr. Barick commented that he is being left no choice.
Mr. Panczuk thanked Mr. Eberly, Mr. Dravet, Mr. Valois, Attorney Decker, and the Plan Commission for all their work on the Subdivision Control Ordinance and stated that he is happy to be taking the revised Subdivision Control Ordinance to the Town Council for consideration.
Respectfully Submitted;
Margaret R. Abernathy, Recording Secretary
St. John Plan Commission
Mr. Kennedy thanked everyone for their patience as the boards start to return to meetings in light of the pandemic and explained that no decisions are being made at this Study Session.
Mr. Eberly advised that the original petition will be on the July agenda, and hopefully Mr. Casboni will provide a letter withdrawing the petition.
Mr. Kennedy asked Mr. Tiller who would own the property at the time of that July meeting. Mr. Tiller responded that Schilling Development would be the owners.
Mr. Eberly advised that the earliest this petition could be heard would be on August 5, 2020.
Mr. Kennedy advised that this is just for platting; the zoning is already completed.
Ms. Cardona asked how many duplexes are in this phase. Mr. Rettig responded that there are three duplex lots, which equals six duplex housing units.
Mr. Kennedy asked about connectivity to undeveloped property. Mr. Rettig responded that the street would loop around with connectivity to the south leading into the Schilling property.
Mr. Rettig advised that he would be speaking with Mr. Kraus regarding the use of a detention pond that the Town owns just west of Clarmonte Drive as they would like to utilize it for storm-water detention for the roadway. A detention basin isn’t shown as they believe that the amount of storage needed is small and only would require a fraction of an inch in the Town’s basin.
Mr. Rettig noted that the property has wetlands and a floodplain to the north shown as Outlot C. They did a delineation on the property early on that may need to be revisited to ensure it is current. If necessary, they will have some conservation easements to cover those areas.
Mr. Eberly asked Mr. Rettig to confirm the floodplain does not impact any of the building pads. Mr. Rettig confirmed that it is not in the building sites, but it is in the rear-yard areas. None of the homes will require flood insurance. Due to the high ground, there is no concern about getting 2 feet above base flood elevation, and it will just be a natural feature in the backyards.
Ms. Little asked if there are plans to install a turning lane off of 93rd Avenue. Mr. Rettig responded that they would look into that when they do the engineering if it is necessary and noted that he believes Clarmonte has decel lanes. Mr. Eberly confirmed the same.
Ms. Little asked if the entrance to Lot 9 will be directly on 93rd Avenue. Mr. Rettig responded in the affirmative and noted that it is the same location as the existing driveway to that property.
Mr. Kennedy asked if the petitioner has considered a layout where the access to Lot 9 could be from the cul-de-sac. Mr. Rettig responded that it had not been considered. Mr. Kennedy asked that they give serious consideration to developing the project so that there is no direct access to Lot 9 off of 93rd Avenue as the Thoroughfare Plan calls for no private drives.
Mr. Kennedy asked if there would be connectivity to the property on the east, north of the homes. Mr. Rettig stated that there would not be connectivity due to the wetlands.
Respectfully Submitted;
Margaret R. Abernathy, Recording Secretary
St. John Plan Commission
Absent: Yolanda Cardona, Donna Little, Executive Secretary; and Michael Gillette.
Mr. Birlson Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Mr. Birlson made a motion to defer the June 3, 2020, Regular Meeting and the May 20, 2020, and June 17, 2020, Study Session minutes; Ms. Wohland seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote.
Mr. Birlson Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Attorney Decker advised that agenda items A and B are part of a litigation process, regarding property that was annexed into the Town of St. John on January 1, 2020. The Lake Superior Court issued an Order on June 12, 2020, providing in part that the Court found that Town Code 24-42 is a valid and enforceable ordinance. That is the ordinance that required any property that is annexed into the Town to be zoned R-1 classification unless there’s a unanimous vote of the Town Council to zone it in a different classification. The 111-acre parcel was the issue of Town Ordinance 1691. The Court found that it would be designated and shall be designated as R-1 single-family residential zoning classification; that addresses item A. With regard to item B on the agenda, which is the 40-acre parcel, regarding the 109th Avenue and White Oak Avenue, the Court, in its Order, and specifically in footnote 4 of that order, provides that the 40-acre parcel, which was annexed pursuant to Town Ordinance 1693, shall also be designated with an R-1 single-family residential zoning classification. Therefore, as a result of the Court’s ruling, and the Town Attorney and myself still reviewing that Order, I would recommend to the Board that it defer items A and B at this time.
Mr. Kennedy entertained a motion to defer agenda items A and B.
Mr. Birlson made a motion to defer agenda items A and B to the August 5, 2020, meeting per Attorney Decker’s recommendation; Mr. Gill seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote.
Mr. Birlson Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Attorney Kuiper requested that Items D and E be deferred on the same principle as items A and B based upon Attorney Decker’s iteration of the Court’s Order. They concur with that. The 111 acres is composed of items D and E.
Mr. Gill made a motion to defer agenda items D and E to the August 5, 2020, meeting based on Attorney Kuiper’s request; Mr. Birlson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote.
Mr. Birlson Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Attorney Kuiper stated that he was present on behalf of LBL Development, LLC, on the Oak Ridge subdivision, which contains 40 acres located on the northwest corner on 109th Avenue and White Oak Avenue. Attorney Kuiper reviewed the history of the zoning and annexation of the property. He stated that this is part of Resolution No. 2020-01-01 where the Town Council requested that the Plan Commission start a rezoning process
Attorney Kuiper also reviewed the Court’s Order of June 12, 2020. He asserted that the footnote is not part of a court order and stated that the Court specifically called out in item 49 of the Order, which states, “The Court limits its Order with respect to Resolution 2020-01-01 to the 111-acre parcel that is the subject of the present dispute between the parties and does not intend its Order to include or affect the 40-acre parcel that is also addressed in Resolution 2020-01-01 because the 40-acre parcel is not part of the alleged agreements.” He added that this item, therefore, is proper for the Plan Commission to review, hear, and conduct the Public Hearing.
Attorney Kuiper avowed that the notices are all in place. It was originally noticed on March 4, 2020 with multiple continuances do to circumstances beyond control. He briefly described the 78-lot subdivision, which he said is an RC-2 PUD and that they have met all of the requirements of the Subdivision Control Ordinance. He then requested that the Plan Commission approve the plat.
Mr. Kennedy asked Attorney Decker how to proceed since there is a legal issue. Attorney Decker responded that the Court’s Order makes determination. He re-read the determination he had read earlier in the meeting again for the Board. He noted that it goes back to a dispute initially brought by BLB St. John, LLC, which was sought to enforce the Settlement Agreements previously reached between BLB and the Town. He further stated that the Court is clear in footnote 4 of the Order that St. John Town Code, Section 24-42, requires a unanimous vote of the Town Council when property is annexed into the town for any zoning classification other than R-1.
Discussion ensued regarding the difference of opinion in the zoning, whether a deferral would be an appropriate action, and Mr. Kuiper asserted that plat approval is a ministerial act based on IC 36-7-4-700 et seq. Attorney Decker countered that he does consider that an option. Discussion continued.
Mr. Eberly concurred with Attorney Kuiper that all items are in order for this petition to proceed and that there is a remonstrance letter with a petition in his office.
Mr. Kennedy opened the floor for the Public Hearing.
Paul Panczuk (8410 Magnolia Street): I approach you as a resident. I would be concerned if you were to approve a plat that is not meeting the requirements of the current zoning as dictated by the town attorneys. Thank you.
Mr. Kennedy read the letter attached to the petition.
(Said letter/petition has been attached hereto and made a part of the record herein as Exhibit No. 2020-07-01-PC1)
Mr. Eberly advised that the agenda was labeled incorrectly and that the subdivision is called Oak Ridge.
Hearing no further comment from the public, Mr. Kennedy closed the Public Hearing and entertained any questions comments or motions from the Board.
Mr. Birlson made a motion to defer. Ms. Wohland seconded the motion. Motion failed by roll-call vote.
Mr. Birlson Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Kennedy Nay
Mr. Kennedy noted the lack of a majority vote and entertained any new comments, questions, or motions.
The Plan Commission questioned the zoning the plat should be compared against. Attorney Kuiper iterated that it is his opinion that the zoning is RC-2 PUD, is not subject of the lawsuit, and meets the requirements for platting of the same.
Mr. Kennedy advised that there is a difference of opinion on the ruling in the court case; namely, the Town Attorney and Board Attorney both say it is R-1, and Attorney Kuiper says it is R-2.
Mr. Panczuk commented that both of the attorneys for the Town are saying it is R-1. If the plat is measured against the R-1 standards, it does not meet them. He stated that if they take the Town’s attorneys’ advice, they would deny it. If they ignore their advice, they would have to approve it. He recommended to the Board that they respect our attorneys’ advice, and added that he would respect whatever decision they make.
Mr. Kennedy entertained a motion.
Mr. Birlson made a motion to deny plat approval for Oak Ridge based on the findings of Attorney Decker and Findings of Fact:
Mr. Birlson Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Mr. Kennedy declared that the motion to deny has passed 4-0. He then thanked Attorney Kuiper for his patience and understanding. Attorney Kuiper thanked the board.
Attorney Decker advised that acknowledging the withdrawal letter is sufficient and that no vote is required. Mr. Kennedy read the withdrawal letter dated June 24, 2020, into the record and stated that the petition is formally withdrawn from the Plan Commission.
(Said letter has been attached hereto and made a part of the record herein as Exhibit No. 2020-07-01-PC2)
Mr. Eberly advised that this item is not ready to be heard due to an exchange of land that has yet to be completed. Mr. Panczuk informed the board that there are still some adjustments that need to be made.
Mr. Kennedy entertained a motion to defer.
Mr. Birlson made a motion to defer the Shops 96 Secondary Plat revision to the August 5, 2020, meeting; Mr. Gill seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote.
Mr. Birlson Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Mr. Kennedy announced two Public Hearings for the August 5, 2020 meeting.
1. Property at 9541 White Oak Avenue for rezoning from Open Space to R-1 single-family residential
2. Three Springs, Unit 3, Block 1, for a Primary Plat.
Respectfully Submitted;
Margaret R. Abernathy, Recording Secretary
St. John Plan Commission
Mr. Doug Rettig briefly reviewed the layout of Three Springs, Phase 3, Block 1, which is the north portion of the approved project that had the one-year extension denied.
Mr. Eberly advised that the zoning for a mix of R-1, R-2, and R-3 is already in place.
Ms. Cardona asked if there are any plans for Block 2. Mr. Rettig stated that three lots are already zoned for duplexes and that he believes that Mr. Barick will want to ask for more duplex lots in exchange for the lots they are dropping on the one side of the road.
Mr. Eberly advised that Block 2 would have a Public Hearing when it comes back for a rezoning.
Mr. Panczuk asked if the drainage easement between the two lots would be a swale or easement for access to the lake. Mr. Rettig responded that it is both. Mr. Panczuk asked if that drainage easement could be moved for a potential future bike path by Lots 22 and 23. Mr. Rettig stated that that particular easement could not be moved; however, he said he would look into potential alternates.
Mr. John Lotton of LBL stated that they are presenting the Primary Plat for Unit 21B and would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Eberly advised that this is currently zoned R-2 PUD, is known as Unit 21B. This property has been in town for years and is not part of the area that is under litigation.
Ms. Little asked if this is part of the existing subdivision. Mr. Lotton responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Jack Slager introduced Mr. Kevin Hunt and stated that they are representing Schilling Development/Hickory Terrace. He briefly reviewed the project history and informed the Board that this is the final plat for this phase containing 14 lots. The underground utilities are completed, and the roads are being installed now.
Mr. Birlson asked if there will be a Letter of Credit since this is a private subdivision. Mr. Slager responded that there might be a small one. Mr. Eberly advised that the utilities still belong to the Town. Mr. Kraus noted that a Letter of Credit protects the future purchasers, so it does not matter if it is public or private.
Mr. Gillette asked what provisions are in place for emergency services. Mr. Slager responded that they agreed to have the security access for Police and Fire ready before the first occupancy.
Mr. Slager stated that the next three projects are all zoned Open Space and would be brought in to be rezoned. This particular parcel is a 35-acre parcel east of White Oak Avenue, which was the Casboni property. This plan has one access point off of White Oak and another off of 96th. The middle of the property has a lot of low ground and a lake with flood plains and wetlands that will be surrounded by developed lots on the high ground. The project will be zoned R-1. Lot 14 and 15 are over an acre and would front on Alvina Rose Court in the Rosewood development, which will be developed first as they would be coming back in multiple phases. They are hoping to connect a walking path between the east and west parts of the development and potentially connect into Rosewood and across White Oak Avenue into the current bike path in The Preserve. He commented that it would be a nice, unique, high-end development.
Mr. Slager noted that the names of Preserve East and Preserve West might change. The only frontage on this property is on 101st Avenue across from Saddle Creek. It is completely surrounded by Bull Run Ditch as well as wetlands and flood plains and has pipeline easements running through it. Mr. Slager advised that they are allowing extra space to stay away from the three different pipelines that bisect the property.
Mr. Slager commented that they want to rezone this property from Open Space to RC-1 PUD with a mix of 80, 90, and 100-foot lots that will meet or exceed the required minimum lot size. They intend to create an 8-acre lake in the middle of the development with a fountain. This project will connect to Unit 3 of The Preserve, giving a new entrance for The Preserve at 101st Avenue. They intend to expand the bike path up White Oak avenue and ultimately through Saddle Creek and beyond into Greystone.
Mr. Eberly advised that they are well below the density required for R-1. They could have up to 180 lots on this property, but they are proposing 148 lots. They will be stubbing the property to the east and west for potential future development.
Mr. Gillette asked if the bike path could connect to Bramblewood. Mr. Slager responded that he isn’t sure there is access as it could be problematic getting across the creek, but they would try to get it up to 93rd Avenue and be open to making that connection if there is a place to do so. Mr. Gillette asked Mr. Eberly if there is any connection possible. Mr. Eberly responded that he would check the Bramblewood Plat.
Mr. Panczuk asked if they would consider putting in a crosswalk and installing the sidewalk on the south side of 101st Avenue for better connectivity. Mr. Slager stated that he doesn’t believe they would be opposed to making that swap. Mr. Panczuk stated that he would prefer an 8-foot sidewalk.
Mr. Birlson asked if they are getting a favorable response to the 80-foot-wide lots. Mr. Slager responded in the affirmative. Mr. Panczuk requested an access easement to Julia Drive. Mr. Slager agreed to look into it.
Mr. Slager advised that this was the Sikma farm. They would like to develop a mix of maintenance-free cottage homes and paired villas built by McFarland Homes and Schilling Construction for a total of 148 units. There is a pipeline at the northern boundary. Additional park space will be added to the park space they dedicated in the previous phase, and they will finish the bike path going east and west through this development. They are stubbing a road for connectivity to the west, which could ultimately provide a stub to State Line Road. They will continue the sidewalk along Calumet Avenue to the school property. There is a professional office space lot at the entrance off of Calumet Avenue.
Mr. Rettig, representing Mike Graniczny and Sublime Estates, stated that this is a 9-lot, R-1 subdivision on the north side of 93rd Avenue just west of Lancer Estates and south of Rose Garden. He noted that nothing has changed on the drawing that was presented the previous month. They will be doing engineering soon, and construction would take place in 2021.
Ms. Little asked if there is any way to connect this property to Rose Garden. Mr. Rettig responded that there are wetlands between that subdivision and Rose Garden.
Mr. Birlson asked if we are putting a sidewalk in along 93rd Avenue. Mr. Panczuk responded that plans are being worked on to have a path on the north side of 93rd Avenue from US 41 to Claremonte because the south side is all wetland.
Mr. Rettig stated that the easement varies along 93rd Avenue based on the subdivision and that they could provide a 50-foot easement.
Mr. Eberly stated that he wants to wait until the Subdivision Control Ordinance is finalized before starting the Zoning Ordinance. He advised that some minor changes and the Street Lighting Control and Design Standards and The Water Distribution Standards are being included in the Subdivision Control Ordinance.
Attorney Decker advised that the Town Council, as the legislative body, may adopt the ordinance, including the amendments. By law, the Town Council must take action within 90 days of the day the Plan Commission met to certify those proposed amendments. By adopting the amended ordinance, it would be returned to the Plan Commission for its consideration with a statement showing those amendments. The Plan Commission would have 45 days to consider the amendments. If the Plan Commission approves the amendments, the ordinance stands as passed by the Town Council in the July meeting.
Mr. Dravet and Mr. Eberly showed and reviewed the revised Subdivision Control Ordinance with the new documents. Mr. Eberly thanked Mr. Dravet for all his help and hard work on editing the Subdivision Control Ordinance.
Respectfully Submitted;
Margaret R. Abernathy, Recording Secretary
St. John Plan Commission
Mr. Birlson Aye
Ms. Cardona Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Mr. Gillette Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Mr. Birlson made a motion to approve the meeting minutes for the May 20, 2020, and the June 17, 2020, Study Sessions; Ms. Little seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote.
Mr. Birlson Aye
Ms. Cardona Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Mr. Gillette Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Mr. Eberly advised that all items are in order for this petition to proceed.
Mr. Rettig briefly reviewed the project's history, stated that they removed the south half of the project, and requested approval on Block 1, which is the north half of as previously approved plat.
Mr. Kennedy asked if Outlot A will be a grassy area. Mr. Rettig confirmed the same.
Ms. Cardona asked if there are plans to develop any homes on the pipeline easement. Mr. Rettig responded that they would be seeking revisions later and noted that none of the lots have any pipeline easements in them.
Mr. Kennedy opened the floor for the Public Hearing.
Wayne Cain (9817 Allison Lane): Apparently, I wasn't here a year ago when this was all approved. This is my third time I've been here, and I was just going to say that I think this is very important financially for our home values going forward. And if my neighbor across the street needed to get approval from all his neighbors to put up a fence, had to get signed, registered letters signed at our house – I'm the only one from my subdivision here. And I think the delay, the delay, delay, the fewer, fewer people, the Coronavirus – he had one sign, and I have pictures. He had one sign up that was at the dead-end of a road. Nobody traveled there. I talked to other neighbors; nobody wasn't even aware that this meeting was coming tonight. I think people should be notified, not by a sign on a road, a dead-end road, weeds this high covering the sign from – I – I got pictures if you want to see them.
Okay. And I understand that they put a notice in the paper. Does anyone get the newspapers any longer? You do; well, you're the only one in this room. Know what I mean? But nobody gets the paper; nobody reads it; nobody reads the notifications. And if I had to sign a permit for my neighbor to put up a fence, Mr. Barick should have permission from every homeowner in that subdivision to go forward with a variance that affects our home values. The – I'm proof that I'm the only one in the whole damn subdivision. And I just think he should notify everybody that what he plans to do, lowering the lot sizes, the type of homes he's building affects our value of our homes, that's my suggestion.
Mr. Eberly explained the notification process, stated that there are statutory requirements for notification and that our local requirements for notification exceed statutory requirements. He further advised that the notification was done properly by this petitioner. The petitioner was required to put a sign on the subject property that the notice serves, which is a Town requirement, and the only place on that property that is visible at all is at the end of that road. He further advised that the petitioner is not seeking a variance and that the zoning has been in place for some time. All of the lots in the zoning classifications meet or exceed the minimum square foot lot sizes required.
David Cerven (900 Ridge Road, Munster): I am actually Mr. Barick's and Three Springs attorney. I was here years ago on this particular phase, back in March of '17, and that's just half the file. And at that time, as I understand, that was like the ninth revision. And now here we are three years later and I – I went through your minutes. And I read, and I listened to the minutes as recently as June 3, I guess, when Mr. Barick filed, or when Three Springs filed a request to extend the one-year period because it didn't get accomplished within a year.
And I – I listened to everything that was said, and I listened to the comments, and I heard from Ms. Cardona that acknowledged on that tape at 1 hour, 2 minutes, and 44 seconds into the hearing that she knew that this subdivision, this plat met all the standards back in March of '19 when it was approved. Ms. Wohland also on that said the same thing that all the standards were met. And for some reason, the motion to – the petition to extend was denied. And that's been the first and only time, as I understand, something like that's ever happened. I guess what I have to – just want to say is, if it was okay in March of '19 and met all the standards and nothing has changed, with the exception that he's not even trying to get the property south of the pipeline, it's just everything that's north of it and that – and like I said, it was all approved that everyone acknowledged that it meets the standards, so I just don't see any real basis at all why his petition should be denied him.
You know, this has been going on for years and years, and you know, I haven't been here for much of them, but you know, it – it's costing him a fortune to keep tweaking this thing. And I think if it's – if it's met the standard, it's met the standard and there, there – I just can't see any reason why, why it should be denied. I know there's some concerns about this pipeline and that the Council might have passed an ordinance or considered an ordinance – I see it's on the agenda today, so I'm not even sure if that, the new ordinance has even been passed.
But this petition that we're here on today was filed before the Town Council ever took that issue up. So it all – I mean, so – I mean I go back to '19 of March where it was all fine, met standards. And okay, we didn't get the extension, but we refiled, and we did the refiling properly, and it's been advertised. And I listened to the – the minutes or the Study Session that took place. So it just seems to me that I can't – I can't fathom why, why it should be denied. I think it would just be, you know, there would be no rational basis for it at all. Thank you very much.
Having no one else come forward to speak, Mr. Kennedy closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the Board. Mr. Kennedy read Mr. Kraus' review letter, which finds that the plat is satisfactory.
Ms. Cardona responded to Attorney Cerven's comments. She stated that an extension is wholly at the discretion of the Plan Commission and that developments with issues such as this take time. She commented that what is presented today does not put homes on the pipelines and that this is doable.
Mr. Birlson made a motion to approve Three Springs, Phase 3, Block 1, referencing the Findings of Fact; Mr. Gill seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote.
Mr. Birlson Aye
Ms. Cardona Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Mr. Gillette Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Mr. Jack Slager, representing Hickory Terrace, LLC, stated that the improvements are complete and that the roads are in, except for the surface coat.
Mr. Eberly advised that the fees were paid and that a cash escrow was submitted for the Letter of Credit.
Mr. Kennedy read Mr. Kraus' review letter, which finds that the plat is satisfactory.
Mr. Birlson made a motion to approve Secondary Plat, referencing the Findings of Fact; Ms. Wohland seconded the motion Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote.
Mr. Birlson Aye
Ms. Cardona Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Mr. Gillette Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Ms. Wohland made a motion to send a favorable recommendation to the Town Council to accept the cash escrow; Ms. Little seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote.
Mr. Birlson Aye
Ms. Cardona Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Mr. Gillette Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Mr. Eberly noted that 1707 is the ordinance number for the revised Subdivision Control Ordinance and the list of changes is included in the Commissioners' packets.
The list of changes included:Attorney Decker advised that, according to state statute, if the Plan Commission approves the amendments at tonight's meeting, then the ordinance that was adopted by the Town Council will stand as passed as of the date of the filing of the Plan Commission's report of approval, which would be done subsequent to tonight's meeting.
Mr. Birlson made a motion to approve the amendments to the Subdivision Control Ordinance as adopted by the Town Council; Ms. Little seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote.
Mr. Birlson Aye
Ms. Cardona Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Mr. Gillette Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Mr. Eberly stated that Clerk-Treasurer Beth Hernandez posts them on her Facebook page and emails them to a distribution list. Jason Dravet posts them to the Town's website.
Mr. Dravet advised that the agendas are posted under Residents, Minutes/Meetings and that the Town has a Facebook page where he can post the agendas.
Mr. Eberly stated that the more places we can post the agendas, the better. He further stated that he agrees that almost nobody gets their information from the newspapers. He would like to see the Town go back to the state regulation and only require publication in one newspaper.
Respectfully Submitted;
Margaret R. Abernathy, Recording Secretary
St. John Plan Commission
Attorney Tim Kuiper, representing LBL, LLC, stated that this finishes up the property and should be ready to proceed at the September meeting.
Mr. Eberly advised that this unit is consistent with the original 108 acres. Mr. Kraus concurred that this unit complies with what has been laid out for the in-town subdivision previously.
Attorney Kuiper stated that dirt is being moved, and pipes are going in at the project site. This plat is the first of several final plats that will be coming in. The main drive of 105th Avenue is being installed as part of this project. He noted that this complies with the Primary Plat that was approved.
Mr. Kraus noted that between lots 2108 and 2109 on the Primary Plat, there is a 28.49-foot lot that was intended to be the driveway to the new well just to the east of this project that is not shown any longer and is not shown with an easement. The northwest corner is slightly different for Lot 2141 and Lot 2140. The Primary Plat showed it going from the center of the eyebrow cul-de-sac to the northwest corner of the property. Off to the east of lot 2102, the 20-foot emergency overflow spillway lot from the detention basin, they show dashed lines for the lot next to it, but they don’t include that 20-foot for the emergency overflow spillway from the detention basin. That is just a cursory review as he did not have a chance to look at it closely. He noted that Mr. Eberly mentioned another easement that was not showing that he has not had a chance to review.
Mr. Kuiper noted that they hope to have all those differences worked out by the next meeting.
Mr. Eberly stated that he would characterize the differences between the Primary Plat and Secondary Plat as minor changes and added that the Secondary Plat is in substantial compliance with the Primary Plat. There is another easement between 2643 and 2644 that is not on the Secondary Plat that was on the Primary Plat. A couple of easement sizes have changed from 12 feet to 10 feet. He noted that he specifically spoke with John Lotton regarding the 20-foot overflow lot between 2102 and the first lot in Pod 22 to the east. Mr. Lotton informed him that he decided to make that overflow lot part of each of the neighboring lots as a drainage and utility easement. It is noted on the east side of Lot 2102 a 10-foot easement, and he expects to see a matching 10-foot drainage and utility easement on the first lot in Pod 22.
Mr. Kennedy asked what the side-yard setback is for this project. Mr. Eberly responded that it is 6 feet per the zoning commitment. Mr. Kennedy asked how there is a 10-foot easement with a 6-foot side-yard setback. Mr. Eberly stated that the lot is 10 feet wider than what it originally was. Mr. Kraus explained that the 10-foot utility easement would supersede the 6-foot side-yard setback, and as long as the next lot to the east of it also has a 10-foot utility easement, he is fine with it right now, it only has half of the easement, and the detention basin isn’t part of this particular unit.
Mr. Eberly noted that there were two other access points to the well site in the Primary Plat. The fact that we are missing one from this plat is not problematic because there are two other access points. Mr. Kraus advised that it is problematic because the one missing from this particular plat is the driveway. We were going to build a driveway from a private drive into the site where the well would be located.
Mr. Eberly stated that the drive will need to come from one of the other two access points. Mr. Kraus responded that a drive from either of the other two access points would not get to the well site.
Mr. Kennedy asked Mr. Kraus if he would follow up with the developer. Mr. Kraus responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Eberly stated that Mr. Lenting appeared before the Board of Zoning Appeals last month to build a nicer home on a larger lot. As one lot, the property is just short of the minimum 15,000 square feet. The BZA granted the lot-size variance, and he is before you to present his petition for a one-lot subdivision.
Mr. Lenting stated that there was a house that was in the center of the two lots, and he would like to keep it nice and like the other homes in the subdivision. He commented that the neighbors came to the BZA meeting and spoke in favor of this.
Mr. Eberly noted that Mr. Lenting would be present for a public hearing for this one-lot subdivision.
Mr. Slager noted that the names of Preserve East and Preserve West might change. This property is across from Saddle Creek. There are wetlands and flood plain around the property, and it is surrounded by Bull Run Ditch.
Rezoning for Open Space to RC-1 PUD. The lots will be a mix of 80, 90, and 100-foot lots. RC-1 PUD requires a minimum of 80 x 150, and all lots will meet or exceed that number. An 8-acre lake will sit in the center of the property. Waterleaf Drive will continue across the creek and connect it to the existing Preserve subdivision. There will be a new entrance out to 101st Avenue. They intend to expand the bike path through Saddle Creek and beyond into Greystone. This will be a nice addition to the Preserve.
Mr. Slager stated that they have sent out their notices for the rezoning they are seeking.
Ms. Cardona asked if the purple line is the pipeline. Mr. Slager responded in the affirmative. He noted that three pipelines run through the property from the north and split at the north end of the property. One runs on an angle bisecting southwest through the property. The other two run directly south side-by-side and run through Saddle Creek. Mr. Slager assured that there would be plenty of distance between the pipelines and any homes.
Mr. Kennedy asked if there are any variances other than the size of the lot. Mr. Slager responded in the negative. They will have a variable setback.
Mr. Kraus asked what their water source is and where the sanitary sewer will be and what they would tie into. Mr. Slager described the placement of the two-point loop system they will be installing at the bridge loop out and tie back in at 101st Avenue for a two-point water loop. Mr. Kraus asked if they would be connecting any water lines into Bramblewood. Mr. Slager responded in the negative and explained that there is a big gap with a wide floodplain on both sides of the creek.
Mr. Slager noted that they might request to finish off the sidewalk on the south side of 101st Avenue instead of installing it on the north side.
Mr. Kennedy asked if there is a way to avoid the offset entrances. Mr. Slager commented that they could not line up perfectly with the subdivision across the street because of a home that is currently there.
Mr. Kennedy asked about the connectivity to the east in The Preserves. Mr. Slager responded in the affirmative. Mr. Kennedy asked if that would tie into the bike path that runs to 93rd Avenue. Mr. Slager responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Birlson asked if the green space is a flood zone. Mr. Slager responded in the affirmative. Mr. Birlson asked how many lots are the various widths. Mr. Slager responded that it had not been determined yet.
Mr. Birlson asked what the zoning of the subdivision northwest of this area is. Mr. Eberly responded that it is Bramblewood, which is zoned R-2. Mr. Birlson stated that he would prefer to see more of the larger lots.
Mr. Panczuk asked if the intersection at 101st Avenue will have a left-turn lane for eastbound traffic. Mr. Slager responded in the affirmative. Mr. Panczuk requested that the path they are installing be an 8-foot width to link to the bike path. Mr. Panczuk noted that there is a high percentage of 80-foot lots.
Mr. Slager advised that this is a 40-acre parcel of land on the west side of Calumet Avenue and south of Greystone, Unit 2, formerly known as the Sikma farm. They would like to develop a mix of cottage homes and duplexes. The sidewalk will be continued to nearly the school property. They are stubbing a road over to that little sliver of land by State Line Road for connectivity to the west. It will be stubbed to the south to the school area. They will continue the bike path. It will be an R-3 PUD, which is what the other sections are zoned. The front-yard setback will be 25 feet.
Mr. Slager noted that the duplexes or the paired villas are around the perimeter and the cottage homes more in the center. It will have curved roads. High development and architectural standards will be required. There will be a professional office lot at the corner.
Mr. Kennedy asked how far west the high school goes compared to the property. Mr. Slager stated it is about
Ms. Little stated that she is not a fan of the paired villas and requested that they reduce the number of duplexes or eliminate them altogether. Mr. Birlson concurred.
Mr. Slager stated that maintenance-free homes are in demand. Quite a few of them are purchased by St. John residents who want to get away from the larger lots and homes. Mr. Slager commented that they have higher-end duplexes and focus on quality. He noted that paired villas in Greystone currently have a value of $250,000 to $350,000 per side.
Mr. Panczuk asked if there is an opportunity to have more professional office spaces in their development. Mr. Slager stated they would wait until they get at least one user before the 5-acre triangle parcel will come in as a one-lot subdivision for multi-use buildings.
Mr. Slager stated that this property lies directly north of Rosewood and is a 30-plus acre parcel with woods and water. It will be zoned R-1 with no special variances. There are a couple of lots that front into Rosewood. They would like to put in a trail to connect the two sides. A variance may be needed for the long cul-de-sac off of White Oak Avenue.
Mr. Birlson asked if the bike path ties into Alvina Court. Mr. Slater responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Kennedy asked if the reason there can’t be more connectivity, because of bad soils, is due to wetlands and DNR telling them they can’t or money. Mr. Slager responded that it is all of that. It just is not possible.
Mr. Slager commented that there are two single-family lots that include a small detention area, brings all the previous phases together, and brings the project to the area that will be the park.
Mr. Kraus asked how far along the infrastructure is. Mr. Slager responded that the sewer and water will be completed this week and would start paving the streets next week. The retention pond is in and seeded. Mr. Slager noted that they do not plan on the surface coat this year and will likely ask for a bond on that.
Mr. Slager said this is the next section of single-family. This will be the third phase of single-family in that subdivision. This will tie into dead-end streets, and this is a two-three year supply of lots. There will be one more single-family phase after this. Sewer and water lines are installed, and Walsh & Kelly started laying the stone for the roadway.
Mr. Eberly stated that Lot 69 is slightly different by about 140 feet smaller than the Primary Plat. This plat substantially complies with the Primary Plat
Mr. Eberly advised that he handed out a document called the Zoning Ordinance Review to be used as a starting-off point. He emailed an electronic copy to everyone earlier in the day. There are 19 or 20 chapters to the Zoning Ordinance altogether. Several of them have very minor changes or none at all. For instance, Chapters 1 and 2 have no changes. Mr. Eberly recommended doing the changes in a comprehensive manner and cautioned that it would take time to get through all of it. They will only go over this at the Study Session meetings for quite some time.
Mr. Kennedy advised that it will be a motion to the Town Council to recommend the changes.
Mr. Panczuk asked that all the members read the document and call Mr. Eberly if they have any questions.
Respectfully Submitted;
Margaret R. Abernathy, Recording Secretary
St. John Plan Commission
Absent: Yolanda Cardona.
Mr. Birlson Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Mr. Gillette Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Mr. Gill made a motion to defer the August 5, 2020, Regular Meeting and the July 15, 2020, and the August 19, 2020, Study Session minutes; Ms. Wohland seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote.
Mr. Birlson Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Mr. Gillette Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Attorney Kuiper was present on behalf of LBL Development and reviewed the subject property, a 25-lot subdivision located at the south end of the project, which has been in town for years.
Mr. Kennedy read Mr. Kraus' review letter, which finds that the plat is satisfactory.
Mr. Kennedy opened the floor for the Public Hearing. Having no one come forward to speak, Mr. Kennedy closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the Board.
Mr. Birlson made a motion to approve the Primary Plat for The Gates of St. John Pod 21B. Ms. Wohland seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote.
Mr. Birlson Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Mr. Gillette Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Attorney Kuiper requested that the agenda item G, The Gates of St. John East, Units 21, 23, and 26, Secondary Plat, be deferred.
Mr. Gill made a motion to defer item G; Mr. Birlson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote.
Mr. Birlson Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Mr. Gillette Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Mr. Slager requested a favorable recommendation to the Town Council to zone this project from Open Space to R-1. Mr. Slager showed a conceptual drawing and noted that they had the engineering is not done yet.
Mr. Gillette asked how the bike path would tie into the existing Preserve. Mr. Slager explained the bike path they currently have runs along the west side of White Oak Avenue and stops near the north limit of Rosewood. They intend to continue the bike path up along the west side of White Oak Avenue to 93rd Avenue and tie it into this development with a crosswalk at the entrance on the north side of Lot 1.
Mr. Slager noted there would only be one entrance from White Oak Avenue with proper accel/-decel lane with no direct driveways onto White Oak Avenue. A roadway connection to 96th is impossible due to wetlands, flood plains, and waterways. There is approximately a 10-foot path that could connect the two sides for walking and biking.
Mr. Kennedy opened the floor for the Public Hearing.
Jean Mizicko, 12480 Acorn Court, remonstrated against this project due to drainage issues.
Wayne Piotrowski, 12491 W 94th Court, remonstrated against the project as he doesn't wish to lose the view of the natural wildlife habitat.
Jason King, 9468 Hilltop Drive, remonstrated against the project as he bought his property for the open space and views of nature.
Larry Ellis, 9721 Rosewood Drive, inquired how the two lots at the bottom of the plat will be accessed and remonstrated against the new subdivision due to the Town's recent water issue.
Jody Ellis, 9721 Rosewood Drive, remonstrated against the project because of drainage issues and loss of the natural surroundings.
Having no one else coming forward to speak, Mr. Kennedy closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the Board. He asked Mr. Kraus to address some of the items mentioned.
Mr. Kraus addressed the water issue, which is due to the drought and additional watering of the lawns, and assured everyone that the Town has plenty of water to serve the subdivisions listed on the agenda tonight.
Mr. Panczuk explained what the Town was doing to address the water issue due to the drought this past summer.
Mr. Slager stated that they were just made aware of some of the drainage problems and explained that the drainage comes from the north and flows through the middle of the project. The previous owner had blocked it off, and they will be removing that obstruction. Mr. Slager noted that the wildlife preservation was removed before they purchased the land. He also noted that the two lots at the south would front into Rosewood Estates on Alvina Rose Court, which is a public road. The homes will meet or exceed the building requirements in the covenants of Rosewood Estates.
Mr. Eberly advised that 17 single-family homes could be built on Open Space with R-1 zoning; they are presenting 30 single-family homes.
Mr. Slager stated that this is a rolling parcel with homes and homesite values of approximately $800,000 to $1 million. He advised that they will be seeking a waiver for the cul-de-sac length.
Mr. Birlson made a motion to send a favorable recommendation to the Town Council to rezone this parcel from Open Space to R-1. Mr. Gill seconded the motion. Motion carries 5 ayes to 1 nay by roll-call vote.
Mr. Birlson Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Mr. Gillette Aye
Ms. Little Nay
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Mr. Eberly advised that the number of lots has been reduced to 136 lots to have wider lots than what was introduced originally.
Mr. Slager stated that they would like to rezone this from Open Space to RC-1 PUD. They want to preserve the land, and they are looking at digging an 8-acre lake in the project. It is a mix of 66 lots at 80 feet, 22 at 90 feet or better, and 46 lots at 100 feet or better. They will allocate land and set it to the side to continue the bike path from Saddle Creek that will run up along the creek, cross the creek at the bridge on Waterleaf Drive, and run up to 93rd Avenue. Of the approximate 134 acres, 73 acres will be Open Space.
Mr. Kennedy opened the floor for Public Hearing.
Leslie Poplon, 9555 Julia Drive, requested they preserve the natural areas as promised.
Ron Johnson, 9595 Julia Drive, spoke about drainage and traffic issues and did not want to lose the open space area.
Joyce Buikema, 9645 Julia Drive, requested that they avoid developing anything on the west side of the tree line.
Jeanne Degrauwe, 14310 W 101st Avenue, requested a permanent barrier between the project and her property, a horse farm on 16.8 acres just west of the project, and she is concerned for the safety of the horses.
Kevin Kreis, 9705 Julia Drive, remonstrated against the loss of open space and expressed concern about the water shortage issues.
Mr. Kennedy closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the Board.
Mr. Slager advised that the density is 1.4 and that the green space would be a mix of manicured landscaping and natural greenspace. He noted that they don't search out properties; sellers come to them when they are ready to sell and offer them the land first due to the developments they build. Mr. Slager stated they require trees to be planted by builders and homeowners in addition to the trees they plant. A total of 73 acres of the 134 acres is being left as green space. The ultimate buildout timeline of this area is approximately ten years.
Mr. Birlson asked if they are allowed to plant trees in a flood plain. Mr. Slager responded in the affirmative.
Ms. Little asked if they would be willing to go with a lower density. Mr. Slager stated that they would look at manipulating the numbers, and he would be comfortable with a cap of 136 lots.
Mr. Birlson stated that the Plan Commission Members legally could not stop development based solely on the homeowners' desires to preserve the view. Ms. Little stated that, while that is true, they can require less density. Discussion ensued.
Mr. Eberly requested that the requested barrier be addressed. Mr. Slager agreed to take it back to the development team.
Ms. Wohland made a motion to defer; Ms. Little seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote.
Mr. Birlson Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Mr. Gillette Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Mr. Slager requested to rezone this parcel from Open Space to R-3 and C-1, containing 47 paired villas (duplexes), 50 cottage homes, and one commercial lot. They tweaked the design since the last Study Session to eliminate four duplex lots, rework the streets, extend the park area a bit, and add a C-1 professional office lot along Calumet Avenue. The sidewalk along Calumet Avenue will be extended towards the schools. The project will have extensive landscape and design requirements with maintenance-free units. The cottage homes are averaging $350,000 to $400,000 each; the duplexes averaging $250,000 to $350,000 per side. The change makes it 140 units on 40 acres. In exchange, he would request a right-in/right-out between Lots 2 and 3 so that all the traffic for those businesses is not going into the subdivision.
Mr. Kennedy opened the floor for Public Hearing.
Anna Urquiza, 14928 109th Avenue, Dyer, expressed concern about the impact the additional wells may have on her well water on her land and wanted to know how and when she will be informed of that impact. (Mr. Kraus explained how the well-testing process and the well-distribution system work.)
Theresa Birlson, 9520 Joliet Street, commented that she feels it would be advantageous to have a community center in that area to keep senior citizens moving into that area to maintain the higher home values.
Mr. Kennedy closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the Board.
Mr. Slager stated that the buyers for this area are typically retired residents due to maintenance-free living.
Mr. Birlson stated that he is concerned with the amount of cottage homes and paired villas. Discussion regarding density and duplexes ensued.
Mr. Kennedy called for a motion several times. None were forthcoming, so Mr. Slager requested a deferral.
Ms. Little made a motion to defer; Mr. Gill seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote.
Mr. Birlson Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Mr. Gillette Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Mr. Eberly advised that the Developmental Fee was paid and that a Letter of Credit has been submitted.
Mr. Birlson made a motion to approve the Secondary Plat. Mr. Gill seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote.
Mr. Birlson Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Mr. Gillette Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Mr. Birlson made a motion to send a favorable recommendation to the Town Council to accept the Letter of Credit in the amount of $45,048.30; Ms. Wohland seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote.
Mr. Birlson Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Mr. Gillette Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Mr. Slager stated that the Developmental Fee was paid earlier in the day.
Mr. Birlson made a motion to approve the Secondary Plat. Ms. Little seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote.
Mr. Birlson Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Mr. Gillette Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Respectfully Submitted;
Margaret R. Abernathy, Recording Secretary
St. John Plan Commission
A. 2019-0010 THE GATES OF ST. JOHN EAST UNITS 21, 23, AND 26 – Secondary Plat – (Petitioner: John Lotton)
Mr. Kennedy advised that the next item on the agenda is The Gates of St. John East. The petitioner is seeking Secondary Plat approval of Units 21, 23, and 26.Attorney Tim Kuiper stated that this project contains 135 Lots in The Gates East. He referenced Mr. Kraus’ review letter dated September 15, 2020, and asked for signatures to be withheld on the Mylars until the improvements are completed, inspected, and approved.
Mr. Kennedy read Mr. Kraus’ review letter, which finds that the plat is satisfactory with the following exceptions and/or omissions:
a. Lots 2108 and 2109 have been removed from this plat. There was planned a 28.49’ wide Outlot between these lots that was to serve as a stormwater easement and access drive to the future Town Well #8.
b. Lots 2140 and 2141 have a different configuration that makes Lot 2140 smaller and Lot 2141 larger. Together they have the same square footage as shown on the Primary Plat.
Mr. Panczuk asked about the well easement. Attorney Kuiper responded that the well easement would be in the next phase. Mr. Kraus stated that lots 2108, 2109, and an outlot that would serve as an access easement for the future well site were removed from this plat and would be included in another phase.
Mr. Kennedy asked if the reduction in the size of Lot 2140 would cause an adverse effect. Mr. Eberly responded that it would not because the total square footage of Lots 2140 and 2141 is the same.
Ms. Cardona asked if there are any other changes to the Primary Plat. Mr. Kraus noted that Lots 2140 and 2141 are the only change as Lots 2108 and 2109 are simply on a different plat. Attorney Kuiper noted that Lot 2102 had an easement for stormwater included inside the lot rather than a separate outlot. Mr. Kraus advised that the lot next to Lot 2102 will have an easement for the outlot of the detention basin and to provide an overland flow for an emergency spillway.
Mr. Gill made a motion to approve the Secondary Plat for The Gates of St. John Units 21, 23, and 26, contingent upon receipt of the development fee and withholding signatures on the Mylars until improvements are complete; Mr. Gillette seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.
Mr. Birlson Aye
Ms. Cardona Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Mr. Gillette Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Respectfully Submitted;
Margaret R. Abernathy, Recording Secretary
St. John Plan Commission
Mr. Eberly advised that this will be on the October 7, 2020, meeting for the Public Hearing. Mr. Lenting will be asking for Primary Plat and Secondary Plat approval, which is standard procedure for a one-lot subdivision.
Ms. Wohland commented that there were neighbors who spoke in favor of his petition at the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting.
Mr. Slager noted that they were here at the last meeting to request 136 lots at about a 1-unit per acre density. He noted that they eliminated all the 80-foot wide lots. The project shown now has 137 lots with sixty 90-foot lots and seventy-seven 100-foot lots. The green space decreased from 73 acres to 70 acres. The plan is still a conceptual plan and may change at engineering. They are reserving land for a bike path and will have a walking trail on the east side of the lake. The distance between the two entrances between this subdivision and Silver Leaf on the south side of 101st avenue is 250 feet.
Mr. Slager stated that they meet or exceed the standards of an R-1 subdivision from a developmental standpoint. Mr. Eberly confirmed the same.
Mr. Slager stated that this property is currently zoned Open Space, and they want to rezone it to an R-3 PUD and a C-1 PUD. The school property is to the south and Calumet Avenue to the east. Mr. Slager noted that Mr. Ron McFarland of McFarland homes is here this evening to answer questions about the units themselves.
Mr. Slager stated that when they buy a piece of land, they look at what will be the highest and best use. They feel that their request is the right product for this land. Mr. Slager read and referenced residential development in the Comprehensive Plan. He noted the request for that product and added that this property is on the fringe of town.
Mr. Slager asked the Plan Commission if duplexes are completely off the table or if they are simply wanting more space between the residences.
Mr. McFarland spoke about the similarities between the cottage homes and duplexes and noted that the split is about a 50-50 split of those wanting duplexes and those wanting cottage homes. He commented that the cottage homes are $325000 -$450,000. Duplexes are $250,000 per unit. Mr. McFarland noted that the mix of homes is fairly equal.
Mr. Slager commented that they did do an R-2 layout to show the difference, but it is a grid pattern and not very pleasing to the eye. Mr. Slager also noted that they require high architectural standards in their developments.
Multiple Commissioners expressed a desire for more single-family residences on larger lots.
Mr. Slager responded that they started with this type of product in Greystone, and it is what they would like to continue to provide.
Mr. Slager noted that this will be The Preserve at Rosewood Estates that received a favorable recommendation to the Town Council. The design will exceed the requirements of Rosewood Estates. Mr. Slager stated that they would like to have the primary plat public hearing at the November meeting pending the approval of the Town Council.
Mr. Eberly advised that the release of the bond requires action for a recommendation from the Plan Commission that the Town Council would act upon at a meeting following said recommendation.
Mr. Eberly commented that he sent the members his recommendation for changes to Chapters 1-11. He knows that the members have only had the recommendation for a few days and that it is up to them if they wish to discuss them tonight or have more time to review them first.
Mr. Eberly noted that the setback should be measured to the foundation, not the overhang of the structure since rooflines can change. He further noted that he included a copy of an ordinance that was created a couple of years earlier to make that change as an example; however, it was never acted upon.
Mr. Eberly asked Attorney Decker if the Zoning Ordinance can tie the hands of the Board of Zoning Appeals with language on a variance. Attorney Decker responded that the Board of Zoning Appeals is the only body that can approve or deny variances from development standards in the Zoning Ordinance unless it is part of a PUD.
Mr. Kennedy advised the members to make their comments to Mr. Eberly and the other board members by email so everyone can be prepared to discuss them at the October Study Session.
The Commission discussed the need to have a prohibited tree list that matches that of the Indiana Department of Natural Resources and discussed the dangers to infrastructure for trees planted in the parkways in subdivisions.
Mr. Panczuk brought up changing the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan what is currently deemed “Town Center”; and the Commission had a brief discussion on the same.
Respectfully Submitted;
Margaret R. Abernathy, Recording Secretary
St. John Plan Commission
Absent: Jon Gill and Michael Gillette.
Mr. Birlson Aye
Ms. Cardona Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Mr. Birlson made a motion to approve the meeting minutes for the August 5, 2020, Regular Meeting, the July 15, 2020, Study Session, and the September 16, 2020, Special Meeting; Ms. Little seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote.
Mr. Birlson Aye
Ms. Cardona Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Mr. Eberly advised that all items are in order for this petition to proceed.
Mr. Lenting noted that there was a house built on two lots before, and he would like to build a new house on those lots as a one-lot subdivision.
Mr. Kennedy opened the floor for Public Hearing. Having no one come forward to speak, Mr. Kennedy brought the matter back to the Board.
Mr. Kennedy read Mr. Kraus’ review letter, which finds that the plat is satisfactory. The Developmental Fee for this project is $900.00.
Mr. Kraus advised that the plat he has is ready for Secondary Plat.
Mr. Eberly advised that the Developmental Fee has been paid and further advised that both plats could be acted upon at this meeting with the understanding that the Secondary Plat won’t be signed for an additional 30 days.
Mr. Birlson made a motion to approve the Primary Plat for Lenting Addition; Ms. Little seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote:
Mr. Birlson Aye
Ms. Cardona Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Mr. Birlson made a motion to approve the Secondary Plat for Lenting Addition; Ms. Little seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote:
Mr. Birlson Aye
Ms. Cardona Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Attorney Kevin Hunt, General Counsel for Schilling Development, stated that they would like to rezone this from Open Space to RC-1 PUD. The development has no back-to-back lots. All 80-foot lots have been eliminated. The project will contain sixty 90-foot lots and seventy-seven 100-foot lots. The covenants will be very strong with high building requirements.
Mr. Eberly advised that all lots are at least 150-feet deep. The density is 1.01 units per acre on the proposal, which is under the 1.4 density allowed in an RC-1 PUD development. Both cul-de-sacs are longer than allowed in the old Subdivision Control Ordinance, which this plan needs to meet. If this plan is approved, you are accepting all these variances in conjunction with that plan.
Attorney Decker advised that if no action is taken at this meeting, a recommendation will have to go to the Town Council as a “no recommendation”.
Mr. Birlson made a motion to send a favorable recommendation to the Town Council; Ms. Cardona seconded the motion. Motion carried 4 ayes to 1 nay by roll-call vote.
Mr. Birlson Aye
Ms. Cardona Aye
Ms. Little Nay
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Attorney Hunt requested a deferral as Mr. Slager, who was unable to attend this meeting, has other options to present to the Board.
Mr. Birlson made a motion to defer; Ms. Little seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote.
Mr. Birlson Aye
Ms. Cardona Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Mr. Kennedy read Mr. Kraus’ review letter of the release, which stipulated that The Gates of St. John, Unit 7F and Shops 96 had not submitted as-built drawings and that a check in the amount of $5000 to cover the cost of the As-Built Drawings for the Gates of St. John Unit 7F was promised to be delivered today. If the check has been submitted, the Letter of Credit for this project may be released.
Mr. Eberly advised that he did receive a $5000 escrow check from BLB Development for The Gates of St. John, Unit 7F; however, he had not received anything for Shops 96.
Ms. Wohland made a motion to approve to send a letter of recommendation to the Town Council to release the Letters of Credit for Family Express; The Gates of St. John, Unit 10M; The Gates of St. John, Unit 6D; The Gates of St. John, Unit 7F; Greystone, Unit 1, Block 2; Greystone, Unit 1, Block 3; Greystone, Unit 2, Block 1; Greystone, Unit 2, Block 2; The Preserve, Unit 2; The Preserve, Unit 3; and Walden Clearing, Unit 1; Mr. Birlson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote.
Mr. Birlson Aye
Ms. Cardona Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Mr. Birlson made a motion to send a favorable recommendation to the Town Council to accept the Letter of Credit in the amount of $79,835.80; Ms. Little seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote.
Mr. Birlson Aye
Ms. Cardona Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Leslie Poplin, 9555 Julia Drive, expressed concern over the loss of trees and vegetation from the construction of The Preserve and requested a much less dense subdivision.
Chris Lafond, 10236 Windsong Way, remonstrated against all the development in Hanover Township because it is causing a hardship to the school district and expressed concern over the lack of parks available.
Kevin Kreis, 9705 Julia Drive, expressed concern for all the development going on and the loss of open space and natural areas.
Attorney Hunt noted that there would be conservation easements and hope to maintain as many trees as possible.
Mr. Kennedy noted that Mr. Rick Eberly is moving on to better things. He has elevated the Building and Planning Department, and Mr. Kennedy appreciates everything that Mr. Eberly has done for St. John.
The other members, Mr. Kraus, Mr. Panczuk, and Mr. Phillips gave heartfelt goodbyes to Mr. Eberly. Mr. Eberly returned the kind sentiments to everyone.
Respectfully Submitted;
Margaret R. Abernathy, Recording Secretary
St. John Plan Commission
Also Present: Craig Phillips, Town Manager; Kenn Kraus, Town Engineer; Adam Decker, Board Attorney; Paul Panczuk, Town Council, and Bryan Blazak, Town Council
Absent: John Kennedy, President.
On the cottage home and duplex project, there were 144 units and they are now down to 101 single family homes. Mr. Slager requires some feedback to either kill it, accept it or massage it, and is open to suggestions. The developer likes the maintenance free product and it sells well, but if the Commission prefers the single family, which is still in sketch-phase, they would still need to go through Engineering. The cottage lots are 60ft wide and the duplexes are 90ft wide, or 45ft per unit. A straight R2 according to the Zoning Ordinance does require a 100ft lot, and allows down to an 80ft. with special exception. In this case, the side yard would remain at 8ft, meaning the homes would not be closer to the property line. They are flexible with the materials, however if the Commission has restrictions, they can apply those here. As a standard, they follow high architectural review. For the next meeting, Mr. Slager would present an outline of the architectural standards and create some controls.
Mr. Slager directed a question to Mr. Deker with regards to the original application, which was prepared for an R3-PUD and will be amending their request for a favorable recommendation to the Town Council to consider R2-PUD. Mr. Deker responded that there would not have to be a reapplication. At the November 4th meeting, Mr. Slager will be requesting favorable recommendation to the Town Council for this plan. Mr. Deker reminded the Planning Commission not to accept any plan until it is fully satisfied that the PUD Development plan has been submitted in full by the developer and are prepared to consider each of those items.
The original intention with the smaller units was to have them be maintenance free, however, with the single family homes it does not work well due to the larger properties.
Mr. Arshami listed out the specific standards set by the state to establish the fee. Also, that the fee collected are assigned to capacity development and road improvements as established in the Comprehensive Plan which is updated to reflect any new projects. The companion manual is the thoroughfare plan which defines the process and activities.
Mr. Arshami proceeded with the manual that was distributed to the members which spells out the actions taken and the processes for moving forward. For the future, they will rely on the Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Map and the Comprehensive Plan. Using the tools, they established and forecasted the trip generation for future uses. The time horizon is typically ten (10) years, so they can project the future impact. They ran traffic forecasting based on future development. They established the level of service based on the current traffic patterns and expectations going forward. Level D was selected for this purpose which is tolerable but still requires significant improvement to the roads. Based on the analysis, the growth related road projects had to be identified and the cost determined. A fee schedule needed to be prepared to address those costs, and separate those costs based on the existing deficiencies and the future growth related deficiencies. The fee can only be applied to the growth related deficiencies. They determined the fee per cost of each trip. The measure for the fee becomes the cost of each trip.
Once the analysis of the land use is done and identified and the potential growth of the future, they reviewed specific project sites into three categories: First is the developable land and where will it occur; second is the plan development, which are projects that are underway; and third is the existing vacant lots that will be developed over the next ten years. These categories are analyzed, the units identified, now called Service Units, and can be residential or commercial. These Service Units represents one single family home or 1,000 sq. ft. of commercial development. The Service Unit is also referred to an EDU (Equivalent Dwelling Unit). These have been identified for the next 10 years. It is determined that the total residential service units for the next 10 years is 2,993 and the total for all land uses is 3,948. Based on this growth, they ran traffic models for each land use to determine the growth related traffic. The individual trip cost of $372 is the result.
Options to calculate the fee are either a flat rate based on EDU or $3,879.15, or a fraction of calculated EDU fee. A single family home represents one EDU, therefore the fee would be $3,879.15. All other land use types are assigned an EDU using the ITE study, by which they are calculated by the fee. It was a unanimous decision to create a graduated fee rate starting at 70% for year one and increasing to 100% over the next 4 years.
They created a comparison of St. John to the other 4 communities that have implemented road impact fees. In each community, the fee was based on their own growth patterns. This comparison also points out the traffic and road issues St. John is experiencing. The overall thought is to not look at this plan as just a charge for the roads, but to see it as a guide for future decisions. For instance, a gas station could generate an average of 112 trips in 24 hours, whereby a medical facility could generate 15 trips, which could be considered when receiving proposals as to how the proposed new development would affect the road service level.
The next step would be for the Plan Commission to approve an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan at the November 4th meeting, if the committee can put the document together by then. Once approved, the plan would go to the Town Council to have the amendment approved and recorded. We can then return to the Plan Commission for the ordinance and the certification.
A question was asked as to what the EDU represents. An EDU or dwelling unit represents a doorbell. Residential, based on R1 to R3 have been identified using the Town’s plans as of June of this year and looking back at the historical growth data.
Mr. Blazak thanked the committee for all of their efforts. Mr. Birlson feels comfortable with the numbers presented. Mr. Arshami noted that the trip cost is a raw number at this time. There are methods used to assist with commercial developers by way of credits or fee reduction. State statute allows for developers to run their own traffic studies, present it to the Town, and may apply for a fee reduction.
A question was asked whether the Town Council would have an opportunity to change the rate. Also, what specific actions will the committee be seeking from the Town Council. There are two actions required, one of which is to approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment and to approve the certification.
Mr. Deker confirmed there are two things the Plan Commission will be doing. The first is to review the consideration of the Zone Improvement Plan, which is an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. There would be a Public Hearing held for the public to comment on the Zone Improvement Plan and at which time, the Plan Commission will vote to approve the Zone Improvement Plan and it will then be certified to the Town Council. The Zone Improvement Plan may contain analysis that was derived by the Advisory Committee regarding the rates which would be part of the ordinance. The statute requires that the Zone Improvement Plan be prepared prior to the adoption of the ordinance. Once the ordinance is prepared, it will be presented to the Plan Commission similar to a change in the Zone Maps. In that type of review, the Plan Commission will give notice and hold a Public Hearing to consider the Impact Fee Ordinance and at that time, the Plan Commission will vote to approve, recommend, not approve or recommend, or make no recommendation to the Town Council who will have the final say in consideration of adoption of the Impact Fee Ordinance. It is not anticipated this will all be done in one meeting. Due to the timing of the publication, the Zone Improvement Plan will not be ready for the November 4th meeting. May need to look at a Special Meeting sometime in November. Mr. Phillips noted that he will prepare a public notice for publication tomorrow to satisfy the requirement for the November 4th meeting and if the Zone Improvement Plan is not ready, they could open the Hearing and defer the matter to a new date. The publication would be same as the one drawn up for this evening’s meeting. It will be sent to the Clerk-Treasurer’s office for advertising. Mr. Panczuk added, should Mr. Arshami have the Plan ready, he would like to suggest there be weekly meetings to actively move the process forward.
Respectfully Submitted;
Anastasia Lowery, Recording Secretary
St. John Plan Commission/Town Council
Mr. Panczuk explained the reason for amending the Thoroughfare Plan in the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan Commission viewed the maps on the media screen and discussed those areas of the map that are being amended.
Mr. Kraus noted that the proposed extensions run through significant wetland areas. The cost of the Cline Avenue extension several years ago was approximately $1.5 million to complete without the poor soils being included in that cost. Those roads will not be normal roads being built in those areas; possible poor soils will need to be taken into account. Mr. Phillips responded that those have been taken into consideration in the cost estimates on the application being submitted to NIRPC, which does include the construction of a bridge to get over Beaver Dam Ditch as well as adjacent wetland areas.
It was noted that this would be a multi-year project that is being submitted now to try and obtain federal funding to help offset the cost of this project. Should the Town be awarded the grant for the funding, it would cover 70% of the cost, on average.
Mr. Birlson opened the floor for public comment.
Theresa Birlson, 9520 Joliet Street, expressed thanks to the Council for their efforts in trying to resolve some of the traffic issues that have been around for a long time.
Having no one else wishing to comment, Mr. Birlson closed the public hearing, brought the matter back to the Plan Commission, and entertained a motion.
Ms. Little made a motion to amend the Thoroughfare Plan in the Comprehensive Plan; Ms. Wohland seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote.
Mr. Birlson Aye
Ms. Cardona Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Mr. Gillette Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Attorney Decker advised that under IC 36-7-4-508(b), upon approval, the Plan Commission shall certify the amendment to the Town Council for its consideration.
Mr. Birlson Aye
Ms. Cardona Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Mr. Gillette Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Birlson adjourned the meeting at 7:15 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted;
Margaret R. Abernathy, Recording Secretary
St. John Plan Commission
Also Present: Craig Phillips, Town Manager; Kenn Kraus, Town Engineer; Adam Decker, Board Attorney; and Paul Panczuk, Town Council Liaison. A quorum was attained.
Plan Commission Regular Meetings: September 2, 2020, October 7, 2020
Plan Commission Study Sessions: August 19, 2020, September 16, 2020, October 21, 2020
Plan Commission Special Session: October 21, 2020
Mr. Gillett made a motion to defer the minutes, seconded by Mr. Birlson and carried by roll call vote with six ayes.
Ayes – Bob Birlson, Jon Gill, Mike Gillett, Donna Little, Nancy Wohland, and John Kennedy
Nays - None
President Kennedy stated this is the first time something like this has happened, but he would like to follow the attorney’s recommendation to defer the public hearing since public notifications have not been met by the petitioner. President Kennedy opened it up to the Board for discussion on the matter. Ms. Wohland agreed that if the Board does not have the necessary documents, it needs to be deferred. Mr. Phillips agreed and sated that in his experience, the petitioner is normally required to re-notice and provide the proper proof. Mr. Decker stated that would eliminate any doubt about whether or not the petitioner has complied with the notice requirements. Mr. Slager asked if that would include re-notification of all neighboring properties as well as rerunning the ads. Mr. Phillips stated that was correct.
Board Action
Ms. Wohland made a motion to defer the public hearing for Rosewood Estates until the December 2nd meeting, seconded by Ms. Little and carried by roll call vote with six ayes.
Ayes – Bob Birlson, Jon Gill, Mike Gillett, Donna Little, Nancy Wohland, and John Kennedy
Nays - None
President Kennedy read Town Engineer, Kenn Kraus’s, engineer review letter in to record.
Mr. Slager stated the Development Fee has been paid, and in regards to the conservation easement, many of the lots along that stretch have a line of trees that we are attempting to preserve, but these three lots did not have any trees. The conservation easement should not have been there for these three lots.
Public Hearing
President Kennedy opened the public hearing. With no one to speak for or against the petitioner, President Kennedy closed the public hearing.
President Kennedy stated since this is a residential plat, the petitioner will be seeking secondary approval at this meeting if primary is granted. This is a practice we have done in the past.
Board Action
Mr. Birlson made a motion to approve the primary replat of Continental Unit 2, seconded by Mr. Gillett and carried by roll call vote with six ayes.
Ayes – Bob Birlson, Jon Gill, Mike Gillett, Donna Little, Nancy Wohland, and John Kennedy
Nays - None
Mr. Birlson made a motion to approve the secondary replat of Continental Unit 2, seconded by Mr. Gillett and carried by roll call vote with six ayes.
Ayes – Bob Birlson, Jon Gill, Mike Gillett, Donna Little, Nancy Wohland, and John Kennedy
Nays - None
Cameron Wignal, Olthof Homes, stated all fees have been paid as of today. He stated he did not have a mylar or bonds for the project yet, but they will be submitted as soon as he receives them. President Kennedy asked if a letter of credit would be submitted or a bond. Mr. Wignal stated a letter of credit.
Board Action
Mr. Gill made a motion to approve the secondary plat for Mill Creek Unit 6, seconded by Mr. Birlson and carried by roll call vote with six ayes.
Ayes – Bob Birlson, Jon Gill, Mike Gillett, Donna Little, Nancy Wohland, and John Kennedy
Nays - None
Mr. Gill made a motion to make a favorable recommendation to the Town Council to accept a Letter of Credit in the amount of $52,030.00 from Oltholf Homes for Mill Creek Unit 6, seconded by Mr. Birlson and carried by roll call vote with six ayes.
Ayes – Bob Birlson, Jon Gill, Mike Gillett, Donna Little, Nancy Wohland, and John Kennedy
Nays - None
President Kennedy read Town Engineer, Kenn Kraus’s, engineer review letter in to record.
Board Action
Mr. Gill made a motion to approve the secondary plat for Summerlin Estates Unit 2, seconded by Mr. Birlson and carried by roll call vote with six ayes.
Ayes – Bob Birlson, Jon Gill, Mike Gillett, Donna Little, Nancy Wohland, and John Kennedy
Nays – None
Ms. Wohland made a motion to make a favorable recommendation to the Town Council to accept a Letter of Credit in the amount of $262,171.38 from Olthof Homes for Summerlin Estates Unit 2, seconded by Mr. Birlson and carried by roll call vote with six ayes.
Ayes – Bob Birlson, Jon Gill, Mike Gillett, Donna Little, Nancy Wohland, and John Kennedy
Nays – None
President Kennedy asked if the shown layout was what they were requesting approval on. Mr. Slager stated at the last meeting we only submitted a sketch. We sent that to the engineers to make sure it worked, and what is before you is what came back from them today. This would not necessarily be the final. Tonight we are only seeking a favorable recommendation to the Town Council for the R2 PUD rezone. We would still need to come back before the Plan Commission for plat approval, but this rendering gives you a good idea of what the proposed plat would be. President Kennedy stated the initial public hearing was for an R3 PUD, but this approval is for an R2 PUD. This is less dense, but it is not what the original public hearing was notified for.
Mr. Panczuk stated there is no such thing as an R3 PUD. In the end, a PUD is a custom layout that you have the control to specify what is and is not possible to do. A normal rezone is advertised as this is what it is going to be, R1, R2, C3, however the change may be. A PUD is a separate track where it can be any zoning, but the requirements are set forth. Along with that, you would need to specify with the findings of fact and attach the site plan with specification on lot size and a lot count. This is entirely customizable, so when the petitioner applied for this, they put R3 PUD, but in essence it is a residential PUD. Mr. Decker stated the Zoning Ordinance does categorize different levels of PUD’s for residential districts. He stated he did not disagree with what Mr. Panczuk stated regarding the general concept of the PUD, but the Zoning Ordinance provides that the owner applies to the Plan Commission with the PUD Development Plan and when that plan is presented, the Plan Commission is to review it and provide recommendations on that plan to the developer and owner. The Zoning Ordinance also requires that the Plan Commission hold a public hearing on the proposed change of zoning and the PUD Development Plan. The notice for this hearing did indicate that the proposed change was for an R3 PUD as opposed to the R2 PUD. If the Plan Commission is not satisfied with the PUD Development Plan as it has been presented, it has the right to defer the matter and provide feedback to the developer. The Plan Commission has the right to defer the matter, or act on the proposal as it has been received. President Kennedy asked what would happen if the petitioner originally came in with an R1 PUD, but then changed it to an R3 PUD, making it more dense. He stated he understood that is not the case, but an R2 PUD is not what the public heard. They heard a public hearing on an R3 PUD. Mr. Decker stated the feedback regarding an R3 versus an R2 should really have been heard before the public hearing. Currently the Zoning Ordinance is written as that interaction and feedback should be heard before the public hearing is held with the idea that feedback would give some direction to the developer to come back with a plan that it wants to move forward with its public hearing on. In this case, a lot of the feedback has occurred after the public hearing. At this point it is at the Plan Commission’s discretion to consider what has been presented. The hearing was held, which satisfies the Ordinance, but if the Plan Commission has concerns that the Development Plan has changed substantially, it could require that there be a hearing held on the revised plan.
Mr. Slager stated the public hearing was heard on September 2nd and there was limited to no remonstrators at that meeting. The agenda item was worded as “the petitioner will be seeking to rezone 40 acres on the west side of Calumet Avenue and south of Greystone Unit 2 from Open Space to PUD”. It did not specify R3 or R2. President Kennedy stated he would leave it up to the Board as to how they would like to proceed with denying or approving what has been submitted. Mr. Phillips stated the information that has been provided matches up with an RC2 PUD in regards to the home sizes. Mr. Gill stated R1, R2, and RC2 all have the same minimum square footage. That is the only specified square footage for those zonings. Mr. Phillips stated there is also an RC2 PUD and wanted to make sure that was not what was being requested. Mr. Gill stated if you read it in order, it falls under the RC2 heading, but historically we have applied it to the whole gambit. Mr. Panczuk stated we are going to have to clean up our Zoning Ordinance because a PUD is just a PUD, but it is being pinned with R1 or R2 to tell you that those are the underlying specs and then we specify how many things are not meeting the underlying specs. If you advertise R1 and the developer changes the zoning to R2 after the public hearing, you would need to start all over again. With a PUD you are changing as you are back and forth with it. Mr. Phillips asked if there were any specifications they are deviating from in this case. Mr. Panczuk stated the lot size will be different from a normal R2 zoning. They are requesting eighty feet instead of the one hundred feet. Mr. Phillips stated he wanted to be clear with what is being requested because we will need to draft an Ordinance to go back to the Town Council with the recommendation. Mr. Panczuk stated he was not telling the Board how to move forward with this, rather making sure they understood what exactly a PUD is and how it can be changed.
Mr. Slager stated he originally submitted a plan with 144 units on this parcel, but has morphed the plan in to 102 units total. Mr. Birlson asked if there were any renderings with the three-car garage. It is a nice idea to have that three-car garage requirement, but the concern would be the home looking like all garage from the street on an eighty foot wide lot. Mr. Slager stated they were flexible on that. The one thing we did not discuss much was the park. We have a pipeline that cuts between the last phase of Greystone and this phase. We have kept the lots a good fifty to one hundred feet off of the pipeline and have left green space to continue the bike path that was started along with landscaping around the path with berms and benches along it.
President Kennedy reiterated that the lot size width is proposed at eighty feet. Mr. Slager stated that was correct. President Kennedy stated the length is one hundred and forty. Mr. Slager stated that was correct. President Kennedy stated he would like to see square footage of all of the lots as well as renderings of the exteriors of the homes. Mr. Slager stated the minimum lot would be 11,200 sq. ft. and the max would be 20,800 sq. ft. Mr. Birlson asked if there were lots that were wider than eighty feet. Mr. Slager stated the majority are eighty, but there are some that are larger along the corners and curves. President Kennedy asked what the area south of the entrance way was. Mr. Slager stated that lot was platted with the previous phase of Greystone and is a professional office lot. We did have an inquiry from a 24-hour fitness company, which we think would be a good fit in that area. President Kennedy asked if the requirements were met with the pipeline easement. Mr. Slager stated we are not getting close to the pipeline or pipeline easement. President Kennedy asked if the architectural standards are similar to another area in St. John. Mr. Slager stated these are more restrictive than what we have around here currently, but similar to what the Preserves has. President Kennedy asked who the architectural review team was. Mr. Slager stated himself and the Schillings. President Kennedy asked if the number of trees were specified. Mr. Slager stated they are. Ms. Little asked if there was a possibility to have park equipment in the open space. Mr. Slager stated that was discussed, but it is not the ideal place to put a piece of equipment. We would be more open to benches and shelters. This bike path does connect across Calumet Avenue to Saddlecreek, which does have a park. President Kennedy stated they would like more time to review renderings of the homes as well as a plat with lot numbers and square footage at the next meeting. Ms. Little stated with 102 lot, a piece of park equipment would be nice.
Mr. Panczuk stated at the last meeting, the Board seemed to be favorable on this development being single family rather than duplexes. There are slightly smaller lots, but in effort of conserving property values, there would be stipulations placed on architectural features. The Plan Commission gave direction in that way, which is what you are seeing tonight. As a member of the Town Council, he asked Mr. Slager to consider a park area that could be worked on in the future with the Town because Ms. Little does have a point with this development now being single family and attracting families with younger children, as well as the surrounding duplexes that could benefit from it. Mr. Panczuk stated with PUD’s, platting happens now rather than after the rezoning. That then becomes part of the Findings of Fact that are presented to the Town Council. Mr. Slager stated they have also had their attorneys create the PUD Ordinance in other towns, but typically that comes between the approval of the Town Council and before platting. Mr. Panczuk stated we would really like the substantial technical details with the recommendation, which it seems you have provided that. President Kennedy asked if a sidewalk would be installed on Calumet. Mr. Slager stated it would be, it just did not make it on the drawing. Mr. Panczuk stated in the new Ordinance, we require a wider sidewalk on major thoroughfares. This development came in under the old, however it would be beneficial to look in to creating that larger sidewalk along Calumet.
Board Action
Ms. Little made a motion to defer Greystone Unit 3 until the December 2nd meeting, seconded by Ms. Wohland and carried by roll call vote with six ayes.
Ayes – Bob Birlson, Jon Gill, Mike Gillett, Donna Little, Nancy Wohland, and John Kennedy
Nays – None
President Kennedy stated there is another action that needs to be taken regarding Preserve West. We had made a favorable recommendation to the Town Council in October, but did not include the Findings of Fact. It would be appropriate to make a motion to amend the recommendation to include the Findings of Fact. President Kennedy read in to record the Findings of Fact.
Board Action
Mr. Birlson made a motion to add the Findings of Fact that were approved as part of the approval of the PUD for Preserve West, seconded by Ms. Wohland and carried by roll call vote with six ayes.
Ayes – Bob Birlson, Jon Gill, Mike Gillett, Donna Little, Nancy Wohland, and John Kennedy
Nays – None
| John Kennedy | Bob Birlson |
| Plan Commission President | Plan Commission Vice-President |
Also Present: Craig Phillips, Town Manager; Kenn Kraus, Town Engineer; Adam Decker, Board Attorney; Bryan Blazak, Councilman; and Paul Panczuk, Town Council Liaison. A quorum was attained.
Not Present: Donna Little
Mr. Arshami stated on page two, the process for the impact fee is shown which includes the consideration of traffic and land use. At some point at the end of this process, those two merge to generate a cost per trip. In our efforts, we came up with data to calculate a fee. He stated the growth potential was a major item of consideration for this calculation. We looked at developable land, existing subdivisions, as well as existing vacant lots. We also considered the market condition and what should be expected in the next ten years. Under bullet number three, there is a projected number of service units that consist of residential, commercial, and industrial, totaling 3,948. This unit represents either one single family home, or one thousand square feet of commercial space. President Kennedy asked why the total number of EDU’s in 2018 was 9,100, but today it is less than 4,000. Mr. Arshami stated the development capacity for the Town today shows somewhere around 8,000. That difference is natural because you have built over 1,000 units since we last did the study. You have also annexed areas over the last five years that has added to the numbers. One of several factors that came in to consideration this round is that we now have ten years of development history in the Town, which played a role in what the future would look like. This is a more realistic number of the future ten-year development in Town. One of the other major factors in the commercial side was that we had predicted 250,000 square feet to be added at that time, but only 100,000 square feet was. That reduces the traffic or impact significantly. There were several other developments at that time that we assumed were factors that were not true or active, and some have already been built since the last study. President Kennedy asked if the current numbers were too conservative because of how much development is currently going on. Mr. Arshami stated the advisory committee discussed this and what that market is. This is the number they felt comfortable with for the next ten years. It is good to be conservative rather than too optimistic.
Denny Cobb, First Group Engineering, stated part of the process is to look at your existing conditions of your roadway network today. In this process we set thresholds for characteristics beyond which we would need to put in improvements. For intersections this is defined as the level of service. It is based on how much delay happens at the intersection, and is figured by the intersection, approach and movement. These are given letter grades, A through F. Traditionally at level of service F, we look at how to improve things to get to a level of service D. We looked at the existing system today, in 2020, five years ago, and ten years ago. You have a natural growth in traffic, which is about 2% per year. We added that traffic to the existing and then did the same analysis to see the deficiencies in 2025 and 2030. We then added the development on top of that to see the deficiencies in 2025 and 2030 with growth. Traditionally we look at traffic volumes on the planning level in order to determine when to go from two lanes to three and three lanes to four. In recent years there has been pushback that gives the idea of slowing traffic through the community rather than adding lanes to accommodate the traffic flow. For this analysis, we used the lower thresholds to determine when we need to widen roadways as well as reviewing if there are areas with signalized intersections that work fine with one throughlane and seeing if widening needs to occur. This leads to a more conservative number in the way of improvement costs. President Kennedy stated two years ago the deficiency cost was $11 million with an impact of $81 million. Since we have a more conservative approach, we are dropping from $81 million to $20 million. Mr. Cobb stated in the first go-round, we did every single square foot of commercial property, but this time we reduced it to what the Committee felt was a proper absorption rate for the community which greatly reduced the trips. In that, you bring the threshold down for when you widen to four lanes. We had four lane roads in that first study, which we do not have now in this study. President Kennedy asked if $20 million was a conservative number in regards to the list of improvements that need to be made. Mr. Cobb stated that was a good number. We went conservative on the land use cost, but in all other areas it should be pretty accurate.
Mr. Birlson asked how many intersections need improvements. Mr. Cobb stated three. Route 41 and 93rd, Joliet and Route 41, and Cline and 93rd. We are currently working on the Joliet area, which leaves two intersections. When you move out to the year 2030, that number greatly increases. In order to come up with the trips for each usage that was identified, we followed many State regulated calculations.
Mr. Arshami stated on one side we have the land use and on the other we have the number of trips those land uses would create, which would be 55,669 different trips for different uses. We identified the uses via the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning so it relates to the land use. At the same time, we assigned extra trips to extra roads to create the deficiencies and costs. The total need for all deficiencies (current and growth related) is around $27 million, with approximately $6.7 million of that estimated to be existing deficiencies. When you have the total costs of the deficiencies, and the total number of future trips generated, you divide the two to get the cost per trip. It is important as planners to understand this in order to look at what future uses will add and the cost, which is currently $338.09 per trip. President Kennedy asked what a grant funding credit was. Mr. Arshami stated there are several different types of tax-payer based funds that the State requires a credit be given against the impact fee for those funds. Grants are one of those, which there were a few that St. John has received.
Mr. Arshami stated the trip cost is the basis of the impact fee. When you multiply the type of use and how many trips it creates on a daily basis, you get the trip cost. With a land use such as a single family home, there are 10.41 trips per single family home. If that is multiplied by $338 (the current cost per trip) you get $3519, which equals one service unit. Everything is measured on this basis. Mr. Arshami stated there is a list of potential fees that range from single family to multi-family homes to determine the impact fee and how it is charged. The Committee worked hard and discussed a variety of options for the recommended fee. There can either be a flat rate or a graduated basis that starts at a lower rate and gradually goes to the 100% rate. The Committee did approve the schedule that starts at 70%, with the fourth year hitting the 100% rate. In 2021, if everything is approved and implemented, the rate will be $2,463 and will eventually go up to $3,519 for single family homes. Mr. Arshami explained the table that indicates the fee ten years from now and what that revenue is projected to be.
President Kennedy asked if anyone in Lake County currently has a Road Impact Fee. Mr. Arshami stated no. President Kennedy asked what the biggest concern was of the Committee in adopting this. Mr. Arshami stated there were several concerns that the Advisory Committee member that is present can touch on. Mr. Panczuk stated he would like the Board to know that the Improvement Plan being adopted in to the Comprehensive Plan is step one with this study in case we would like to enact a fee. The Advisory Committee representative, Joan, stated the Committee took their responsibility very seriously in regards to how the numbers were developed as well as the potential impact on the Town. In regards to the reasonableness of the ten year numbers, we advised to bring the rate up from the original number due to the residential growth we have seen. However, we decided the commercial aspect needed to be scaled back due to the recent history of the Town and its commercial growth. We also discussed the impact on commercial developments and how we could minimize the impact and make it more palatable for that type of development. A lot of residents are looking for shopping and restaurants, so we did not want to deter commercial development with a high fee.
President Kennedy asked what some options were for commercial development. Mr. Arshami stated depending on the type of commercial development, there are several options that one could use. Particularly in this revenue table, it is an average cost over five years. None of the options that are typically available for a commercial development is applied to those. Right now, this is by the book. A developer could have other data that shows a different traffic number than what is in our table depending on their type of business. President Kennedy asked how a credit works. Mr. Cobb stated the Code for a shopping center is calculated by the exact square footage of that shopping center that we were given. When a developer comes in to develop, it could be different than what we were given. The developer will then have the option to use the average trip rate or the graphical trip rate. In this scenario the average trip rate would be beneficial to use because it will result in a lower value. To that you apply a reduction called a “pass by factor”. That is generated from people that are already on the street so it does not change the driveway count, but the number of new cars on the roadway. President Kennedy asked if the business pays for some sort of infrastructure, would there be a credit towards their impact fee. Mr. Cobb stated there is that type of credit as well. We need to work that out in the procedural side, but if a developer builds an intersection instead of the Town, he would be able to apply for a credit against his fee because it is a roadway that is used for public persons and not solely his access.
Mr. Panczuk stated when developers give over extra land for the right-of-way, that can also be considered for a credit. Mr. Arshami stated that was correct. It would be land in lieu of fee. Mr. Arshami stated he appreciated the work that has been done on the time tables by Town staff, since that is an item that needs to be submitted with the study to the State. This should give you a sense of where those improvements could occur over the next five to ten years. If there are funds available for some of these improvements, then the developers will directly benefit. Mr. Arshami gave examples of the four current communities that have a Road Impact Fee and how their fee structures are set up, and their comparison to St. John’s proposed fees. He also noted that these fees are dedicated funds that can only be used for road improvements and nothing else.
Mr. Birlson asked where the $3,097.20 came from for the five year estimated projected revenue on single family. Mr. Arshami stated because the Advisory Committee recommended the graduated fee scale, that is an average of the total fee that is proposed.
Public Hearing
President Kennedy opened the public hearing. With no one to speak for or against the amendment, President Kennedy closed the public hearing.
Ms. Cardona asked if they were voting on adopting the fee in to the Comprehensive Plan. President Kennedy stated it is an amendment to our Comprehensive Plan to include the Zone Improvement Plan which includes this Road Impact Fee Study. It would allow the Town to impose a Road Impact Fee, but not set the fee. Mr. Panczuk stated this data is plugged in to our Comprehensive Plan, and from that we set the fee. Mr. Phillips stated you will be asked at a later time to set the percentage of the fee. Attorney Decker recommended that the motion certify the Zone Improvement Plan amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. This is not a change to the Zone Map or text of the Zoning Ordinance. That will come with the approval or the recommendation of approval of the Impact Fee Ordinance itself. Tonight is only a vote to approve and certify the amendment of the Comprehensive Plan. President Kennedy asked if no motion is received, would it be no recommendation to the Town Council. Mr. Decker stated if no motion is made, there is no action taken and it would be deferred to another meeting.
Board Action
Mr. Birlson made a motion to forward a favorable recommendation to the Town Council to certify and amend the Comprehensive Plan to include the Zone Improvement Plan, seconded by Mr. Gillett. President Kennedy stated his only concern is that this study was just received a few hours ago. The motion carried by roll call vote 5-1.
Ayes – Bob Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, Nancy Wohland, Jon Gill, and Mike Gillett
Nays – John Kennedy
| John Kennedy | Bob Birlson |
| Plan Commission President | Plan Commission Vice-President |
Mr. Birlson made a motion to authorize Craig Phillips to advertise the Notice of Public Hearing for the Road Impact Fee Zone Improvement Plan to be amended into the Comprehensive Plan, allowing for public viewing of the report; Mr. Gillette seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by a 6-0 roll-call vote.
Mr. Birlson Aye
Ms. Cardona Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Mr. Gillette Aye
Ms. Little (No vote due to technical issues.)
Ms. Wohland Aye
Mr. Kennedy Aye
Respectfully Submitted;
Margaret R. Abernathy, Recording Secretary
St. John Plan Commission
Also Present: Craig Phillips, Town Manager; Kenn Kraus, Town Engineer; Adam Decker, Board Attorney; Bryan Blazak, Councilman; and Paul Panczuk, Town Council Liaison. A quorum was attained.
Jack Slager, Schilling Development, stated we advertised for the November Plan Commission meeting, but there was a glitch and one neighbor got missed. We have gone back and re-advertised for the December 2nd regular meeting. The area is basically the two lots from the old Kazbonie property that front in to the Rosewood Estates. We did notice at the last meeting that two neighbors were in attendance, and since that meeting we did speak with one of those neighbors and resolved some of their questions.
President Kennedy asked what the resident’s issues were. Mr. Slager stated he spoke with Ken Devries who lives on lot 25. His property comes to a point along Alvina Rose Court and we discussed buying the triangle piece off of him to plant a tree and give some additional screening. This will allow us to bring the sidewalk through the outlot that is along lot 1and tie it in with the sidewalks that are in Rosewood. Mr. Devries was satisfied with that. President Kennedy stated that after some discussion with Mr. Kraus he understood that they were looking for a sidewalk waiver. Mr. Slager stated lot 2 has an existing sidewalk in front of it, but we do intend to continue the sidewalk as far as we can on lot 1. When lot 1 is built on, the sidewalk that is in Rosewood will be continued along lot 1 until it reaches the intersection of Rosewood Court and then it will dive out to that intersection. It cannot go any further because the bridge is there and the grade drops about five feet off the curb. We will be missing about one hundred feet of sidewalk from the front of lot 1. President Kennedy stated his concern was some sort of connectivity to a driveway or some sort of front walkway that would lead to the front of that house. Mr. Slager stated he understood. Discussion followed regarding the placement of the sidewalk via a plat given to the Board.
President Kennedy stated one of the concerns was the distance between the structure and lot line. Mr. Slager stated the max width of a home will be about sixty-four feet, giving the eight foot sideyards. If you do a two-car garage, it will be about a fifteen foot sideyard. President Kennedy stated the minimum depth is one hundred and forty feet. Mr. Slager stated that was correct. The smallest lot will be eighty by one hundred and forty, 11,200 SQ. FT., and the largest is about 21,000 SQ. FT. President Kennedy asked if they would be providing the written Ordinance for the PUD. Mr. Slager stated that was correct. President Kennedy stated that Ordinance would then have all of the standards listed. Mr. Slager stated that was correct. The lot requirements are listed on the layout that is in front of you, and we were able to keep the forty foot rear yard setback with all of the home styles.
Councilman Panczuk asked if the yellow dots were trees on the map. Mr. Slager stated they were. They wanted to put a bit of a buffer between the backs of the homes and the playground area and path that are behind it. We also have some room to do some hills and berms between the homes and the bike path.
Mr. Panczuk stated so the Plan Commission is aware of the long term plan, Mr. Phillips worked on the pathways application recently with NIRPC. The segment that would connect where this ends to continue west to Bramblewood was discussed. We would like to see this path continued along 93rd around the corner in to the Bramblewood sidewalk at the very least. There are a few obstacles, but it seems like a logical connection. President Kennedy stated he was unaware of whose responsibility it was, but someone needs to make sure to have the proper hashings for people trying to get north and south of 93rd. Mr. Birlson asked if the park could be put in where the wooded area is. Mr. Slager stated that is where the park will be, it just does not show the wooded area properly on this map.
Mr. Slager stated he did not believe a vote needed to happen, but he wanted to bring the Board up to speed on what is being done. At some point in the spring we will be coming back in for a final for Phase 5. The lots will not be the exact dimensions as they were on the primary plat, but we are not adding or removing any lots, just adjusting some lot lines to adjust for the addition of the bike path.
President Kennedy stated the three classrooms would be along Park Place and the new building would be along Dewey, parallel to Park Place. Mr. Phillips stated this is in a PUD so it requires site plan approval, which they would submit for the December 2nd meeting. The biggest concern was adequate parking, and there is plenty of parking for the proposed addition. President Kennedy asked if the material would be the same as the existing material used for the rest of the school. Mr. Jubay stated it would be. President Kennedy asked if the drainage would be affected. Mr. Jubay stated we just had a site plan done by DVG, and they were pretty certain it would not affect the drainage. Mr. Kraus stated he would work with DVG to make sure there were no drainage issues.
| John Kennedy | Bob Birlson |
| Plan Commission President | Plan Commission Vice-President |
Also Present: Craig Phillips, Town Manager; Kenn Kraus, Town Engineer; Adam Decker, Board Attorney; Bryan Blazak, Councilman; and Paul Panczuk, Town Council Liaison. A quorum was attained.
Plan Commission Regular Meetings: September 2, 2020, October 7, 2020, November 4, 2020
Plan Commission Study Sessions: August 19, 2020, September 16, 2020, October 21, 2020, November 18, 2020
Plan Commission Special Session: October 21, 2020, November 9, 2020, November 18, 2020
Mr. Birlson made a motion to defer the minutes, seconded by Mr. Gill and carried by roll call vote with seven ayes.
Ayes – Bob Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, Nancy Wohland, Donna Little, Mike Gillett, Jon Gill, and John Kennedy
Nays – None.
Town Engineer, Kenn Kraus, stated they are currently purchasing a lot at the southwest corner of lot one so that will become a part of the area where the sidewalk can go up without crossing private property. Mr. Slager stated they would have the sidewalk tie in where the crossing is now. There is a little sliver of land there that we have negotiated to purchase from the homeowner. Mr. Birlson asked if that would be part of lot one. Mr. Slager stated that will be another outlot part of the HOA.
Public Hearing
President Kennedy opened the public hearing. With no one to speak for or against the primary plat approval, President Kennedy closed the public hearing.
Mr. Slager asked to receive the primary and final plat tonight due to the simplicity of the development.
Board Action
Mr. Birlson made a motion to approve the primary plat for the Preserve at Rosewood Estates, seconded by Ms. Wohland and carried by roll call vote with seven ayes.
Ayes – Bob Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, Nancy Wohland, Donna Little, Mike Gillett, Jon Gill, and John Kennedy
Nays – None.
Mr. Kraus asked if a contingency could be added to the secondary plat to include the triangle lot, lot 25, on the mylar. Mr. Slager stated that lot is not closed on so we would need a second document for that triangle piece. President Kennedy asked if the secondary plat is approved, to make it contingent on the recording of lot 25 within the next three months.
Mr. Birlson made a motion to approve the secondary plat for the Preserve at Rosewood Estates, with the contingency of the triangular piece of lot 25 being platted within ninety days, seconded by Mr. Gillett and carried by roll call vote with seven ayes.
Ayes – Bob Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, Nancy Wohland, Donna Little, Mike Gillett, Jon Gill, and John Kennedy
Nays – None.
Public Hearing
President Kennedy opened the public hearing. With no one to speak for or against the amendment, President Kennedy closed the public hearing.
President Kennedy asked if the affect the Road Impact Fee will have on future development in the Town of St. John was taken in to consideration in the numbers. Mr. Arshami stated they had used the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code as part of developing the analysis for the whole document. Once we developed the land use analysis, First Group Engineering used that data to project their traffic and recommendations as far as future improvements are concerned. President Kennedy stated he specifically means the fee being implemented and what impact that would have on development in the Town. Mr. Arshami stated yes, the Committee was diligent about deliberating those projections that as well. President Kennedy asked if other financial resources were talked about such as a wheel tax as a potential funding mechanism for the Town of St. John. Mr. Arshami stated if you look at the final version, we added a language that identifies those outside funding sources. It is there and it is up to the Council to pursue those as recourses.
Board Action
Mr. Birlson made a motion to forward a favorable recommendation to the Town Council to certify and amend the Comprehensive Plan to include the Zone Improvement Plan, as well as permission for the Town Council to adjust any minor changes that may need to be made that do not affect the substance of the study, such as typos, without having to come back to the Plan Commission for review and public hearing. Mr. Gillett seconded the motion. The motion carried by roll call vote with seven ayes.
Ayes – Bob Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, Nancy Wohland, Donna Little, Mike Gillett, Jon Gill, and John Kennedy
Nays – None.
Attorney Decker asked the Commission to complete the certification form that is in their packet and indicate the vote tally. Mr. Phillips requested that Mr. Birlson be allowed to sign the document since Ms. Little is not present at the meeting in-person. Ms. Little stated she did not have an issue with that.
Board Action
Ms. Wohland made a motion to defer the agenda item to the January meeting, seconded by Ms. Little and carried by roll call vote with seven ayes.
Ayes – Bob Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, Nancy Wohland, Donna Little, Mike Gillett, Jon Gill, and John Kennedy
Nays – None.
President Kennedy asked if there were still 102 lots. Mr. Slager stated that was correct. President Kennedy stated the only variance from our R2 zoning regulations is the lot width and overall lot size. Mr. Slager stated that was correct. We are also requiring even heavier restrictions than the Ordinance when it comes to siding type, landscaping, and encouraging three car garages. President Kennedy asked Town Engineer Kenn Kraus if the roadway standards had been reviewed. Mr. Kraus stated he had not received a design, but the lengths and widths are fine. Mr. Phillips asked if Mr. Slager would be preparing the PUD Ordinance. Mr. Slager stated they are working on it, but they want to include the final engineering in the PUD Ordinance so the Ordinance may not be ready. Mr. Phillips stated they do not need the final engineering. Mr. Decker stated that is basically correct. The engineering standards are not required unless the Council wants to make that a condition of the PUD Ordinance. Ordinarily they are not required, though. Mr. Slager stated we can have the Ordinance together pretty quickly. President Kennedy asked if the Commission needed to have the Ordinance to consider a recommendation. Mr. Decker stated the Ordinance that would approve the PUD is the Ordinance that changes the Zone Maps. The fact that the Ordinance is not in front of the Plan Commission does not deter or prohibit the Commission from acting on a favorable, unfavorable, or no recommendation to the Council. Having said that, in making any motion tonight, the Plan Commission can impose a requirement that the guidelines be incorporated in to the recommendation for a favorable approval. President Kennedy stated approval would be based on some of these guidelines. Mr. Panczuk stated all documentation that is required for a PUD per the St. John Zoning Ordinance is present. We require the PUD guidelines and Findings of Fact, along with a detailed site plan, which we have.
Board Action
Mr. Birlson made a motion to approve a favorable recommendation to the Town Council for the rezoning of Greystone Unit 3 from Open Space to R2 PUD, including the PUD guidelines that have been presented, and Findings of Fact. The motion was seconded by Ms. Little and carried by roll call vote with seven ayes.
Ayes – Bob Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, Nancy Wohland, Donna Little, Mike Gillett, Jon Gill, and John Kennedy
Nays – None.
Board Action
Mr. Birlson made a motion to approve a favorable recommendation to the Town Council to release the Summerlin Estates Phase 1 bond, seconded by Ms. Wohland and carried by roll call vote with seven ayes.
Ayes – Bob Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, Nancy Wohland, Donna Little, Mike Gillett, Jon Gill, and John Kennedy
Nays – None.
Board Action
Mr. Birlson made a motion to approve a favorable recommendation to the Town Council to release the Walden Clearing Phase 2 bond, seconded by Mr. Gillett and carried by roll call vote with seven ayes.
Ayes – Bob Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, Nancy Wohland, Donna Little, Mike Gillett, Jon Gill, and John Kennedy
Nays – None.
Board Action
Mr. Birlson made a motion for the Road Impact Fee Ordinance to be scheduled for a public hearing to be held during the Special Meeting of the Plan Commission on December 16, 2020 at 7:00 P.M., and that the Town Manager prepare and give notice of said hearing by publication, seconded by Mr. Gillett and carried by roll call vote with seven ayes.
Ayes – Bob Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, Nancy Wohland, Donna Little, Mike Gillett, Jon Gill, and John Kennedy
Nays – None.
Mr. Panczuk stated our Subdivision Control Ordinance calls for this two year warranty, which is a Plan Commission document. He recommended the Commission accept the letters and if the Town Council needs to as well, we can seek Counsel on that.
Board Action
Mr. Birlson made a motion to approve the maintenance guarantee letters for Walden Clearing Phase 2, Walden Clearing Phase 1, and Summerlin Estates Phase 1 and requested that counsel look in to whether or not the Town Council also needs to accept the maintenance guarantee letters. The motion was seconded by Mr. Gillett and carried by roll call vote with seven ayes.
Ayes – Bob Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, Nancy Wohland, Donna Little, Mike Gillett, Jon Gill, and John Kennedy
Nays – None.
| John Kennedy | Bob Birlson |
| Plan Commission President | Plan Commission Vice-President |
Absent: Jon Gill
Also Present: Craig Phillips, Town Manager; Kenn Kraus, Town Engineer; Adam Decker, Board Attorney; Bryan Blazak, Councilman; and Paul Panczuk, Town Council Liaison. A quorum was attained.
Taghi Arshami, Arsh Group Inc., stated this is a continuation of our efforts to establish a Road Impact Fee. By the Plan Commission’s action today, a recommendation will be sent to the Town Council for consideration of the fee amount.
Public Hearing
President Kennedy opened the public hearing. With no one speaking for or against the Ordinance, President Kennedy closed the public hearing.
President Kennedy stated the Impact Advisory Committee has recommended a phased fee of 70% in year one, 80% in year two, 90% in year three, 100% in year four, and 100% in year five. To my understanding, the Plan Commission can make changes to the fee structure if they so desire, but it is again the Town Council that has the final say on how the fee will be implemented. President Kennedy asked Mr. Arshami why the Committee felt the need to start at 70% and then increase by 10% each year after that. Mr. Arshami stated since this is a new program for the Town, the Committee was concerned and decided to implement it gradually rather than 100% right away. The concept of the graduated rate was the consensus of all members of the Committee. President Kennedy stated there is a credit option regarding the fee. For example, if a commercial development has roughly 1,000 sq. ft., the fee would be around $13,000 - $16,000 per 1,000 sq. ft. depending on the classification. If there is a 4,000 sq. ft. development, the fee would be anywhere from $52,000 - $64,000. That developer, or entity, could then fund some sort of infrastructure improvement that would then be donated to the Town in order to receive a credit towards the Road Impact Fee. Mr. Arshami stated the way the Ordinance has been drafted allows those types of credit for developers to claim. That is typically negotiated with the Town and is often to the benefit of the Town. You will look at it on a case by case basis depending on the traffic study and needs of the development. President Kennedy stated either a developer will pay the Road Impact Fee or be credited towards that fee by way of land donation or infrastructure improvement that will then be donated to the Town. Mr. Arshami stated that was correct and that it would be on a case by case basis.
President Kennedy asked Mr. Arshami’s opinion on the impact that the fee will have on commercial development. Mr. Arshami stated not all development impact is the same. There is a difference between such things as a gas station and medical facility, so it really is up to the Plan Commission to bring the transportation impact in to your decision making as you go through this planning process for the next five years. The traffic impact becomes much more visible in St. John versus other communities, and as a general rule, hopefully this will encourage you to consider the traffic impact on commercial development. There is also different impact that needs to be considered in regards to connectivity. If a development has connectivity to its surrounding areas via bicycle paths or walking paths, that actually reduces the vehicle traffic in that area, which would reduce their fee. Having said this, the goal is not to limit commercial growth, but rather develop smart growth. In the past ten years, the typical commercial development was about 21,000 sq. ft. and we anticipate that same scenario to continue. 21,000 sq. ft. of new development is not going to be significantly impacted by the Road Impact Fee. Mr. Arshami stated we also try to find ways to reduce the fee by really studying what the land use will be in a development.
Mr. Birlson stated it kind of looks like St. John is playing like there is a “sale” in 2021 versus 2024 due to the gradual increase in the fee. He stated he did not understand why the Committee decided to do the gradual increase because it makes it seem like it will be cheaper to build in 2021 versus 2022 or 2023 or 2024. President Kennedy stated he believed the Committee’s concern was more for commercial development and bringing that fee in slower as to not deter them. Mr. Birlson stated his recommendation is to implement 100% right away. It is so expensive to fix roads and we would be missing out on roughly $1,100 per house each year with the gradual increase. President Kennedy stated his concern is that the demand for commercial development would decrease because the fee would be so high. Mr. Birlson asked if the demand for commercial development is even there because he has not seen much commercial growth. Town Manager Craig Phillips stated this year is hard to judge because commercial development has been heavily affected by Covid, whereas residential development has not. We did take a look at the typical square footage over the past ten years and came up with the 21,000 commercial development per year, but that may not be a good parameter for this year due to Covid. Mr. Birlson asked what the fee would be on that. President Kennedy stated it depended on the use. Mr. Panczuk stated the 21,000 sq. ft. is a cumulative number, not just one specific development, but rather what was built throughout that year.
Ms. Cardona asked Mr. Arshami if he had seen a negative impact on commercial development in any of the areas that already have implemented a Road Impact Fee. Mr. Arshami stated all of the communities that have had a Road Impact Fee have renewed the Road Impact Fee. He stated he could not speak to how the fee has impacted those communities specifically, but the fact that they have renewed the fee indicates that it was not a major concern.
Mr. Panczuk stated these successful communities downstate have renewed and increased their fees. Without this Road Impact Fee the Town will have a harder time adding to its infrastructure. If we keep putting up houses at four hundred houses per year, the Town will be so gridlocked because we will not have the money to add to our infrastructure. In turn, no one will want to develop a grocery store or commercial development because we will be a mess. There are multiple intersections in Town that we are already having to figure out a plan to pay for improvements, and in the next five years, that list is only going to grow. President Kennedy stated the four communities that have this fee have a very strong commercial demand. Currently St. John seems to be a bedroom community, having more residential, and the demand for commercial does not seem to be there. He stated his fear is that the fee will deter commercial development even more. There are other mechanisms that communities in Northwest Indiana use to pay for roads that do not have the same impact on commercial development. It is a tool that should be available to the community to use, and if it only went for homes it would not be as deterring, but it is written that it has to go for all development.
Mr. Birlson stated when Shops on 96th was being built, a resident came in and listed all of the vacant commercial properties the Town had. He stated since then, he does not know how many have actually been filled and did not see the demand for commercial in the area. Residential always comes first, and then commercial. Maybe we are not there yet, but like Mr. Panczuk stated, we do need our roads.
Mr. Decker suggested that if the Plan Commission elects to make any changes to the Ordinance that has been presented, he would recommend that they direct himself to make the corrections and essentially start over and publish for a new public hearing. He stated in his opinion, if the percentages are changed, we would need to start over with another hearing. Mr. Birlson asked if the Plan Commission approves this tonight, when would it be in front of the Town Council for action. Mr. Decker stated there is a special meeting after this meeting, however they cannot adopt the Ordinance at that meeting. The statute provides that the Town Council can take it up at their first regular meeting after the action of the Plan Commission, which would be two weeks from tonight. Mr. Birlson asked if the Town Council decides to change the fee rate, would we need to make public notice again, or would it be done. Mr. Decker stated if the Plan Commission certifies the Ordinance as written and the Town Council then decides in two weeks to amend the Ordinance, that would not necessarily require another public hearing held by the Plan Commission. The adoption of an Impact Fee is the same as the adoption of a Zoning Ordinance as far as State statute is concerned. Mr. Decker looked further in to the statute and stated if the legislative body amends the proposal, the Ordinance shall be returned to the Plan Commission for its consideration with a written statement of the reasons for the rejection or amendment to the proposal. The Commission would then have forty-five days in which to consider that amendment and report back to the legislative body.
Ms. Cardona stated she understood Mr. Birlson’s point in making it 100% from the beginning, but it also makes sense to gradually introduce the fee. Overall, she stated she did not see any harm in leaving it as is and having it gradually introduced. Ms. Little stated her concern is with the commercial fee since it may negatively impact businesses from wanting to come in to Town, specifically Shops on 96th. Mr. Panczuk stated Shops on 96th is excluded from this fee. On the corner of 93rd and US 41 there is a vacant dentist office. When that property is developed, they will be forced to donate right-of-way to the Town. They would then get credit for the road impact fee, which in that area could satisfy the fee. Any development that needs to put in any sort of decel lane or right-of-way donations will be able to use that as a credit towards this fee. Previous to the thought of this fee, we did not have any sort of way to hold the developer to infrastructure improvements unless the traffic engineer said it was absolutely necessary. This fee puts a little more teeth to it rather than just using the honor system, but there are still multiple avenues for relief. Ms. Cardona stated she did not see an issue with commercial development not happening because of the fee. There has to be a way to leverage the cost of developing St. John and its infrastructures, and this is a legal way of doing it. This is a tool and a way to obtain funds to develop St. John the way that it is supposed to be developed. The alternative would be to have property owners pay for the development, so why not assess some type of protocol to have it done. President Kennedy stated other communities in Indiana use the wheel tax, which is based on the registered plate and is $25 per car. That is also a legal mechanism that we can use. It is scary to be the first to implement this in our community when the other communities that do this are all in the Indianapolis market, and our thought is what is best locally. Ms. Little agreed. She stated Schererville has a booming commercial development whereas we do not have many knocking on our door to come here and this may negatively impact their desire to come here rather than somewhere else. Ms. Wohland stated if we want to make a recommendation to the Council to do this, then we should suggest that they begin at a 100% fee rather than a progressive fee. We need to consider if we want to do it, and if we want to do it progressively or all at once. President Kennedy stated as a reminder, this is just a recommendation to the Council. Ms. Wohland stated she is on the side of doing it, but imposing it at the 100% fee and not the gradual fee that has been proposed.
President Kennedy asked if no motion is made, what would the next step be. Mr. Decker stated if no action is taken at this meeting, there is no certification and it would remain at the Plan Commission to consider it at a future meeting. If there are changes to be made, as directed by the Plan Commission, that direction needs to be given and then the Ordinance would be revised and resubmitted to the Plan Commission and will need another public hearing. If there is no direction to change the Ordinance at this meeting and there is no action, this will carry over to the next meeting and the Plan Commission can consider action at that meeting. Mr. Panczuk stated the graduating fee is a good idea because we have some recapture fees that will be falling off in the next few years, so this fee will be gradually implemented to the residential developers. In regards to commercial development, there is a great deal of interest in St. John, but we have discriminating landowners that are holding their price. For example, the owner of the K-Mart building has been approached many times by developers with money, but he refuses to move on price and is holding out for the “bigger fish”. That is true for multiple developments on US 41. This fee coupled with the credits will still allow development. The idea of phasing in will be helpful especially at this time with how Covid has impacted businesses and the pressure that some developments are facing due to neighboring store closures. He stated as one of five Councilman, he did not have an issue with gradually implementing the fee.
Mr. Arshami stated one thing to understand is that the Impact Fee will go in to affect six months after it is adopted, which would hypothetically be July if everything is passed. The 70% will only be in effect for half a year, not a full year, and then it will increase to 80% next year. Another consideration for commercial development is with the average that is projected for the next ten years, that includes the shops and a few other developments. When you look at this on an annual basis, you may impact 6,000 – 7,000 sq. ft. of commercial uses rather than 21,000 sq. ft. President Kennedy stated from the study, most of the revenue will be coming from residential rather than commercial. Mr. Arshami stated it was more than 50%.
Board Action
Mr. Birlson stated with the idea that some fees will be dropping off within the next few years for residential developers, he made a motion to certify and adopt the Road Impact Fee Ordinance at its current fee rates, seconded by Ms. Cardona. Mr. Decker recommended that the motion include a reference to the effective date of the Ordinance to be June 30th, and not June 16th due to the anticipated date of the Town Council meeting. The Ordinance cannot take effect any sooner than six months after the date of its adoption. For the reasons indicated earlier, the Town Council is recommended to take this up at its next regular meeting two weeks from tonight for consideration of adoption. The motion to certify the Ordinance must include the change of the effective date to June 30th, 2021. Mr. Birlson amended his motion to a favorable recommendation to the Town Council for the adoption of the Road Impact Fee Ordinance as drafted, with an effective Ordinance date of June 30th, 2021. The motion was seconded by Ms. Cardona and carried by roll call vote 4-2.
Ayes – Bob Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, Mike Gillett, Nancy Wohland
Nays – Donna Little, John Kennedy
President Kennedy took a moment to thank the Board members, Mr. Kraus, and Mr. Decker for their dedication this year. We make tough decisions and the Council looks at us to make those tough decisions. Hopefully we give them what we believe is the best direction for the Town of St. John.
A question was asked if the Town Council meeting following this should be cancelled since the Ordinance was the only thing on the agenda. Mr. Decker stated that meeting could be cancelled if this is the only item.
| John Kennedy | Bob Birlson |
| Plan Commission President | Plan Commission Vice-President |
Also Present: Craig Phillips, Town Manager; Kenn Kraus, Town Engineer; Adam Decker, Board Attorney; Bryan Blazak, Councilman; and Paul Panczuk, Town Council Liaison. A quorum was attained.
Mr. Belzin stated they had been in communication with Mr. Kraus regarding some items. He did have some stormwater questions, but stormwater detention was provided for the entire master plan for The Gates of St. John, which included this lot. In reality we do not need to do any new stormwater detention, just make sure the drainage flows away properly. If Mr. Kraus has any further questions, however, we will be in communications with him. Mr. Kraus stated he would like to see the onsite collection and runoff for a 100-year storm to make sure they are not blocking anything from getting through the detention areas.
Mr. Belzin asked what the next step was for platting. Mr. Phillips stated you would be looking at the February meeting since there is not enough time to get in to the January meeting. Mr. Belzin stated it would just be for the subdivision approval, not a site plan. Mr. Phillips stated that would be fine.
President Kennedy asked why lots 23 & 25 are so deep. Mr. Fleming stated we are accommodating the existing home that faces Parrish. Lots 23 & 25 would face east rather than Parrish, which would allow us to save the existing home without having someone else’s home setback to the point that it would be detrimental to the person building. The analogy we have been using is sleeping head to foot. By keeping the houses facing the interior road, it makes it to where they have views of the other person’s backyard.
President Kennedy asked if we knew the road classification of Parrish Ave. Mr. Phillips stated he did not know off the top of his head. President Kennedy stated it looked there would be a private drive going on to Parrish Ave. from lot 29. Mr. Fleming stated that was the intention. President Kennedy stated that he did not believe that would be appropriate on Parrish Ave. He also asked if connectivity to vacant land would be required. Mr. Phillips stated he believed that was correct that a stub would need to be created to the south. President Kennedy stated it also looked like the future development of 113th across Parrish was not taken in to consideration with where the lot lines were placed. Mr. Fleming stated they did not take the extension of that road in to consideration. We were working with the full twenty acres and trying to create the most conducive development design that we could. Currently, Mill Creek’s lots back up to the same north/south lot line that ours do. Mr. Birlson agreed with not having a driveway going on to Parrish.
President Kennedy stated the size of lot 5 would fall under an R-2 zoning, but lot 4 is 28,000 SQ. FT. Is there any way that line can be moved to enlarge lot 5. Mr. Fleming stated he had looked in to that, but we start getting in to an issue with the radius getting smaller on lot 4. Our engineer has told us that if we reduce lot 4 to increase lot 5, we would be hurting the width of lot 4 in such a way that we would not be balancing in a way that is beneficial to both lots. Ms. Little stated she agreed with Mr. Kennedy regarding lot 5 not working as is, and that if a stub is needed lot 5 may need to go away all together, as well as the elimination of the driveway on to Parrish for lot 29.
Councilman Panczuk stated at the minimum, Parrish is a minor arterial road. He stated he also agreed with the concern about the extra driveway on to Parrish, and that he was also concerned about the loop road. It may be better to have one entrance rather than two, and a stub to the south. President Kennedy asked if there was anything in the Ordinance regarding having multiple ways out of a subdivision. Mr. Panczuk stated we generally like multiple entrances, but this is also a much smaller development than what we normally deal with. Mr. Fleming stated the existing home has its own curb cut, so if we eliminate lot 29, we would only be looking at the two entrances to the property.
Mr. Gilletty asked if a decel lane would be installed. Mr. Fleming stated we have not gotten in to the design standards, but if that is required, we would not be object to it at all. Mr. Panczuk stated on lots 13 & 14 there is a little bit of wetland. Mr. Fleming stated that is correct. It could present an obstacle in stubbing a road to the south. Mr. Panczuk stated the road could possibly veer west and then south, but it could be a completely different arrangement if we went down to one entrance and then stubbed out to the south. Mr. Panczuk asked how many feet are between the two roads. President Kennedy stated roughly seven hundred and fifty feet.
Mr. Fleming stated he understood that until the annexation is done, they are on hold, but he would be happy to come back to another Study Session with an updated drawing. Mr. Phillips stated it is our intention to bring the annexation to the Council in January, so this can be added to the next Study Session if that would work for Mr. Fleming. Mr. Fleming stated he did not want to tell the engineer to go “full throttle” before step one of annexation is done.
| John Kennedy | Bob Birlson |
| Plan Commission President | Plan Commission Vice-President |
01-07-2020 Plan Commission
01-15-2020 Plan Commission Special Meeting
01-15-2020 Plan Commission Study Session
02-05-2020 Plan Commission
02-19-2020 Plan Commission
03-04-2020 Plan Commission
05-20-2020 Plan Commission
06-03-2020 Plan Commission
06-17-2020 Plan Commission
07-01-2020 Plan Commission
07-15-2020 Plan Commission
08-05-2020 Plan Commission
08-19-2020 Plan Commission
09-02-2020 Plan Commission
09-16-2020 Plan Commission Special Meeting
09-16-2020 Plan Commission Study Session
10-07-2020 Plan Commission
10-21-2020 Joint Town Council Plan Study Session
10-21-2020 Plan Commission Special Meeting
11-04-2020 Plan Commission
11-09-2020 Plan Commission
11-18-2020 Plan Commission Special Meeting
11-18-2020 Plan Commission Study Session
12-02-2020 Plan Commission
12-16-2020 Plan Commission Special Meeting
12-16-2020 Plan Commission Study Session
