Members present:
Mr. Birlson, Ms. Little, Mr. Vlasic, Ms. Wohland, Mr. Gill, Mr. Kennedy
Also present:
Mr. Phillips, Town Manager; Mr. Panczak, Town Council Liaison; Mr. Kraus, Town Engineer
Members absent:
Ms. Cardona, Mr. Decker
Mr. Kennedy asked for a motion to defer the minutes from all the following meetings:
Plan Commission Regular Meetings:
September 2, 2020, October 7, 2020, November 4, 2020, December 2, 2020
Plan Commission Study Sessions:
August 19, 2020, September 16, 2020, October 21, 2020, November 18, 2020, December 16, 2020
Plan Commission Special Session:
October 21, 2020, November 9, 2020, November 18, 2020, December 16, 2020
Mr. Gill made the motion to defer all Plan Commission Regular Meeting, Study Session and Special Session Minutes.
Ms. Wohland seconded the motion.
Mr. Phillips explained that there was a push to get someone hired to do the minutes for the meetings and bring others up to date. Mr. Kennedy questioned the Appointment of a Recording Secretary. Mr. Panczak suggested appointing Margaret Abernathy as Interim Recording Secretary.
Ayes – Mr. Birlson, Ms. Little, Mr. Vlasic, Ms. Wohland, Mr. Gill, Mr. Kennedy
Nays – None
Motion approved unanimously.
President
Mr. Birlson made a motion to nominate Mr. Kennedy for President of the Plan Commission.
Ms. Wohland seconded the motion.
Ayes – Mr. Birlson, Ms. Little, Mr. Vlasic, Ms. Wohland, Mr. Gill, Mr. Kennedy
Nays – None
Motion approved unanimously.
Vice President
A motion was made by Mr. Gill to nominate Mr. Birlson for Vice-President of the Plan Commission.
Ms. Wohland seconded the motion.
Ayes – Mr. Birlson, Ms. Little, Mr. Vlasic, Ms. Wohland, Mr. Gill, Mr. Kennedy
Nays – None
Motion carried unanimously.
Executive Secretary
Ms. Wohland made a motion to nominate Ms. Little for Executive Secretary.
Mr. Birlson seconded the motion.
Ayes – Mr. Birlson, Ms. Little, Mr. Vlasic, Ms. Wohland, Mr. Gill, Mr. Kennedy
Nays – None
Motion carried unanimously.
Appointment of Recording Secretary
A motion was made by Mr. Vlasic to nominate Margaret Abernathy, Interim Recording Secretary.
Ms. Wohland seconded the motion.
Ayes – Mr. Birlson, Ms. Little, Mr. Vlasic, Ms. Wohland, Mr. Gill, Mr. Kennedy
Nays – None
Motion carried unanimously.
Appointment of a Plan Commission Member to the BZA (Board of Zoning Appeals)
A motion was made by Mr. Vlasic to nominate Ms. Wohland as a Plan Commission Member to the BZA.
Mr. Gill seconded the motion.
Ayes – Mr. Birlson, Ms. Little, Mr. Vlasic, Ms. Wohland, Mr. Gill, Mr. Kennedy
Nays – None
Motion carried unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jan Barry, TC Recording Secretary
Commissioners present: Yolanda Cardona, Jon Gill, Donna Little, Jason Vlasic, Nancy Wohland, Bob Birlson, Vice-President.
Also present: Adam Decker, Board Attorney; Kenn Kraus, Town Engineer; Paul Panczek, Town Council Liaison, and Jason Dravet, I.T. Coordinator.
John Kennedy was not in attendance. A quorum was attained.
Mr. Birlson asked if site approval would also be requested at the February meeting. Ms. Papenheim stated that was the original goal, but they are still waiting on some things from the architect so she does not want to push it. If we can get the plans to the Board within the next week, then we will try for site plan approval. Mr. Kraus stated if DVG can get the changes requested via the checklist on their primary plat and their secondary plat, he would advise the Board to give them both primary and secondary approval at the next meeting. There are no public improvements needed, so they will only need to pay the minimum charge of $1500 for the development fee, and then when the site plan is set up with the calculations for the runoff, we can get that on the following month’s agenda. Ms. Papenheim asked if the development fee needed to be paid prior to approval. Mr. Kraus stated that was correct, prior to primary plat approval. Discussion followed.
Councilman Panczek stated he was thinking that this may need to go to another Study Session since the documents were transmitted recently. He questioned the lighting plan, landscaping plan, if it is within the 231 Overlay District, building materials and design, and exceeding the green space allowance. Mr. Brant stated he thought the drawings were submitted a few weeks ago, but understood that there may be another Study Session before this can go to a regular meeting for approval. He stated he had not moved forward with other plans since he was unsure if the Board would even approve this building size. Discussion followed regarding some of the details of the building and site. Councilman Panczek stated it would be at the discretion of the Board if they would allow Mr. Brant to come to the regular meeting to at least keep working the project, but not for approval. Mr. Birlson stated he had no issues with that, and Mr. Brant agreed.
Mr. Birlson asked if the road east of Lot 9 was an existing road. Mr. Brant stated it was. Mr. Brant gave a brief history of how that road came about. Mr. Birlson stated it looked like parking spaces were being proposed off of the private road and asked if that was typical. Councilman Panczek stated he had never seen parking spaces off of a private road like that. Mr. Kraus stated that is usually done on a frontage road, but he has never seen it done in St. John that way. Councilman Panczek stated the most important thing moving forward is for Mr. Brant and his architectural team to reference the Zoning Ordinances that are available online because, for example, currently the plan is well outside of the green space allowance for the Town. Councilman Panczek offered to be in touch with Mr. Brant to make sure the specifications of the Town Ordinances are met with the site plan.
Councilman Panczek stated he did remember that they were looking for more right-of-way along 93rd to eventually put a turn lane in. Mr. Rettig stated we do not have a problem with doing that. We currently have thirty feet dedicated. Councilman Panczek stated they would need forty-five. Mr. Rettig stated that would not be an issue. Mr. Kraus asked if anything had been found out about the detention. Mr. Rettig stated the pond that is across the street is owned by the Town, which currently has extra storage. There should be ample room there based on the drawings we found. Mr. Kraus stated that was his recollection as well. Mr. Rettig stated we would possibly ask for a waiver for stormwater detention onsite, with the cooperation from the Town to use the pond that is across the street and Town owned. Mr. Kraus stated only half of the sites will actually drain to the detention pond owned by the Town because the rest will drain to the natural drainage areas behind. Mr. Birlson asked if there was an outlet on the wetland area. Mr. Rettig stated there was an eighteen or twenty inch culvert. Councilman Panczek asked if there would be a subdivision sign. Mr. Rettig stated there would be. Councilman Panczek stated he wanted to make sure that no line of site issues would arise and asked for concept drawings to be submitted. Mr. Birlson asked about sidewalks along 93rd. Councilman Panczek stated our new Subdivision Control Ordinance is going to require a larger sidewalk along the frontage of 93rd and then regular sidewalks through the development. Mr. Rettig stated that would not be a problem. Mr. Brilson stated he did not see any reason to not move forward with engineering and come back with a plan. Mr. Kraus added that the sidewalk along 93rd will need to be at least eight feet wide. Mr. Rettig stated he would probably do a fifty foot right-of-way to be safe.
Mr. Birlson asked where the road currently ends. Mr. Rettig stated it currently ends in between lots 8 and 10. Mr. Birlson asked if the road was supposed to extend down to 85th. Mr. Rettig stated at one point in time, yes. Councilman Panczek stated the pipeline impact is fifty feet from a lot line on a minimum sized lot, but we are working with a PUD. He asked Mr. Rettig if they would be seeking a rezone. Mr. Rettig stated we have R-3 zoning currently, but we need to amend the PUD to add the extra land. Councilman Panczek stated if the south end of the property that is being added is not currently zoned, then you would need to come in for a rezone. Mr. Rettig stated it is currently zoned R-3, it is just not part of the PUD. We may not have to amend the PUD since it is a separate parcel. Whatever makes more sense to Attorney Decker, we are agreeable to. Councilman Panczek stated the way the impact zone works for the pipeline is that the entire lot has to be outside of that zone, not just the building. That is not to say that the Plan Commission cannot oversee a waiver, but we need to do some calculations and revisit it. The buildings clear the zone, but the lots themselves do not. Mr. Rettig stated we will need to plat easements on the lots, but his understanding of the Ordinance was that if you had an R-1 zoning, you would need 20,000 SQ. FT. outside of the zone, which is the minimum size for an R-1 lot. Councilman Panczek asked if the townhomes would be two-story. Mr. Rettig stated that was correct. The units would be about 1,500-1,700 SQ. FT., all brick buildings with a two-car garage and two and a half bathrooms.
Mr. Rettig stated the plan tonight was to introduce the project and figure out if we need to amend the PUD or move forward with just the R-3 parcel and ask for some waivers due to the pipeline impact zone. Councilman Panczek asked if any of the lot was in a floodplain. Mr. Rettig stated Bingo Lake has a floodplain associated with it, but we will not have any basements and will be able to meet the minimum floor elevation.
Councilman Panczek asked if he was correct in stating that the Plan Commission has the authority to waive portions of the Subdivision Control Ordinance in regards to the pipeline impact zone to whatever degree they specify, if they so choose. Attorney Decker stated that was correct. The pipeline impact area is defined as being fifty feet beyond the boundary of the easement for the pipeline itself. At minimum, the lot area associated with an R-3 zoning must be located entirely outside of the pipeline impact area. If the Plan Commission chooses to waive that, they have the authority to do so. Councilman Panczek stated he would be interested to see what size of the lot is outside of the zone. Mr. Kraus stated we do not allow detention to be included as part of the lot size. Mr. Rettig stated he believed they were still outside of that minimum, but will do the calculations to be sure.
Mr. Birlson asked if the fifty foot impact zone was from the pipeline easement to the building or the pipeline easement to the lot line. Attorney Decker stated no portion of floating building line or yard can be located within the impact area. It would be fifty feet from the boundary of the easement. Discussion followed.
Councilman Panczek asked if they had thought of putting parking spots on the northwest corner of the cul-de-sac to be outside of the easement. Mr. Rettig stated that is certainly an option. We do know that because of the depth of the pipeline, we believe they will be satisfied with what we are proposing. Councilman Panczek agreed, but stated if the parking spaces were moved it would save from the issue of one day possibly needing to be torn up if work needs to be done in that easement. Mr. Rettig stated the cul-de-sac, however, would have to be in the easement. Discussion followed. Councilman Panczek asked if there was an idea of the selling points of the townhomes. The owner of the property stated $350,000 and up.
| Bob Birlson | Yolanda Cardona |
| Plan Commission Vice-President | Plan Commission, Member |
Members present:
Bob Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, John Gill, Donna Little, Jason Vlasic, Nancy Wohland, John Kennedy
Also present:
Adam Decker, Attorney; Ken Kraus, Engineer
Paul Panczak, Town Council Liaison, Sergio Mendoza, Director
No Public Comments made from the floor.
No Public Comments made virtually.
Mr. Kennedy read a letter from Mr. Kraus into the record.
The $1500 fee has been paid and a receipt has been issued.
Questions and/or Comments
Commissioners had no questions.
Mr. Panczak questioned exactly which lots were being included as something different was coming up on GIS. He pointed out the fact that sidewalks were not a part of the plat and they needed to be included. The Petitioner will be at the Site Plan meeting next month and will have those included.
Mr. Kennedy asked for a motion for Primary Plat Approval.
Mr. Birlson made the Favorable Recommendation for the Primary Plat. Mr. Gill seconded the motion.
A question was raised was this motion for Primary and Secondary. Mr. Kennedy clarified it was only for Primary, at this time.
Ayes - Bob Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, John Gill, Donna Little, Jason Vlasic, Nancy Wohland, John Kennedy
Nays – None
Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Kennedy asked for a motion for approval of the Secondary Plat. Mr. Birlson made the motion and Mr. Vlasic seconded the motion.
Ayes - Bob Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, John Gill, Donna Little, Jason Vlasic, Nancy Wohland, John Kennedy
Nays – None
Motion carried unanimously.
No Public Comment
No Commissioner Comments
Mr. Panczak brought to the Plan Commission’s attention that the proposal from Parrish and 231 needs more staff review. It will also need to go to the BZA, for a possible variance and then it will need Plan Commission approval due to the 231 Overlay District requirements. There are a few deficiencies that the owner is aware of currently. Mr. Panczak clarified that it was the Marshall Commercial Center – Lot 9 Proposal.
Mr Panczak also told the Plan Commission that Mr. Boyer may be in again to review the plat for the Shops at 96th. Possibly at the next study session, but he would let the Commission know.
Respectfully submitted,
Jan Barry, Recording Secretary
Town Council
Commissioners present: Bob Birlson, Vice-President; Jon Gill, Donna Little, Executive Secretary; Jason Vlasic, and Nancy Wohland.
Also present: Adam Decker, Board Attorney; Kenn Kraus, Town Engineer; Paul Panczek, Town Council Liaison; Jason Dravet, I.T. Coordinator; and Sergio Mendoza, Building and Planning Director.
Yolanda Cardona and John Kennedy were not in attendance. A quorum was attained.
Mr. Kraus stated he did receive the runoff calculations and believed they should be okay, but would still like the opportunity to review them more closely.
Mr. Birlson asked what the boundary was for lot 17 and lot 19. Mr. Rettig stated lot 17 will be everything to the east of lot 18 including a large portion of the water, and lot 19 will be everything to the west including wrapping around the cul-de-sac. This way we are getting the frontage for all of the lots on the cul-de-sac. Mr. Birlson stated ideally he would like to see lot lines on lot 17 and 19 to the pipeline easement and make an outlot for the rest of it. Mr. Rettig stated they were not opposed to that. Mr. Birlson asked if they had thought about extending the cul-de-sac closer to lot 19 in order to get another lot. Mr. Rettig stated after the impact zone on the north side, we would not be able to squeeze another lot there. We can make it part of an outlot and it would be a greenspace area. Mr. Birlson asked if the lot lines have to be pulled to the shoreline of Bingo Lake, would the square footage minimum be met. Mr. Rettig stated he could still meet the square footage minimum, but they would have to include part of the pipeline impact zone, which is not the intention. We will need some variances to do something close to this, which is why we are trying to figure out the best way to proceed. Discussion followed regarding the possible waivers needed.
Ms. Little stated the reason for the pipeline ordinance was safety, so it is not a good idea to alter that right away. She asked what the distance was from the edge of the building to the water. Mr. Rettig stated about thirty feet. Ms. Little asked how close water would come to the building in a flood situation. Mr. Rettig stated the lake level does not fluctuate that much and we will be well above the lake level. Mr. Birlson asked if moving the lot lines to the pipeline easement would work. Councilman Panczek stated the lot lines do need to be brought up to the shore and the lake be an outlot. Regarding the impact zone, it can be tricky at times especially since this is a unique piece. The purpose is to create a buffer between an easement and a home. The impact zone itself was to prevent a home from being built at the edge of the easement. These lots are laid out in a unique way to where any human activity would not occur in the impact zone or in the easement, which is the intention. It is now up to the Plan Commission to interpret the Ordinance in a unique situation to make sure it is accomplishing its goal in not creating human activity within the areas. He stated one issue he sees is the density. If the lot line is brought to the lakeshore and to the easement, the lots are too small and we could maybe only do two duplexes instead of three. Ms. Wohland stated she agreed with Mr. Birlson and Ms. Little and did not think the Ordinance should be changed even though it is a unique situation. She also echoed that three sets of duplexes would not work in this area. Councilman Panczek stated the purpose of the Ordinance was to keep buildings out of the impact zone as well as human activity, which is typically a backyard. This situation is a little bit different, and will ultimately be the Plan Commission’s decision.
Mr. Rettig stated the covenants do not allow for fences or pools and the patios will be built when the buildings are built. These duplexes will be maintenance free. Mr. Meyers will have to consider doing the two duplexes instead of three, or doing two three-unit townhomes if possible. Mr. Meyers stated to cut down to two lots would up the cost of development and it would be too much. When the project was first started, we were going to complete it with all duplexes. With the change of the fifty foot zone, we have had to change our plans in order to try and fit something in this last piece. Discussion followed regarding the impact changing lots would have on the development and the differences between building duplexes and townhomes. Mr. Rettig stated ultimately they are trying to finish the development off in the best way possible.
Mr. Kraus stated we have had about four or five of these requests come in over the past year and we typically give primary and secondary plat approval on the same night. Councilman Panczek asked if sidewalks will be placed along 93rd. Mr. Rettig stated it must have been waived because there is no sidewalk planned for 93rd Ave. The issue with that is that there is very nice landscaping on lot 1 where the sidewalk would go. They want to preserve that for what it is. Mr. Horton stated if someone were to buy lot 1 and build a home, they would not have to do that sidewalk. To add that as a homeowner’s expense seems a little difficult. Councilman Panczek stated we will need to look in to if the sidewalk was waived at the development of the site.
Mr. Birlson asked what the additional lots were. Mr. Slager sated lots 122 through 134. This will be the final phase on the east side of Calumet, unless we pick up more land. Mr. Kraus asked if the ditch along the east property line dumps in to the detention pond. Mr. Slager stated it is the opposite, the detention pond dumps into the ditch. There is some new engineering so we will have to plan on being here for the April meeting for a public hearing.
Mr. Birlson asked where the architectural standards would be listed. Mr. Slager stated the PUD guidelines will be a part of the Ordinance and embedded in the rezone. There will be more covenants put on the land, but this was the basis for approval. Councilman Panczek addressed the Board as to the next steps for this application.
| Bob Birlson | Jon Gill |
| Plan Commission Vice-President | Plan Commission Member |
Members present:
Mr. Birlson, Ms. Cardona, Mr. Gill, Ms. Little, Mr. Vlasic, Ms. Wohland, Mr. Kennedy
Also present:
Mr. Decker, Attorney; Mr. Krause, Engineer; Mr. Phillips, Town Manager; Mr. Mendoza, Building Director
Mr. Kennedy asked for a motion to defer minutes, as there were none given to the Plan Commission.
Mr. Birlson made the motion to defer and Mr. Vlasic seconded the motion.
Mr. Kennedy asked Mr. Phillips if there was anything that could be done to get the needed minutes for the Plan Commission. Mr. Phillips stated they were working on hiring someone to fill the position. Mr. Kennedy asked Mr. Decker if there were any state statutes requiring minutes to be completed. Mr. Decker stated there were no state statutes and he was sure that the Town was doing everything in their power to rectify the situation.
Ayes:
Mr. Birlson, Ms. Cardona, Mr. Gill, Ms. Little, Mr. Vlasic, Ms. Wohland, Mr. Kennedy
Nays – None
Motion approved unanimously.
Mr. Krause has reviewed the plans and sent a letter, which was read for the record.
Discussion centered around the question of sidewalks. It was stated that sidewalks were going entirely around the building.
The sidewalks were an issue that were in the letter that Mr. Krause sent.
The sidewalk at the roundabout crosses over the right-of-way line and into private property. It may just be a field adjustment.
There are sidewalks where we asked them to be placed.
The sidewalk line goes beyond the right-of-way in two (2) corners [on the displayed map].
A suggestion was made to just make the sidewalks straight and take the transition curves out.
Public Hearing – Sergio Mendoza stated everything was in order for the Public Hearing to proceed.
No Public Comments
No Public Correspondence
No Commissioner Comments and/or Questions
Mr. Kennedy asked for a motion to approve, deny or defer 21-02 Crown Point Christian School Primary Plat Approval, contingent upon the sidewalk is on the Public Right-of-Way and off Private Property. Mr. Birlson made the motion to approve with the contingency, Ms. Wohland seconded the motion.
Ayes - Mr. Birlson, Ms. Cardona, Mr. Gill, Ms. Little, Mr. Vlasic, Ms. Wohland, Mr. Kennedy
Nays – None
Site Plan approved unanimously.
A History of the project was given: These are 6 large R1 size lots on the northside of 93rd Avenue and Claremont Drive. There will be a new sanitary sewer and a new water main extension going in. The collection of stormwaters will be in the Town owned retention pond on the southside of 93rd Avenue. There is extra capacity in that pond. All these lots exceed R1 requirements in width and area.
Board Questions
Mr. Kennedy questioned the 2 additional homesteads to the south of Lot 6. Would there be a possibility for those two lots flipping and tying into Sublime subdivision. Mr. Rettig stated with cooperation there is a possibility to do that. The two homesteads in that area already have sewer and water, so it does not need to be provided for them. Mr. Kennedy also stated that he was asking so that there were no problems in the future in the area.
There was a clarification that the sidewalk along 93rd Avenue needs to be 8 feet per the Subdivision Control Ordinance, not the 5 feet as drawn. Mr. Rettig apologized and will make the correction.
No additional Questions and/or Comments
Mr. Kraus has reviewed the plans and sent a letter, which was read for the record
The fee of $1500 has been paid and a receipt has been issued.
Public Hearing - Sergio Mendoza stated everything was in order for the Public Hearing to proceed.
Comments
Brian Hollingsad
9550 W. 93rd Avenue
St. John
Concerns regarding the large amount of traffic already on 93rd Avenue. Questioned whether a road would be going in there near Lot 6 to alleviate traffic congestion on 93rd Avenue. Another concern was the displacement of wildlife from the area. He also questioned would there be a fence or barrier so the Sublime street is blocked.
Mr. Rettig stated there is no road going through that area. As far as a barrier, there would be a landscape buffer on Outlots A and B.
Mr. Hollingsad stated they had no objection to improvements; they were only concerned about wildlife displacement.
Janice (no last name and no address provided)
She simply does not want her area to get screwed up.
No further Public Comments
Public Comments closed
Mr. Kraus added that there is enough capacity in the sanitary and water lines to serve 6 more lots, without a problem.
Donna Little asked for clarification on the landscape area, as her sound was cutoff while attending virtually.
Mr. Kennedy asked for a motion to approve, deny or defer 21-03 Sublime Estates Primary Plat Approval with the contingency that the public sidewalk along 93rd Avenue is 8 feet wide per the Subdivision Control Ordinance. Mr. Birlson made a motion to approve with the contingency and Mr. Gill seconded the motion.
Ayes - Mr. Birlson, Ms. Cardona, Mr. Gill, Ms. Little, Mr. Vlasic, Ms. Wohland, Mr. Kennedy
Nays – None
Primary Plat approved unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Jan Barry, Recording Secretary
Town Council
Commissioners present: Bob Birlson, Vice-President; Yolanda Cardona, Jon Gill, Donna Little, Executive Secretary; Jason Vlasic, and Nancy Wohland and John Kennedy, President.
Also present: Adam Decker, Board Attorney; Kenn Kraus, Town Engineer; and Sergio Mendoza, Building and Planning Director.
A quorum was attained.
Mr. Kraus stated he had looked at the drawings and has a bunch of comments to make regarding the storm and detention system. He stated he would send his checklist over to the engineer regarding all of those items, but there are also some clerical items that need to be adjusted. Mr. Slager stated he would get with the engineers to address everything. President Kennedy asked why no curbs were going in along Calumet Ave. Mr. Slager stated the road was recently repaved and we have not curbed any of Calumet Ave., so rather than curbing just that area, we are trading it off for a larger sidewalk. President Kennedy asked if the new Subdivision Control Ordinance required a larger sidewalk. Director Mendoza stated this area identifies as a multi-use path with an eight foot sidewalk and is identified as part of the existing PUD agreement.
Ms. Cardona asked if the front of the home would be facing Columbia Court. Mr. Rettig stated that was correct. President Kennedy asked if there would be an issue for the driveway to be further away from 93rd. Steve Horton stated the driveway would be about equivalent to the area that one would be placed if someone built on lot 1 as it is. Mr. Rettig asked if it was a front load or side load garage. Mr. Horton stated it is a side load. Mr. Rettig stated we did add a no access easement to 93rd. President Kennedy asked if a waiver would be requested for sidewalks along 93rd. If a waiver was given for the previous subdivision, it would not carry over since this will be considered a new subdivision. Mr. Rettig stated we will be asking for a curb and sidewalk waiver along 93rd Ave., primarily due to the drainage that is already in place and the large culvert that exists. Also the homeowners do not really want pedestrian traffic going out to 93rd Ave. where there is no other sidewalks. President Kennedy asked Attorney Decker if he was correct in saying a waiver that was given would not transfer. Attorney Decker stated he agrees with the analysis, but is not one hundred percent sure that it would not carry over. President Kennedy asked if we could verify that. Attorney Decker stated he is not sure of the circumstances with the previous waiver, but if a waiver was granted before, then another waiver should be granted for this resubdivision. President Kennedy asked for clarification if the Board would need to require a waiver. Attorney Decker stated the Board does have the responsibility to act on a waiver. Because this is a subdivision request with a replat, it must conform and comply with the Subdivision Control Ordinance as it is today, unless a waiver is granted by the Board. Mr. Birlson asked if the width of the sidewalk would be five feet or eight feet. Mr. Mendoza stated it depended on the classification of 93rd, which he believes is a primary arterial and would require an eight foot sidewalk.
Steve Horton, Robert Paulsen’s son-in-law, 9335 Columbia Ct, stated he lived in the subdivision as well. He stated he understood the process in place and that this is a resubdivision or a “new subdivision”, but this is a homeowner trying to get rid of a lot line. If someone developed on lot 1, as it is, they would not be required to put a sidewalk in on 93rd due to the agreement that was already in place. Mr. Birlson stated he understood that, but since this is a resubdivision, we are back to the drawing board. He expressed his concern about people walking along the edge of 93rd because back when he moved on to Joliet, sidewalks were never an issue, but now there are kids walking the edge of the street because no sidewalks are in place. Mr. Horton stated that is putting the burden on the homeowner, and the homeowner is not wanting to burden that cost. If a waiver does not pass, we may go back to square one, sell the two lots, and then the Town is in the same boat as it was in before with no sidewalks on 93rd. Mr. Birlson stated if it is, it is. Discussion followed regarding the work that would need to be done in order to install a sidewalk.
President Kennedy asked if they should go through the waiver first and then the replat at the public hearing. Attorney Decker stated if the waiver is not granted, at that point the petitioner may want to withdraw application. It would be best to hold the public hearing and then take up the waiver discussion first before any final vote on the replat. Mr. Kraus stated the waiver would also have to include the curb on 93rd, not just the sidewalk. Ms. Little asked if there was a curb on the other side of Columbia on 93rd. Mr. Horton stated there are no curbs going in to that subdivision on 93rd.
President Kennedy asked if some of those variances would go through the BZA. Mr. Mendoza stated that was correct, but they are proposing seeking those variances and presenting the site plan with those variances, if approved. Ms. Little asked what the reason was for no roof over the refuse structure. Mr. Brant stated typically it is very difficult to do that since refuse containers are picked up by a vehicle. Mr. Gill stated typically they wall off the area, but there are none in Town that he can recall that has a roof. Mr. Kraus stated it is usually a dumpster enclosure that matches the style of the building. President Kennedy asked why thirteen additional parking spaces were planned since removing those would help with the amount of pervious pavement on the lot. Mr. Brant stated one of our major tenants is a very successful nail salon and they employ about twenty people and are concerned about employee parking, which they would like to the rear of the property. President Kennedy asked if that tenant was the whole building. Mr. Brant stated no. Mr. Little asked how many tenants were planned. Mr. Brant stated he had one confirmed and probably two more. Mr. Birlson stated it almost sounds like there is not enough parking. President Kennedy stated he understood the uniqueness of the property, but there is also the issue of the traffic flow in and out of the property. Mr. Brant asked if the Board would prefer less parking. President Kennedy stated he is trying to reduce the amount of variances needed, but you have to survive your tenants. He went through the line of site issues and parking issues that he saw with Mr. Brant.
Mr. Kraus stated he has only started looking at the plan and the drivethru area alone will be close. President Kennedy asked if the sideyard setbacks were met. Mr. Brant stated they were. He stated he would be open to resizing the building to see if that works and is open to any suggestions to make the Board and community happy with the project. President Kennedy asked what was to the east of the property. Mr. Brant stated retention area. When we built the bank, we installed a retention pond for the entire area, but had no proposal for this site at that time. President Kennedy asked if the bank was aware that this property would tie in to the west side of their property. Mr. Brant stated he has an easement agreement for that that was part of the closing. Discussion followed regarding parking spaces.
President Kennedy stated if you got it down to thirty-three parking spots, they may help with some of the variances as well as traffic flow. Mr. Brant stated currently the bank does not seem to have a lot of traffic there. We would be glad to look at any suggestions, though. President Kennedy asked if he knew the density on the property. Mr. Brant stated they are looking at a max of about 70% rather than the 65% max required by the Ordinance. President Kennedy stated if the parking was reduced, you may not need that variance then. Mr. Birlson asked about the turn going in to the pickup lane and suggested pulling it back. Mr. Brant stated he would be glad to reduce that and make it an easier corner to turn. Mr. Kraus stated the area coming out of the pickup lane may need to be adjusted as well. Mr. Brant stated they could do signage there as well to make sure everyone is cautious coming out. President Kennedy asked what was between the drainage easement area and building. Mr. Brant stated a green space. President Kennedy asked if that would be considered the side yard or frontage. Mr. Brant stated their engineer created that as the side yard and the frontage is on Parrish. Discussion followed regarding some suggested changes before the next meeting.
Mr. Birlson asked the reason for not having access to the retail from Blue Sky Dr. and Red Rock Pl. Mr. Georgiou stated the initial thought was to segregate the traffic from cutting through the neighborhood and separate residential from commercial. We did create emergency access points that connect the entire development based on comments from the police and fire departments. Mr. Georgiou stated we would be open to pedestrian/bike access through the entire property, which is not exactly there right now. The roadway part we can discuss, but we were trying to keep it separate. Mr. Birlson stated he did like the bike path on the south with the trail-head parking. He asked if there was a rendering of the condos with the office below. Mr. Georgiou stated he did not have that yet. At this point we wanted feedback on how to continue forward. Ms. Cardona asked if whoever bought the condo would own the office below. Mr. Georgiou stated the intention would be leased office space and purchased condos, but there is the potential to do them together. Ms. Cardona asked how many condos there would be. Mr. Georgiou stated twelve. Ms. Cardona asked if there would be the same amount of offices. Mr. Georgiou stated the ground floor is 13,000 sq. ft. that could have ten or six tenants depending on who rents the space. There will be a common area that splits the buildings and allows for guest parking for the condos. Mr. Birlson asked if there are other areas around with retail on the first floor and condos on the second. Mr. Georgiou stated there is an area in Crown Point and he believes Valparaiso as well.
Ms. Little stated she would rather see no condos above the office spaces. Ms. Cardona stated she agreed and did not know who would buy them and what the need would be in this area for that. Mr. Georgiou stated the concept is extremely popular in downtown areas. The intent would be to limit the main level to office space only, not retail. Further discussion was had in regards to where these current concepts are and how much they are growing. Mr. Vlasic asked the size of the condos. Mr. Lambert stated they would be about 2,000 sq. ft. Mr. Little asked if they would consider making the buildings all office space. Mr. Lambert stated that is where we started with this proposal, but the mixed use was brought to our attention and we really liked it. Mr. Georgiou stated the area to the north is currently commercial and the area to the west is also commercial. We were asked if we could extend a driveway to the north, which we were all about to continue to connect to another commercial area. Mr. Vlasic asked how the condos would be accessed. Mr. Georgiou stated there would be ground floor access from the garage, but we have not gotten to the labeling detail currently. Ms. Little asked if the renderings at the top were options for the townhomes. Mr. Georgiou stated not exactly, but we wanted to convey that this will be an upscale development. Ms. Little asked how many townhomes would be per building. Mr. Georgiou sated the maximum is six per building. Ms. Little stated she would like to push for less density. President Kennedy stated he appreciates the commercial development. The condos on top will generate better tenants for you, but the density in the residential area may cause some concern in the community. He asked if they would consider maybe rowhomes or something different. In regards to the traffic, we are causing more traffic to go out to the main roads and connectivity could be an issue. Mr. Georgiou stated Crown Point is doing a lot in terms of rowhomes, and we are not really a fan of those. It is a very contemporary look and we do not know that it would be appropriate in this area. These townhomes are large units as proposed, but we could slide this area down further south because we do understand your comments in regards to concerns from the adjacent residential areas.
Mr. Birlson asked what the current zoning was of the property. Mr. Georgiou stated R-1. Ms. Little stated she would like to keep that zoning. Mr. Georgiou stated if we kept R-1, we could get approximately thirty homes on the twenty acres. We have proposed thirty-four townhomes on the residential side, so density is really almost the same. President Kennedy asked for renderings of the potential office/condo look. Mr. Georgiou stated we expected to show you what the office/condo and townhome builds would look like. Mr. Lambert asked if there was any sort of way the Board could indicate if this is a good idea or not because they currently have a signed purchase agreement on the property, but the closing is contingent on being able to use the land how we want to. President Kennedy stated he could give his opinion, but once this goes to a public hearing, we will be listening to the residents and how they feel and they may tell us something we do not currently know about the area that we have to take in to consideration. Mr. Georgiou stated it looks like the commercial retail has received positive comments, but we do hear you about the density to the east and the condos above the offices. We would like to come back at the next study session to continue discussions. President Kennedy stated he understood that. Ms. Cardona also asked for renderings of the condo/office spaces as well as the townhomes at the next meeting. President Kennedy agreed and stated that is something we could work with them on as far as standards and what we want.
| John Kennedy | Bob Birlson |
| Plan Commission President | Plan Commission Vice-President |
Members present:
Bob Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, John Gill, Donna Little, Jason Vlasic, Nancy Wohland, John Kennedy
Also present:
Adam Decker, Attorney; Ken Kraus, Engineer; Sergio Mendoza, Director
Mr. Kennedy asked for a motion to approve the following minutes:
Plan Commission Study Session – August 19, 2020
Plan Commission Regular Meeting – September 2, 2020
Plan Commission Regular Meeting – October 7, 2020
Mr. Birlson made the motion seconded by Ms. Cardona
No Discussion
Ayes - Bob Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, John Gill, Donna Little, Jason Vlasic, Nancy Wohland, John Kennedy
Nays – None
Motion approved unanimously.
Mr. Mendoza stated that everything was in order for the Public Hearing.
Doug Rettig gave a brief history: This is 2 Lots at Schillton Hills. Engineering is done. Infra-structure is done. Sidewalks are the issue as this is a re-platting, so prior waivers do not exist. That is the reason for the discussion tonight.
No Board Comments
Open to Public Hearing for 2021 – 04
Martin Gruszka
9315 Columbia Court, St. John
{His home faces the proposed lot development.}
He has no problem combining the 2 Lots. He would not like to have a sidewalk along the stretch on 93rd Avenue, due to the traffic and speed of the cars on that stretch. The sidewalk doesn’t connect to anything.
He feels it would be dangerous and a safety hazard.
Steve Horton
9335 Columbia Court, St. John
His issue is also the sidewalk on 93rd Avenue. It is not the best option. It is 200 feet of sidewalk leading to nowhere.
Robert Paulsen (Petitioner)
9316 Columbia Court, St. John
{if this goes through, that is the mailing address)
We are wanting to build here to be near our grandchildren. We believe that a sidewalk on 93rd Avenue is a safety issue. The area to encompass a sidewalk is not a flat level surface. There is an additional cost for addition of sidewalks.
Via Email
Gregory Tippery
9639 Maginot Circle, St. John
I object to the waiver for a sidewalk at 9320 Columbia Circle in the Schillton Hills Subdivision. It is a positive step in connecting a disconnected subdivision. It is not a problem to combine the two lots as long as no sidewalk waiver is granted.
Closed to Public Hearing
Board for Questions/Comments/Discussion
Ms. Little asked for clarification as to where the sidewalks were actually to go.
Mr. Kennedy shared his personal opinion about sidewalks.
Discussion was held regarding the need, location, cost, who bears the cost and the responsibility for the installation of sidewalks in an area already developed by a developer. The question remains where does obligation to install the sidewalk rest, with the Town or the homeowner at his expense.
Board Action
Mr. Kennedy is seeking a motion to allow a curb waiver on the North end of 93rd Avenue.
Ms. Little made the motion and Ms. Wohland seconded the motion.
Ayes - Bob Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, John Gill, Donna Little, Jason Vlasic, Nancy Wohland, John Kennedy
Nays – None
Curb waiver granted
Mr. Kennedy is seeking a motion for a waiver of a sidewalk for the North section of the lot, contingent on the length of the sidewalk.
Board Discussion
Mr. Decker stated this should actually be two (2) separate motions. The first should be for the property along 93rd Avenue and the second for the sidewalk in front of the property.
Board Action
Mr. Birlson motioned to deny a waiver for a sidewalk on the northern property part of Lot 1 on the southern section of 93rd Avenue. Mr. Vlasic seconded the motion.
Mr. Kennedy interjected it means that the homeowner would need to install a sidewalk on 93rd avenue.
Ayes – Ms. Burlison, Ms. Cardona, Ms. Little, Mr. Vlasic
Nays – Mr. Gill, Ms. Wohland, Mr. Kennedy
Waiver denied
Mr. Kennedy asked if the Petitioner wanted to continue with the second part of the Agenda item for 9320 Columbia Court. The Petitioner asked if the Agenda item could be moved to the end of the meeting so they would have time to discuss the options.
Ms. Wohland made the motion to move the agenda item to the end of the meeting, Mr. Vlasic seconded the motion.
Ayes - Bob Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, John Gill, Donna Little, Jason Vlasic, Nancy Wohland, John Kennedy
Nays – None
Item moved to end of Agenda, before the Public Hearing Announcement Requests**
Mr. Mendoza stated that everything was in order for the Public Hearing.
Mr. Slager gave a brief history: 40 acres west of Calumet Avenue, south of Unit 2, started mid-year 2020. Consensus was reached in December 2020. The Plan Commission gave a Favorable Recommendation to the Town Council for Residential PUD zoning. This area is for 102 single family lots, with higher than normal architectural standards. That was part of the trade-off to go to an R2 style lot. A Favorable recommendation from the Plan Commission then the Town Council received it earlier in 2021, the PUD zoning was then approved.
Open to Public Hearing for 2021 – 06
Board Comments
None
Mr. Kennedy read Mr. Kraus’ letter.
The $1500 fee has been paid and a receipt given
Open to Public hearing for 2021 - 06
Phil Splant
15500 W. 109th St., Dyer
Concerned about the storm water and that the 15’ storm drain will not cause any water problems in the future in that area.
He is not opposed if it is single-family homes in the area.
Marian Hartigan
14729 Greystone, Dyer
Concerned about the recent increase in run-off water in her yard, but probably from the construction. Also concerned about the walking path and how far from her property it is. Mr. Kraus and the Board stated the walking path was probably more than 40 feet from the back of her property line.
Mr. Mendoza stated there were no Public comments via email.
Closed to Public Hearing
Board for Questions/Comments/Discussion
Mr. Kraus explained the storm water concerns. He stated there are pipe inlets at the south end of the properties and on the west end. They would capture off-site water and it would go into Retention Pond E at the far southeast corner of the property. It would then travel east under Calumet. He stated there are storm sewers all around the property.
Board Action
Mr. Kennedy called for a motion for 2021 – 06 Greystone Unit 3.
Mr. Birlson motioned to approve the Primary Plat for 2021 – 06 Greystone Unit 3, Ms. Little seconded the motion.
Discussion/comments/questions
No additional board comments
Ayes - Bob Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, John Gill, Donna Little, Jason Vlasic, Nancy Wohland,
Nays – Mr. Kennedy
Primary Plat approved.
Mr. Mendoza stated that everything was in order for the Public Hearing.
Mr. Decker gave a brief history: This is a revision to Town Zoning Ordinance 1483, Section D. Specifically if there is an appeal to the BZA that there be notice given to two (2) separate papers, that notice be given 15 days to interested parties in advance of the hearing. The purpose of the Amendment is to only require one (1) legal notice in one (1) newspaper of general circulation and to require notice to be published 10 days prior to the appointed time of the hearing. The revision is to be made in accordance with State Law which has a similar requirement for publication. Specifically under Section 10D.
This would need a Favorable or Unfavorable recommendation to the Town Council.
Open to Public Hearing for 2021 - 08
No comments
Mr. Mendoza stated, No electronic correspondence
Closed to Public Hearing
Board Action
Mr. Kennedy is seeking a motion for 2021 – 08, Amendment to ordinance 1483.
Mr. Birlson made a motion to for a Favorable Recommendation to the Town Council for 2021 – 08 Amendment to Ordinance 1483, Chapter 18 entitled “ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT’, Section D10. Mr. Vlasic seconded the motion.
Ayes - Bob Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, John Gill, Donna Little, Jason Vlasic, Nancy Wohland, John Kennedy
Nays – None
Favorable recommendation to the Town Council
Mr. Decker stated this is a proposed resolution to approve a change to the Plan Commission Rules and Regulations to be consistent with State Law. Notices are currently published in 2 papers 15 days in advance. The purpose of the Amendment is to require publication in one (1) newspaper 10 days in advance of the hearing.
Board Discussion
Mr. Kennedy stated this would mirror what the State currently uses.
Board Action
Mr. Kennedy asked for a motion on the Amendment to the Plan commission Rules and Regulations.
Mr. Birlson made a motion to approve 2021 – 07 an Amendment to the Plan Commission Rules and Regulations. Ms. Wohland seconded the motion.
No additional discussion/comments/questions
Ayes - Bob Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, John Gill, Donna Little, Jason Vlasic, Nancy Wohland, John Kennedy
Nays – None
Amendment approved
Mr. Kennedy is seeking a motion to defer to the next meeting/study session.
Mr. Birlson made a motion to defer 2021 – 09 Parrish Woods, to the next Plan commission Study Session. Ms. Wohland seconded the motion.
No additional discussion/comments/questions
Ayes - Bob Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, John Gill, Donna Little, Jason Vlasic, Nancy Wohland, John Kennedy
Nays – None
Defer to Study Session approved.
Mr. Rettig spoke to the Plan Commission about a program that other communities have for sidewalk installation. It is program where the owner pays money into a sidewalk fund for installation in the future. Mr. Rettig stated that the petitioner does want to proceed but is also looking for consideration.
Mr. Kennedy questioned what the timeframe was, as he needed to know if there was time to go to the Town Council with the option provided by Mr. Rettig of a sidewalk fund.
Mr. Decker stated that there is no Sidewalk Program (fund) in St. John. Mr. Decker restated the option from Mr. Decker as, they want an approval for the resubdivision without granting any waiver for the sidewalk and then in the future possibly make a donation to a fund that doesn’t exist in town. Mr. Decker stated that could be in the very distant future. Mr. Decker stated that site approval could not proceed while all of this is being considered.
Mr. Rettig stated that the owners then want to proceed, and pursue something with the sidewalk after they research additional options.
Board Action
Mr. Kennedy stated this action was for a waiver regarding the Eastern sidewalk on Columbia Court whether it is extended to the sidewalk to the North OR as petitioner suggested extend and cut-off at the neighbor to the East.
Board Discussion
Ms. Wohland asked if this was in addition to the sidewalk on 93rd Avenue. Second waiver being discussed is the length of the sidewalk on petitioner’s eastern property line, PLUS the sidewalk on 93rd Avenue.
Mr. Kennedy asked for a motion.
Mr. Birlson made a motion to deny the waiver for having sidewalks stop at the neighbors. {Mr. Kennedy explained to deny means the petitioner is responsible for the sidewalk extending all the way to the future sidewalk on 93rd Avenue.} Ms. Wohland seconded the motion.
Board discussion
Mr. Kennedy commented, since the waiver was denied for the 93rd Avenue sidewalk it would be logical to deny the motion and extend the sidewalk all the way up to 93rd.
Ayes - Bob Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, John Gill, Donna Little, Jason Vlasic, John Kennedy
Nays – Nancy Wohland
Waiver denied – petitioner must now install sidewalk on his Northern and Eastern Boundary
Public Hearing Closed for 2021 – 04
Board Discussion
No additional discussion
Mr. Kennedy asked if petitioner still wanted to proceed. Petitioner responded that yes, they wanted to proceed.
Mr. Kennedy called for a motion to approve 2021- 04, Re-plat of Lots 1 & 2 at the Preserves of Schillton Hills.
Mr. Birlson made a motion to approve the Re-plat of Lots 1 & 2 at the Preserves of Schillton Hills, 9320 Columbia Court. Ms. Wohland seconded the motion.
Ayes - Bob Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, John Gill, Donna Little, Jason Vlasic, Nancy Wohland, John Kennedy
Nays – None
Re-plat approved
Respectfully submitted,
Jan Barry, Recording Secretary
Town Council
Also present: Adam Decker, Board Attorney; Kenn Kraus, Town Engineer; Bryan Blazak, Town Council Liaison; and Sergio Mendoza, Building and Planning Director.
A quorum was attained.
Mr. Birlson asked if the island on the west side was moved towards the east for pickup lane access. Mr. Brant stated those changes were made and we were also requested to install a stop sign. Mr. Kraus stated there is also a “Do Not Enter” sign there so there should be no cars coming from the south to enter in to that area. President Kennedy asked what type of pickup would be done there. Mr. Brant stated it is like a Domino’s Pizza. There will be no ordering there, only pick up. Mr. Torrenga and Mr. Kraus discussed this and made the necessary changes. President Kennedy asked if there was any concern regarding coming out of the drivethru area. Mr. Kraus stated there is plenty of space to make the turn to get out and go north and there is no line of site issue unless there is a big box van or something parked incorrectly in that first space. President Kennedy asked the variances that would be requested. Director Mendoza stated he would be seeking a variance for the size of the lot and the size of the building. Mr. Brant stated the variances have been reduced from four to two. President Kennedy asked if the building was turned, would more parking be available. Mr. Brant stated no, this is the most logical way to lay it out. President Kennedy asked if the variances would be requested before the public hearing. Mr. Brant stated that was the plan and they are working on that right now.
President Kennedy asked if the lots came in as R-1. Mr. Slager stated he would have to check on the wording of that. The rest of this site is PUD so we are calling this a PUD amendment. Mr. Mendoza stated they could pull the PUD Ordinance that this fell under. Typically it is an amendment to the PUD which identifies the legal description, which would be changed on that. Everything proposed meets the current PUD Ordinance except for the two lots that would fall under the previous PUD that was approved five years ago. Mr. Slager stated we may have to rezone those two lots then. President Kennedy stated he just wanted to make sure Mr. Slager was aware of that since it is a Town Council decision.
Mr. Slager asked if anything needed to be discussed regarding Phase 5 of The Preserves for final plat. It did not make it on this agenda tonight, but we are planning on coming to the May 5th meeting with it. Mr. Mendoza stated we can pull that and see where we are on it. Mr. Kraus stated Public Works had told him the underground utilities are in, but the streets are not complete yet. Mr. Slager stated paving will be done by mid next week, before the May 5th meeting. Mr. Kraus stated the fees are different now than when the job started and is not aware of how to move forward with that, but would look in to it.
President Kennedy asked if the added lots would change the amount allowed in the current PUD for Greystone. Mr. Slager stated he did not believe they put a maximum amount of lots for the development within the PUD, but would check it.
Mr. Kraus stated with the no access to Parrish, there is commonly put a “no access easement” in the PUD to prevent that from happening in the future and asked that be added. He asked if the existing house would keep its driveway on to Parrish. Mr. Schmaltz stated yes, it will maintain its existing access point. Our intention was to address the easement as part of the restrictive covenants, but we had not discussed doing it as an easement. Mr. Kraus asked if the existing ditch that runs from the pond was going to be kept in its natural state. Mr. Schmaltz stated the intention is to preserve its natural state as much as possible. Mr. Gill stated there are some issues with the setbacks if this is a straight R-1 subdivision. The front yard setback line should be forty feet, and side setbacks should be ten feet everywhere. Mr. Schmaltz stated he would address that with Mr. Fleming. President Kennedy asked if a waiver was being requested on the corner lots since they did not meet the 20% rule and then in turn if a decel waiver would be requested because of that. Mr. Kraus stated the only lot that does not meet the 120 foot frontage requirement is lot 28. It is only at 117 feet, so they could take the three feet from lot 27 and be fine. President Kennedy stated the decel lanes would not affect that then. Mr. Kraus stated the decel lanes should be in the right-of-way, which would not affect the lot.
Mr. Schmaltz stated in total they would be requesting three variances. The first is for the three feet on lot 28 that we are short to meet the 120 foot frontage, and the stub for the road and location that would be at 113th. Mr. Kraus stated you would not need a waiver if you could move the lot line by three feet on lot 28. President Kennedy asked if the rezone request was complete. Mr. Schmaltz stated the annexation was completed and this came in as R-1. Mr. Schmaltz stated he could not say that Mr. Fleming would commit to moving the lot line three feet until we discuss it. The other potential waiver would be on lots 4, 5, 14, and 15 in regards to the 20% if those lots are considered corner lots. Mr. Kraus stated he did not see sidewalks along Parrish. We do not need the eight foot sidewalk in this area since it is only a forty foot right-of-way. Discussion followed regarding the size of the sidewalks needed.
President Kennedy asked if the public safety departments had reviewed the plan. Currently there are two sites. There is only one way in and one way out of the commercial area with undeveloped commercial areas to the north. If more development happens along that corridor, we would be leading all of the traffic out to the main road again. In the residential section, we understand the privacy issue, but could the bike trail be used as emergency access out because that is a concern. Director Mendoza stated the emergency departments have looked at this and the trail is wide enough to hold an emergency vehicle. There was also a request to make a connection to the north property for connectivity as well. Mr. Georgiou stated per their request we have 100% circulation around the retail, live/work, and we expanded the roads in the townhome area to sixty feet wide. We also added the pieces from the commercial to the bike path, which will be wide enough for emergency access. Also, we are completely open to putting something in to the north for connectivity to future commercial development. President Kennedy asked about the connectivity between the retail and residential areas. Mr. Georgiou stated they would loop a walk/bike path around the detention pond that would lead to each side. President Kennedy asked if there was a landscape buffer between any of the R-2 developments. Mr. Georgiou stated the intent is to screen around the residential part and we would provide whatever the criteria is. President Kennedy stated he would like to button it up a little as to what the architectural standards will be along with the sizes of the townhomes.
Ms. Little stated she had brought up that the last meeting that she did not like the condos above the offices and that the R-3 zone should be left as R-2. This area should remain consistent with the residential development currently around it. She also questioned if special zoning would be needed for the live/work areas. President Kennedy stated it would be within the PUD. Mr. Georgiou reiterated that if this were left at R-1 zoning, you would be able to get maybe thirty homes. With the townhomes and condos, we are proposing forty-six. With the loss of land due to the easements, we are trying to create something that works for everyone. We are looking at townhomes that are $350,000 and up. President Kennedy stated he understood, but we would still like to see plans for the townhomes as far as square footage, building materials, etc. We want to feel comfortable with the value. Mr. Georgiou stated we are open to discussions for changes.
Mr. Birlson stated he would like a different version of the live/work buildings that adds brick and limestone. Mr. Georgiou stated “Scheme C” is more of that traditional look with the masonry, but we are more than happy to give you more ideas of what you may want to see. President Kennedy asked what the square footage would be of the condos. Mr. Georgiou stated the townhomes would be 1,800 – 2,400 sq. ft. at least, the single story condo would be about 1,400 sq. ft., and the two story condo would be around 2,400 – 2,500 sq. ft. total. President Kennedy asked if the condos were owner occupied. Mr. Georgiou stated we would have to discuss that. Mr. Birlson asked if the front, west end would be a PUD. Mr. Georgiou stated overall would be a PUD. Greg Bower, Attorney, stated the entire thing would be a PUD. In looking at your Ordinance, this is exactly what a PUD is designed for. This would be similar to Munster’s project with the live/work areas. He stated this area is a unique opportunity to blend all of the current zoning and allows a great transition. Mr. Birlson asked if this goes PUD, will there be a signed agreement that states what they are going to put in. Mr. Mendoza stated that is the PUD. There are design and performance standards within the PUD that set those guidelines up, along with any covenants that may go along with the units. It is essentially a new zone classification with details that go in to your traditional type of zoning, just spelled out as a PUD. Mr. Bower agreed and stated the PUD is a way for the Town to tie our hands and hold us to what we said we are going to do. There will be three separate associates and each time a unit is sold or leased, the buyer will receive a copy of our declaration outlining what is expected. It not only covers the Town, but it also covers the investment that these people have made. Discussion followed in regards to the details that will be in the PUD.
Ms. Little stated she would like to remind the Board that when Schillings came in for Greystone, they had proposed an R-3 zoning, but we really stuck to what we wanted and now we have a beautiful R-2 development. All that to say, we need to stay consistent. Discussion followed regarding the next steps and what the Town requires for consideration. Attorney Decker stated the PUD Development Plan will be submitted along with the application for a zone change at the same time. The Development Plan will address the specifics that have been discussed, and then eventually the Commission will discuss the PUD and send a recommendation to the Town Council for consideration.
President Kennedy stated he saw that Mr. Larney received a letter from NIPSCO releasing fifteen feet of the easement. Mr. Larney stated that was correct. President Kennedy asked if Mr. Kraus knew of any Town easement rights back there or any drainage issues. Mr. Kraus stated he thought this was taken care of months ago. We visited this site and observed that the only thing in the easement was a storm sewer and some NIPSCO equipment, and all of them were within fifteen feet of the property line. There would be no issue in reducing this easement to fifteen feet. Mr. Birlson asked if locates were out when Mr. Kraus visited. Mr. Kraus stated they were out there. Attorney Decker stated this would be at the discretion of the Board to approve or disapprove a change of the plat.
Mr. Birlson stated on lot 57, a forty foot building line is not shown. Mr. Rettig stated we show the front building lines on our plats. The side and rear building lines are per Ordinance. In this case the side is eight feet and the rear is forty feet. That is where we are having a hard time showing how the forty foot rear is laid out. Mr. Birlson stated he would interpret it as Option A. Mr. Rettig stated we have adjusted the foot print of the house so it fits. If we go with Option A the depth of the house clears the rear and front building line, with the patio encroaching, but that is allowable since it is not part of the structure. Mr. Gill stated he would consider the line common to lot 56 a side yard and then the rear yard would be that little stub as shown in Option A. President Kennedy asked if this issue has been run in to before. Mr. Gill stated he has had some lots with weird lot lines in the past. President Kennedy asked if a public hearing was needed. Mr. Mendoza stated no, that would not be needed. We are looking for a determination because when this subdivision came in, it was presented with certain building foot prints that would fit and the Plan Commission at the time of approval acknowledged that. It was determined that it is a peculiar shaped lot with a larger peculiar shaped home, and because it was called in to question as to what the best interpretation was, we felt that since the Plan Commission initially approved it under one understanding of how the building foot print would fit, we felt it would be best to bring it back for the best interpretation for the property owner to know what their next steps are regarding a variance. As part of the discussion, based on the lot sizes, you initially have a 4,000 sq. ft. rear yard so that is what they presented between Option A and Option B. The goal is to just get something on record so the homeowner knows how to move forward.
Doug Rettig, DVG, stated this is the same issue we had with Triple Springs in regards to the large easements. We have also accommodated the fifty foot pipeline easement impact zone, which is shown on the drawing. In looking at an R-1 subdivision, Summerlin’s density is 1.3 lots per acre, and in two R-2 subdivisions in Town, they are right around 1.6 lots per acre. We are looking for a little flexibility to get the seventy foot lots, and the only way we can do that is with a PUD.
Mr. Vlasic asked what the 4.76 acres was at the top left of the drawing. Mr. Rettig stated that is the existing farmstead that will stay there. They are on about ten acres and have agreed to sell the north part of it. President Kennedy asked if there were square footages on the proposed homes. Mr. Herbers stated we have roughly thirteen plans. We are anticipating this development to range in the 2,400 – 2,500 square foot range, but we do have ranches that are around 2,000 square feet and two stories that can go up to 3,000 square feet. These will be the same homes built in Morningcrest. President Kennedy stated we will need to see your standards for roads, lot sizes, setback, proposed building plans, landscaping, and lighting. There will also need to be a fifteen foot buffer to the subdivision that is being built to the north. Mr. Rettig asked if that could be a landscaped buffer on the lot itself. President Kennedy he did not know if that would qualify and if the detention pond on the east would qualify. Mr. Birlson asked if most of the widths were seventy feet wide. Mr. Herbers stated all of them were. Mr. Birlson stated he is sensitive to the lot width. Mr. Rettig stated on W. 103rd Street, the lots start at eighty and then there are sixty foot wide lots. President Kennedy asked if there were any concerns with the long drive and if there was a creative way to change that because it looks like it would be open to speeding. Mr. Rettig stated he would look in to that. The only thing we are looking at possible concessions on are for the lot sizes and side yard setbacks, especially the corner lots that are not 20% larger.
Discussion followed.
| John Kennedy | Bob Birlson |
| Plan Commission President | Plan Commission Vice-President |
Members present:
Mr. Birlson, Mr. Gill, Ms. Little, Mr. Vlasic. Mr. Kennedy
Members absent:
Ms. Cardona, Ms. Wohland
Also present:
Mr. Mendoza, Director; Mr. Decker, Attorney, Mr. Kraus, Engineer
Mr. Kennedy asked for a motion to approve the Meeting Minutes from
Plan Commission Study Session: September 16, 2020
Plan Commission Special Meeting: October 21, 2020
Plan commission Special Meeting: November 18, 2020
Mr. Birlson made the motion to approve the above minutes. Mr. Vlasic seconded the motion.
No Board discussion.
Ayes - Mr. Birlson, Mr. Gill, Ms. Little, Mr. Vlasic. Mr. Kennedy
Nays – none
Absent – Ms. Cardona, Ms. Wohland
Minutes approved
Mr. Kennedy stated this is not a Public Hearing item, it is for a Final Plat approval.
Mr. Kennedy read Mr. Kraus’ letter – the plat review is satisfactory. The $1500 fee has been paid. This is for final approval after the sidewalk plan is clarified.
Mr. Rettig shared the sidewalk plan as a 5’ sidewalk on Columbia Court. There will be an 8’ sidewalk along 93rd Avenue which will wiggle through the existing landscape.
Mr. Kraus stated that one section of the sidewalk is very close to 93rd Avenue and he wishes it would be further away, as that is best, but this is the option. The culvert is drainable. The Plan for sidewalks will work.
Board Action
Mr. Kennedy asked for a motion to approve, deny or defer the Final Plat for 2021 – 04 The Preserves at Schillton Hills First Resubdivision, Final Plat for 1 single-family residential lot at 9335 Columbia Court, zoned: R-1, 1 acre
Board Discussion/Questions/Comments
None
Mr. Birlson made a motion to approve the Secondary/Final Plat for 2021 – 04 The Preserves at Schillton Hills First Resubdivision, Final Plat for 1 single-family residential lot at 9335 Columbia Court, zoned: R-1, 1 acre. Mr. Vlasic seconded the motion.
Ayes - Mr. Birlson, Mr. Gill, Ms. Little, Mr. Vlasic. Mr. Kennedy
Nays – none
Absent – Ms. Cardona, Ms. Wohland
Secondary Plat approved
Mr. Mendoza stated everything was in order for the Public Hearing.
Mr. Slager gave a brief history: This is for an amendment to PUD to add 13 single-family lots to amend zoning to PUD requesting 13 additional single-family lots.
Board Discussion/Questions/Comments
The design standards regarding lot size are being met but the base house is smaller than the Ordinance. Do the lot sizes hinder larger units being built. The houses could be anywhere from 100 -150 square feet larger. Mr. Slager stated it would not be a problem to increase the unit sizes by 100 - 150 square feet
Also a concern, the 25% of the exterior being brick, who is doing the Architectual Review. Mr. Slager stated that it was himself and the Schillings doing the reviews.
Mr. Kennedy questioned the acreage size and was there a minimum. Mr. Decker stated that there was no size requirement.
Open to Public Hearing for 2021 – 05 Greystone Unit 1 Block 6, Amendment to PUD, Ordinance 1618 and Primary Plat for 13 additional single-family residential lots at the intersection of Slate Drive and proposed Moraine Drive, zoned: PUD R-2, 5 acres
No Comments for Public Hearing
No electronic comments for Public Hearing
Closed Public to Public Hearing 2021 – 05 Greystone Unit 1 Block 6, Amendment to PUD, Ordinance 1618 and Primary Plat for 13 additional single-family residential lots at the intersection of Slate Drive and proposed Moraine Drive, zoned: PUD R-2, 5 acres
Board Discussion/Questions/Comments
Discussion centered on the size of side yards.
Board Action
Mr. Kennedy asked for Favorable or Unfavorable Recommendation to the Town Council.
Mr. Birlson made a motion for a Favorable Recommendation to Amend Ordinance 1618, R-2 PUD, contingent to increase unit size to R-2 standards. Mr. Vlasic seconded the motion.
Board Discussion/Questions/Comments
None
Ayes - Mr. Birlson, Mr. Gill, Ms. Little, Mr. Vlasic. Mr. Kennedy
Nays – none
Absent – Ms. Cardona, Ms. Wohland
Favorable Recommendation to the Town Council, with contingency
Primary plat Approval for 2021 – 05 Greystone Unit 1; Primary Plat for 13 additional single-family residential lots at the intersection of Slate Drive and proposed Moraine Drive, zoned: PUD R-2, 5 acres
Mr. Kennedy read Mr. Kraus’ letter stating that the plans are satisfactory, and the $1500 fee has been paid.
Board Action
Mr. Kennedy is looking for a motion to approve, deny or defer Primary Plat for 2021 – 05, contingent on PUD approval by the Town Council.
Mr. Birlson made the motion to approve the Primary Plat contingent on Town Council approval of the PUD. Mr. Vlasic seconded the motion.
Board Discussion/Questions/Comments
None
Ayes - Mr. Birlson, Mr. Gill, Ms. Little, Mr. Vlasic. Mr. Kennedy
Nays – none
Absent – Ms. Cardona, Ms. Wohland
Primary Plat approved
Mr. Mendoza stated everything was in order for a Public Hearing.
Mr. Fleming gave a brief history; he asked if it was possible to apply for waiver for sidewalks along Parrish Avenue from the North of the property line to the south of the property line, as there are some safety issues due to Parrish being a very narrow road. There are also issues with the storage and drain sewers.
The Commission asked if the lot size for Lot 28 has been increased.
Mr. Kraus gave a time frame as to when he received the materials. Due to his recently receiving the materials he has not yet had a chance to review and could not review the plans, so he is asking for more time to review.
Mr. Fleming stated that Lot 28 has had the proper adjustments to lot size. The changes have been made.
Mr. Gill asked about the size of the side yards and the buildings being centered on those plats.
Mr. Fleming stated that this was an older plat, but the necessary changes have been made.
Mr. Kennedy reminded Mr. Fleming that Mr. Kraus has not yet had time to review, so there will probably not be a decision coming from the Plan Commission at this time.
Board Discussion/Question/Comments
Mr. Birlson asked if the building lines are now shown and labeled correctly.
Mr. Kennedy stated he was a stickler for sidewalks and if we don’t start to require them, we will never have them.
Open to Public Hearing for 2021 – 09 Parrish Woods, Primary Plat for 27 single-family residential lots at 11115 Parrish Avenue, zoned: R1, 20 acres
Diane Granger
11309 Parrish Avenue, Cedar Lake, IN
Her property is adjacent to the south of the development. She would like assurance that her property will not be affected by run-off or drainage. She would like to know the plan for protecting and preserving the existing wetlands. She would also like assurance that if the property is deeded over to the individual owners they won’t try and expand their yards. She is requesting a buffer, possibly landscape between the back yard and the development.
She is not opposed, if the development is done responsibly, and neighbors’ concerns are heard and accommodated.
Nancy Kleine
11315 Parrish Avenue, Cedar Lake, IN
Owner of the Kleine Dairy Farm, and she is concerned about the family operation that has been in place for 100 years. They don’t plan on changing their farm. She is also looking for a buffer on the fence line. She also wants assurance that the developer needs to explain to potential owners the dust and odor that a dairy farm can and does emit. She would like some type of notice to new development. She is very concerned about the increased traffic on Parrish there is already excessive speeding. This is a safety hazard. There is also a concern that they with development in the are they will be stifled.
Dale Booth
11010 Parrish Ave, Cedar Lake, IN
Property is located across from the Mill Creek Retention Pond. His biggest concern is run-off water. The culvert can’t handle any more water. There is also a ditch with water inlets on the north side, it can’t handle any more water or drain water. The traffic poses a problem. It is like a drag strip; it is even dangerous to go to your mailbox. Increased policing would help. Again, there is just no place for run-off to go in the current system.
Leon Ruiz
11030 Parrish Avenue, Cedar Lake, IN
He would like to know where the water is to go when it is displaced by the new homes. He shared recent pictures with Plan Commission members. The traffic is horrendous.
Via Email
Mr. Mendoza read the Public Comments submitted via email.
Via email – Number 1
We live on 113th Avenue which is off of Parrish Avenue very close to the Kleine dairy farm. Our understanding when MillCreek subdivision was first started that there would be a wooded buffer between the subdivision and Kleine's dairy farm which has been there for some 100 years. It has now been brought to our attention that the buffer of trees has not been initiated. Is the plan for the buffer still in place or has the contractor changed or altered the agreement?
On the advise of a close friend, who owns a reputable well drilling company, we decided to dig our well deeper last year because of St. John draining the water table, with their 300 foot deep wells. What is going to happen to our water tables if another 28/40 homes are added to MillCreek subdivision?
Past experiences has proven that once all the lots are sold and people start moving in next to the dairy farm, complaints will begin about the aroma from the cows. Those of us living nearby have always considered this aroma as part of country life. That is why we live here. The town of St. John and the contractor must be required to maintain a buffer between the entire farm and the new subdivision, for the benefit of all parties.
We understand that progress and change are inevitable but it appears there isn't much consideration for the established next door residence of Hanover Township Unincorporated to yet another new proposed subdivision.
Ken and Celia Grasly
Via email - Number 2
Hello,
My name is Tim Gerold of 11817 Parrish Ave. Cedar lake, IN.
I am writing this letter to express my concern and opposition to this proposed development at approximately 113th and Parrish Ave. Has anyone considered the ramifications of developing next to a farm of over 100 dairy cows? And if this newest development happens, is there any provisions protecting the Kleine dairy farm from future petitions and persecution from new neighbors? Also is there any plans to replace or replant the hundreds of oak trees that will be cut down to build houses? Wildlife in this area has taken a hard blow due to this explosion of new subdivisions and it doesn't seem fair to ruin natural habitats. I would also like to state that my well pump along with many other neighbors along the Parrish corridor have had to been dropped further down due to our water table dropping. If St. John has difficulty getting water already , what makes this a good idea to keep building more houses? My final question is how are the traffic patterns going to be affected? Parrish Ave. already seems to be a very busy road with not near enough police patrols for speeding. Accidents at the corner of 231 and Parrish are frequent, and getting out of 113th . Ave is a struggle during the morning and afternoon rush. I understand we have to coexist with the people leaving Illinois, but I just don't think it's a wise idea to keep building in this area without the proper infrastructure. Our little 2 lane roads can't handle this traffic, and our water table can't handle the demand for more residents. Please thoughtfully consider my concerns and also my fellow neighbors' concerns.
Regards,Tim Gerold
Via email - Number 3
The purpose of this email is to bring to your attention my concerns over a new proposed residential development on the property known as 11115 Parish ave. Cedar lake, In.
It has been brought to my attention by my neighbors on 1 13th ave the disturbing decline of their well water tables. How will even more houses affect this problem.? Some have already drilled new wells because of this problem. How is St. John taking this issue into consideration? How will St. John protect the neighboring rural community?
My other concern is waste water. I have a 5ft culvert under my driveway that is fed by water from the east side of Parrish Avenue. Where will waste water from this new residential development be sent? I hope not under my driveway. I now have all I can handle. How does St. John plan on handling waste water and where will they send it?
Who is in charge of making sure no one is negatively affected by more houses and more waste?
Sincerely
Cheryl Boller
Boss 10088
West 113th ave
Cedar Lake, In 46303
Sent from my iPad
Number 4
Todd Staples
Notes for 5/5/2021 Meeting
Via email - Number 5
Dear planning commission,
I live near the proposed new subdivision Parrish Woods and have many concerns that I urge you to consider. Some of these concerns the board has mentioned and are valid and could be a detriment to the community and town.
At the last meeting you talked about the new subdivision not connecting to other areas and only being accessed from Parrish and we agree this is not ideal. There are multiple access points created already in Mill Creek on the other sides that are ready to use and connect to new subdivisions. Creating this individualized unit is only going to create more congestion and danger on Parish. This alone should be a huge red flag.
We agree with the board that sidewalks need to be a must! We also feel that they should not connect to the Mill Creek walking path that we pay to maintain unless they are going to start contributing to the HOA that maintains that area.
Water is also a huge issue. We currently have a drain in our backyard that gets flooded every time it rains, which is fine because it is designed to release the water slowly so as to not flood others in the area. The proposed plans would only make it worse and possibly cause damage to the homes going in and the existing homes on both sides of Parrish. Their backyards would now flow into ours as well, which would then create issues outside of their system that they claim will be separate. They also claim they are creating a retention pond but that is nowhere on the plan. The only thing there is the wetlands and then be filled because of no retention pond creation.
Losing that wooded area and wetlands is wrong! We have seen a variety of animals make that their home because there are so little areas like that in the town. To destroy that land just to turn a quick buck for a small area that is not going to be able to be expanded or grow but only cause problems does not seem right.
Putting this subdivision in is hurting the homes on the opposite side of Parrish. It is putting more water on to their property because in the meeting the company stated they would direct the water under Parrish into that system. That is going to create more issues that the previous homes are already facing with new construction and more homes that need drainage.
We thank you for considering what the town has to say and appreciate your hard work to keep the town a wonderful place to live!
Thank you!
Sarah Adams
Via email - Number 6
Catherine and Paul Freeman
11212 Parrish Ave.
Cedar Lake, IN 46303
Our house is directly across from the wooded area just South of the house commonly known as 11115 Parrish Avenue. We have lived in our house for 32 years. Our road used to be quiet, rural and hardly travelled and that has all changed with the ongoing residential development of our immediate area. On Parrish Avenue this has resulted in ever increasing traffic, traffic traveling at high rates of speed, passing in a no passing zone at high rates of speed, and increased accidents at 231 and Parrish Avenue. One accident, in June of last year, resulted in a woman passing 3 cars and crashing into my sister-in-law's car (with my 10 year old grandson inside her car) as my sister-in-law was attempting to turn left intomy driveway. The woman's car came to a stop in my front ditch. Another subdivision will only add to these ever increasing traffic issues.We want to ensure that entrances from Parrish Avenue in Mr. Fleming l s proposal are addressed and that the Town takes all of the surrounding households concerns and negative experiences resulting from the recently established developments, such as Millcreek, into heavy consideration with Mr. Fleming l s development proposal. More houses means more traffic in an ever increasingly dangerous stretch of road. This straight stretch of Parrish Avenue from 231 South to the railroad crossing is where motorists increase speed and choose to pass, resulting in the increased chance of accidents such as the one that involved my family members. This is the same stretch of Parrish Avenue where Mr. Fleming is proposing his development.
Our other major concern is the risk of our well, and our neighbors wells, having to once again be dropped with another residential development going in right next to the one (Millcreek) which caused us to have to drop our wells in the first place. Before the establishment of the Gates of St. John and Millcreek, our well was sufficient to 180ft. During the construction of Millcreek we had to pay $360 to have our well dropped 40 feet, from 120ft to 160ft. We now only have 2.0 feet left to drop before we have to have a brand new well dug. That expense is unknown as we would not know how deep we would have to dig, but research shows this can be upwards of five to ten thousand dollars or more. Sheehy Well Co. was who we used to drop our well and that employee told us that at least 3 nearby households had also been serviced by Sheehy Well Co., and more houses by Economy Well, to have their wells dropped, The Sheehy employee also estimated that we would only get 1 to 2 more years out of our current well if another subdivision develops and uses our water table. We hope that this information can provide more details and proof of how one established development has already effected our area.
If another 40+ houses go into Mr. Fleming's proposed development on our water table, we will again be faced with the expense and disruption of having to have our wells dropped, or even worse, run dry, and burdened with the cost of having a new one drilled. We urge the Town to take into serious and thoughtful consideration the costs and stress the surrounding households have already endured with the establishment of Millcreek and how Mr. Fleming's development may directly affect the surrounding households once again, and possibly to a much greater extent.
For the record, our family is completely against Mr. Fleming's proposed development of this property. We ask that all of the above concerns are outlined in detail by the Town and Mr. Fleming in how they will be addressed and/or avoided with this proposed development.
Thank you,
Catherine and Paul Freeman
End of Electronic Public Hearing Comments
Closed to Public Hearing for 2021-09 Parrish Woods, Primary Plat for 27 single-family residential lots at 11115 Parrish Avenue, zoned: R1, 20 acres
Mr. Kraus commented that the development must retain the run-off on their own property. Water will come from the one of the 5 wells the Town owns. For wastewater they will have to have their own sanitary sewer near a retention basin. From the Parrish woods basin, it will run towards Mill Creek. It was agreed that traffic on Parrish Avenue is extremely busy.
Mr. Fleming commented that a buffer on the southern portion will be considered.
Board Comments
Mr. Fleming commented that he took notes and will take it back to his partners. He also stated that there are no access points along the easement along the entire right-of-way.
Mr. Kennedy will be asking the Board to defer the primary plat.
Board Action
Mr. Birlson made a motion to defer 2021 – 09 Parrish Woods, Primary Plat for 27 single-family residential lots at 11115 Parrish Avenue, zoned: R1, 20 acres
for Plan commission action until June 2, 2021. Mr. Gill seconded the motion.
Discussion/Questions/Comments
None
Ayes - Mr. Birlson, Mr. Gill, Ms. Little, Mr. Vlasic. Mr. Kennedy
Nays – none
Absent – Ms. Cardona, Ms. Wohland
Primary Plat deferred to June 2, 2021
Mr. Slager gave a brief history of the project. He stated there is a new retention area, a new entrance on 93rd Avenue, there is an extension of the bike path and berming along White Oak and 93rd Avenue. The improvements are complete: sewers are in, roads are in, and the paving is done.
Mr. Kraus stated that the Secondary Plat is satisfactory. The development fee for this project is $35,740.02.
Mr. Kraus had no other questions or comments.
Mr. Birlson has heard some complaints regarding the berm on 93rd Avenue. He has heard that pulling out of White Oak is difficult with the berm. Mr. Slager stated if they needed to reshape it, they could.
Board Action
Mr. Kennedy is seeking a motion for The Preserves, Phase 5. Mr. Gill made a motion to approve the Preserves, Phase 5, Final Plat for 71 single-family residential lots at the intersection of White Oak Ave and 93rd Ave, zoned: R-1, 38 acres. Mr. Birlson seconded the motion.
Discussion/Questions/Comments
None
Ayes - Mr. Birlson, Mr. Gill, Ms. Little, Mr. Vlasic. Mr. Kennedy
Nays – none
Absent – Ms. Cardona, Ms. Wohland
Final Plat approved.
Mr. Rettig stated there was a strong determination for getting the proper placement of this house especially on a cul-de-sac. The lot is an unusual, shaped lot. The plan for the rear yard we are calling Option A.
Discussion/Questions/Comments
None
Board Action
Mr. Kennedy is seeking a motion to accept, deny or defer Option A for acceptable side yard and rear yard setbacks.
Mr. Birlson made the motion to approve Option A for acceptable side yard and rear yard setbacks at 14276 Fortress Court. Mr. Vlasic seconded the motion.
Discussion/Questions/Comments
None
Ayes - Mr. Birlson, Mr. Gill, Ms. Little, Mr. Vlasic. Mr. Kennedy
Nays – none
Absent – Ms. Cardona, Ms. Wohland
Option A approved
Respectfully submitted,
Jan Barry, Recording Secretary
Town Council
Commissioners present: Bob Birlson, Vice-President; Jon Gill, Jason Vlasic, and John Kennedy, President.
Also present: Adam Decker, Board Attorney; Kenn Kraus, Town Engineer; Bryan Blazak, Town Council Liaison; and Sergio Mendoza, Building and Planning Director.
Yolanda Cardona joined the meeting remotely at approximately 7:15 P.M.
Absent: Donna Little, Executive Secretary; and Nancy Wohland.
A quorum was attained.
President Kennedy stated the same owner that owns this building also owns the property directly to the south, so the side and rear yard is adjacent to his building. We did talk about the size of the building because our issue really came down with the drainage easement. We did not know what kind of affect it would have to release our rights to that easement, which is why our contingency from the BZA was to have it reviewed by the Plan Commission. Mr. Kraus stated he can definitely take a look to see what is in there, and if there are no pipes or swales in that eastern most eight feet, there should be no problem with reducing the easement.
Mr. Birlson stated on one of the drawings, the building corner is eleven and a half feet outside of the twenty foot drainage easement. He asked why the easterly eight feet would be needed if the building corner is not in the twenty foot drainage easement. Mr. Wieser stated in consultation with the Town staff, it was determined that that easement would have to be vacated in order to accommodate the building. We had a discussion about the angle of the building, and because of the need of the trucks that will be coming in and out, it needs to be set up that way. Otherwise the building would be straight on the property. Mr. Birlson stated he still did not understand why the additional eight feet was needed when the building is outside of the easement. Mr. Wieser stated they needed the eight feet vacated. Attorney Decker stated he believed Mr. Birlson was looking at the vacation of the NIPSCO easement. The building on that document is not what is being proposed. You need to be looking at the site plan. Director Mendoza stated everything that is highlighted in yellow is the proposed structure. Mr. Wieser stated since there was the contingency from the BZA, we wanted to get this portion of the issue resolved so we can move on to the site approval.
President Kennedy asked if the wetlands on the south of the property were self-contained or if they drain to any ditch. Mr. Fleming stated he would have to ask the professional that did the wetlands delineation. He stated he is not an expert, but if it is wetlands, we typically stay away from them. President Kennedy asked if he was aware of the changes the State has made that states if it is self-contained it can be farmed or developed. Mr. Fleming stated we are still getting mixed messages back because IDEM and those that passed the legislation were not all on the same page. It has been written and put in to place, but no one knows how it is supposed to work. He stated he would still prefer to defer to those that know more about it to tell him if he can do anything or not in those areas.
Mr. Mendoza stated, we did receive three additional public comments for this applicant, and it was advised that it would be to the Commission discretion if they would like to hear them after since the public hearing was closed. President Kennedy stated since we do not take any actions at the Study Session, we will decide that at the next regular meeting.
President Kennedy asked if there was any way the classification of the wetland can be determined by the Town. Mr. Kraus stated Mr. Fleming’s expert would need to work with the Army Corp. They will look at their delineation and classification and approve or not approve it.
Mr. Fleming stated the other topic of discussion from the previous meeting was relative to an eight foot sidewalk. We did submit a proposed concept for discussion tonight. Exhibited in blue is the proposed direction of the eight foot sidewalk. With this being isolated from the rest of St. John and the matter to the south is unincorporated, and there is no sidewalk to the north, we are proposing that the sidewalk carry through to Atherton and then return to Parrish in order to provide that accessibility to the subdivision. This would also reduce some of the redundancy of sidewalk along Parrish as well as Atherton, and then we would stub at the end of our property to the north and south. Our initial proposed location of the lift station at the southwest corner of outlot 1 forced us to put the sidewalk hugging the curb. Having heard the concerns, we thought it best to bring the lift station further to the north in order to avoid hugging the curb and giving us more separation from the traffic and pedestrians.
President Kennedy asked where the sidewalk would squeeze. Mr. Fleming stated at outlot 1 it was squeezed against the curb, but we have been able to mitigate that. It is not reflected in this drawing. Mr. Kraus stated outlot 29 is different than what was shown on the engineer drawings. The reason it got changed previously is because we did not want a driveway coming out on to Parrish to the lift station. Mr. Fleming we heard those comments, but hearing the safety issues at the last meeting, we thought it best to make this change to get the sidewalk off of the curb. Mr. Kraus stated obviously the traffic in to the lift station will not be heavy at all, but it is going to be coming on to a busy road. Mr. Fleming stated it has been drawn to allow for a three-point turn so that Public Works would not be backing out on to Parrish.
Mr. Gill stated traffic was spoken about at the last meeting. When they dedicate the right-of-way or even improve the road, is there a way they can future-proof that in case we ever have to widen Parrish for turning lanes, which could be coming in the near future. They have their accel and decel lanes, but it may be prudent to have them widen Parrish along their frontage a full lane in preparation for the intersection to the north being improved, rather than having them do all of the curb work along Parrish and we end up coming in and tearing it out when we widen Parrish. Mr. Birlson asked if additional right-of-way was wanted, or just additional pavement. Mr. Gill stated both. We should at least get the addition right-of-way. Mr. Birlson asked what the right-of-way width was north of this subdivision. Mr. Fleming stated we match. President Kennedy stated it would be logical to address the traffic issues on Parrish. In regards to the sidewalk, you are almost substituting a pedestrian sidewalk for a trail for those lots. We understand it is close to the curb, but we really should just have the connectivity north and south along Parrish. Mr. Fleming stated if we are asked to widen Parrish, that eight foot will be back to hugging the curb. We do marry up with the right-of-way that lines up with Mill Creek, so we are not staggering, but to the question of pavement or placement of curb, we start to hug that right-of-way tight. President Kennedy stated it would not be ideal, but it is better than what is currently out there. Mr. Birlson stated he agreed that the sidewalk needs to connect and be on Parrish. Mr. Gill, Ms. Cardona, and Mr. Vlasic agreed. Mr. Fleming stated he appreciated the feedback and understood.
Mr. Fleming asked about consideration of the location of the lift station to be able to get the eight foot further off the curb. President Kennedy asked if the path needed to be concrete. Mr. Kraus stated it does request concrete. Wherever the driveway goes, if it crosses any sidewalk, the sidewalk should be thickened. President Kennedy asked if there was any other location for access other than Parrish for the lift station. Mr. Kraus stated the engineering plans have it on the south corner with the driveway on to Atherton. Mr. Fleming stated we can go back to that, it just forced us to put the sidewalk on to the curb and that area is an acceleration lane. Mr. Kraus stated he preferred to not have the driveway to the lift station on Parrish. The Commissioners agreed. Discussion followed regarding the sidewalk being on the curb versus the preference of a driveway on Parrish for the lift station.
President Kennedy stated the only waivers being requested are connectivity to another undeveloped parcel and a sidewalk waiver. Mr. Fleming stated we are not asking for a waiver on the sidewalk since we are working towards a way of putting that in. The only waiver would be in regards to the connectivity. Part of that is we are a twenty acre parcel surrounded on two sides by subdivisions that do not have access to us, a dairy farm to the south that will “never be moving”, as well as that area goes in to a wetland and we are still unsure if we will be able to do anything there. Mr. Birlson asked if there was wetland to the south. Mr. Fleming stated a study was only done on our twenty acres, so he could not speak to that. President Kennedy stated the subdivision to the north has a stub to the rear of the dairy farm. He stated he understood that the dairy farm owners have said they will never move, but our responsibility is to look past the future. We understand that it is a wetland, but if it comes back that we can develop it, we would push for that stub to go in in order to have the future connectivity. Mr. Fleming stated we are awfully close to satisfying every contention that could be had except for this waiver. President Kennedy stated from what he knows about the area, under the new regulations, it may be able to be dried and developed so that is something that needs to be found out. Ultimately it is up to the Commission to give the waiver. President Kennedy asked if there would be consideration for the extra pavement on Parrish. Mr. Fleming stated yes, but are we looking for extra pavement since the right-of-way matches Mill Creek, or extra right-of-way. If it is extra pavement, what is the width you are looking for? Mr. Gill stated we would need to get with Mr. Kraus to determine that. Mr. Kraus stated he would not want to put in an extra lane and have people think that they can drive on it and then have to merge back in to where they were before. It would be great if we could put in left turn lanes at both intersections off of Parrish, but there is not enough room to put those in with the right-of-way we have. In order to get everything, there would have to be more right-of-way, which would make them not line up with the right-of-way at Mill Creek. Mr. Fleming stated in the past we have given municipalities the funds to put in the sidewalk rather than us putting it in and then in a few years it being taken up do to movement of the road. President Kennedy stated we do not have the mechanisms in place to do that, but it would be a good idea. Mr. Kraus stated we really need a traffic engineer to take a look at this and decide if we need two lanes or turn lanes. President Kennedy stated he did know that INDOT has gone out to big for the designs of Parrish and 231 and Cline and 231, so that will probably be done in the next few years. Mr. Kraus, if you could review it and let us know your thoughts that would be great. Mr. Gill stated he was more concerned about the right-of-way rather than the pavement. Discussion followed.
Mr. Mendoza pointed out that the minimum right-of-way needed is actually ninety feet, not eighty. There would need to be an extra five feet added to what is shows. Mr. Fleming stated they just lined up with what Mill Creek had approved. If we get in to that, there may be lot size issues with the lots that line up along Parrish. President Kennedy stated personally, he would rather see more right-of-way and possibly grant waivers for those lots. Mr. Fleming stated if he is keeping the Commission happy on the right-of-way and lot sizes, then he is winning. We could either reduce one, or even disperse the five feet amongst three lots so it’s a minor impact. The Commission agreed they would rather see more right-of-way and take away from some of the lots. Mr. Kraus stated you would then need a waiver for the 20% rule on corner lots. President Kennedy asked if the five feet should be taken away from the interior lots to keep the corner lots where they need to be to meet that. Discussion followed regarding what lots should be shortened. Mr. Fleming stated he would get with the engineer to see what makes the most sense. The only waivers for consideration would then be the stubbing of the road and possible lot sizes, but we will get with staff beforehand to let them know what changes are made. Attorney Decker stated the zoning requirement for R-1 is a minimum of one hundred feet. If those lot widths change to under one hundred feet wide, a developmental use variance would need to be sought from the BZA.
President Kennedy stated since this is a PUD, it will be a recommendation from the Plan Commission to the Town Council and then it is their duty to make the final decision. Since they have been at three meetings, it is time for the Board to really make a decision on if we want to continue moving forward and get deeper in to the planning of this development, or say we do not feel that this fits what St. John is looking for. President Kennedy stated let’s start with the commercial and live/work aspect of the property. Mr. Georgiou stated in a PUD there are a lot of details and determinations that are negotiated and made part of the PUD. This process is normal for it to evolve and change as we go. We would like feedback on if this is something the Commission feels would be good to move forward with, though. Mr. Birlson stated he did not have a problem with the retail and live/work units, but Red Rock Place should be continued through to the retail center rather than traffic needing to go out to Calumet Ave. Ms. Cardona stated she did not have any issues with the retail aspect, everything looks very nice and it will benefit St. John, but the live/work space is not something that is typically seen here. She stated the idea of it, however, has grown on her and that the research has more than likely been done showing the need for something like that. President Kennedy stated he would like to see the connectivity to the north as a dedicated roadway. That way it could possibly be brought down to the south and connect to Red Rock Place. He stated he loved the retail and live/work space and that it would be a good addition to the community. With four bedroom condos, however, additional parking may be required. Mr. Georgiou stated if we took the bike path extension, which goes off of the cul-de-sac, in reality if you look at that and the commercial connection to the north, they practically align. If you created a roadway to connect to the retail, it would not be a formal right-of-way through the commercial development. President Kennedy stated he was not looking for a large road, just something like a boulevard to connect the two. He stated he knew they were not in to the specific plans, but as it sits, the retail and live/work spaces are something he likes and would recommend to the Town Council with maybe a few modifications on connectivity and lighting. Brad Lambert, Lambert Concrete, stated they had to do a very similar thing in Cedar Lake.
President Kennedy stated he appreciated the extra landscaping between the R-2 development and the townhomes. He asked if there were square footage plans. Mr. Georgiou stated between the two floors, the average is 2400 sq.ft., which is larger than most townhomes and duplexes. President Kennedy asked how many units there were. Mr. Georgiou stated we are proposing thirty-six, but that could change slightly depending on floor plans. Mr. Birlson stated he was not sure if townhomes were the right thing for this area. He stated he was thinking single family. Mr. Georgiou asked if it was a density issue. Mr. Birlson stated when people move to St. John, they want space. Mr. Georgiou stated the reference point provided was Lake Hills, which are twenty-nine foot units and are a mix of three or four units combined. Mr. Birlson stated he believed that was a bad spot for townhomes in St. John. President Kennedy asked if the proposed six-unit buildings could be modified to less. He asked the Board if it was the issue of townhomes, or how many. Mr. Birlson stated it was the issue of townhomes for him. Mr. Georgiou asked if $450,000 townhomes were a stumbling block. Mr. Birlson stated around Bingo Lake is a good spot for them, but not other areas. Ms. Cardona stated she felt the same way as Mr. Birlson. Ideally people move to St. John for elbow room. There is a place for them, but maybe not this spot. President Kennedy stated density does not scare him as much, but rather the value of the establishment and architectural standards that will be in place. A six unit may not be appropriate, but it sounds like it is just a townhome issue.
Greg Brower, Attorney, stated he heard that townhomes have their place. There is a unique nature to this parcel. You are tucked up against an area that is becoming a busier and busier intersection, so that pushes us more towards a townhome development. If you look at the plan, we do believe it is a good transition from the commercial to the R-2, plus there is a lot of green space throughout this parcel that is left open. Mr. Brower stated he started off in a townhome in St. John and loved it, and the community he currently lives in has townhomes, duplexes, and single family units and they all thrive. He stated he understood the concern, but townhomes do serve an important need in every community. With the unique positioning of this and the transition, we felt this was a good area for townhomes and we hoped that the Plan Commission would see that value. Mr. Birlson asked if the eastern half of the property would be first or the western half. Mr. Lambert stated they would start with the eastern half. Townhomes have become very attractive to younger people as well, not just older people who want the maintenance-free living. It is expensive to live in St. John. You cannot find a single family home for under $400,000. These units would top out at $400,000 and attract youth to the St. John area as well as decent affordability. Mr. Georgiou stated there will be significant green space that separates the developments and also allows for a bike path for everyone to use and have easy access to the retail sites that will be there. President Kennedy asked what the depth of the lots were for the townhomes. Mr. Georgiou stated he was looking at keeping a one hundred and fifty foot depth. President Kennedy asked if something could be on the north and east end of the property other than townhomes. Mr. Georgiou stated there is a mix of homes we can entertain. Mr. Lambert stated if we could get approval to go to the next level, it would be something we could investigate, but a mix of townhomes and duplexes or single family may not be attractive overall. The single family option in this small of an area may not work. We are going to be using the residential portion to help fund the commercial portion, so we are looking to make any deal we can make that would be economically feasible for the development. Mr. Birlson stated he would like to see access from the townhomes to the retail center. Mr. Lambert stated we did not want to show that we were plowing out on to that easement without knowing if we can do that or not.
President Kennedy stated the commercial side is something we are on board with, but is there another option the Board would like to see on the residential side. Mr. Georgiou stated R-1 would not be feasible. If the Commission is willing to look at zero lot lines or duplexes, there is something we can plan and come up with to present. Mr. Birlson stated he is on the fence with townhomes, but would also not like to see single family homes with sixty foot lot widths. Ms. Cardona stated this could potentially pass as is. There are other members than Mr. Birlson and myself. President Kennedy agreed and stated we are only making a recommendation to the Town Council, but they need some sort of comfort level on how to proceed forward. Mr. Brower stated we appreciate that consideration. It sounds like the minds are open with respects to these concepts, but we can take a step forward and make some renderings on how we are going to satisfy the R-2 residents. Mr. Georgiou asked if there was the opportunity to come in with some options before coming in to the meeting. Mr. Mendoza stated they would coordinate something.
Mr. Birlson stated he still was not comfortable with the lot width. He stated he would like to see one hundred foot lots, but ninety minimum. With the types of homes that are being built in St. John, they need space. President Kennedy asked what the side yard requirements would be. Doug Rettig, DVG, stated eight feet. President Kennedy asked the dept. Mr. Rettig stated one hundred and fifty feet. Mark Anderson, Attorney, stated immediately to the south of this development, there are lots ranging from sixty-two to eighty-two feet, so these lots would be larger. Mr. Birlson stated he was not on the Board at that time. President Kennedy asked if there were minimums for the size of homes. Mr. Herbers stated there will be a minimum of 2400 – 2500 sq.ft. for the two story homes and will peak around 3,000 sq.ft., and the ranch models vary between 2,000 – 2,200 sq.ft. President Kennedy stated those exceed our current standards, which means more than the lot size, in his opinion. He asked if the homes would have stone returns. Mr. Herbers stated each home will have a two foot stone return. This development would also be LP Smart Side only, no vinyl. President Kennedy asked what the rear and front setbacks would be. Mr. Herbers stated thirty and thirty.
Mr. Gill stated he would like to see what some of the plans look like on the lot. That is where there could be compromise between the lot width and the unit because, depending on the style of the home, you could create too large of a lot. He stated he agreed with President Kennedy that the type of home matters to him more than the lot width. President Kennedy stated seventy does seem small, but in viewing it, it may make sense. Mr. Herbers stated they could come up with renderings for that. President Kennedy asked if these would be customer built homes. Mr. Herbers stated they would be semi-custom homes where they have a choice of floor plans, but will be able to go to our design center and pick their finishes. President Kennedy asked if the easements did not exist, how many homes could fit on the site under R-1. Mr. Rettig stated if it were R-2 and no easements you would be at about one hundred and thirty lots based on 1.6 units per acre. Mr. Herbers stated he has one hundred and one lots. President Kennedy asked how lot 24 would be handled. Mr. Rettig stated there would be a few tricky lots that we would have to work with. President Kennedy asked if there was another location with seventy foot wide lots he could view. Mr. Herbers stated Ledgestone in Cedar Lake and Latitude in Winfield. Mr. Rettig stated in Latitude there are sixty foot lots, which is not their product, but on the north side there is seventy foot lots. Also look at Morningcrest in St. John. Diamond Peak is currently building their homes there on one hundred foot lots and there is a lot of green space in between. President Kennedy asked if the lots north of lots 3-13 were being developed. Mr. Herbers stated those are being developed. President Kennedy asked if there was a way to align lots 3-13 with the lots north of them. Mr. Kraus stated the reason those lots are so wide is because they could not get the depth so they had to make up for it. President Kennedy asked for the drawings to see what their homes would look like on seventy foot wide lots. He also asked who did the architectural review that is referred to in the covenants. Mr. Herbers stated the developer would. President Kennedy asked how long the covenants would last. Mr. Herbers stated until the development reaches 80% - 90% ownership, then they would be handed over to the residents. President Kennedy asked if the correct right-of-way was on Parrish for the eight foot sidewalks. Mr. Kraus stated it looks to be matched up at the south end of 103rd, but not at the north end to the Suncrest Addition. Mr. Rettig stated he would look in to that because there is an offset on the two section lines. Mr. Vlasic asked if the bike path tied to anything on the east side. Mr. Herbers stated that path is not installed yet, but by the time we get there it may be to where we can connect to it.
| John Kennedy | Bob Birlson |
| Plan Commission President | Plan Commission Vice-President |
Members present:
Robert Birlson, John Gill, Donna Little, Jason Vlasic, Nancy Wohland, John Kennedy
Members absent:
Yolanda Cardona
Also present:
Sergio Mendoza, Director; Adam Decker, Lawyer; Ken Kraus, Engineer; Bryan Blazak, Town Council Liaison
There were no minutes to approve, Mr. Kennedy called for minutes to be deferred.
Mr. Birlson made a motion to defer the meeting minutes. Mr. Vlasic seconded the motion.
Ayes - Robert Birlson, John Gill, Donna Little, Jason Vlasic, Nancy Wohland, John Kennedy
Nays - None
Motion carried unanimously to defer minutes.
Mr. Mendoza gave a brief history: This applicant appeared before the BZA where they filed two (2) variances; one for location of parking and the second for a request to reduce required minimum square footage from 15,000 sq. feet to 8,120 sq. feet. The BZA made a recommendation, and the applicant has amended and updated the building size from the 8,120 sq. feet to 7,000 sq. feet. The parking layout was previously presented, the parking spaces and drive thru lanes are still the same.
Jeff Brant from Brant Construction stated he has been working with Mr. Mendoza to come up with an acceptable site plan for the Plan Commission. The lot is a non-standard size for proper sq. footage and parking. The parking requirement has been amended by moving it from the front to the side.
Board Discussion/Questions/Comments
None
Mr. Kraus stated that the building size and the parking requirement have been met. The height of the light post has also been met as it is at 20 feet within the 25 feet limit.
Open to Public Hearing for 2021 – 01 MARTIN’S COMMERCIAL ADDITION, LOT 9, proposed Development/Site plan for retail development at 10845 Poplar Place,
Mr. Mendoza stated everything was in order for the Public Hearing.
No Public Comment
No electronic communications for Public Comment.
Closed to Public Comment for 2021 – 01 01 MARTIN’S COMMERCIAL ADDITION, LOT 9, proposed Development/Site plan for retail development at 10845 Poplar Place,
Mr. Kennedy questioned with the reduced building size can the number of parking spaces be reduced. Mr. Brant stated they could reduce some parking spaces, but did not feel that would be a benefit to the public.
Board Discussion/Questions/Comments
None
Board Action
Mr. Kennedy was seeking a motion to approve, deny or defer 2021 – 01, Martin’s Commercial, contingent on final approval from the BZA at the 21st BZA Meeting.
Mr. Birlson made the motion to approve 2021-01 MARTIN’S COMMERCIAL ADDITION, LOT 9, proposed Development/Site plan for retail development at 10845 Poplar Place, zoned: C-2, 1 acre, contingent on approval from the BZA. Mr. Vlasic seconded the motion.
Mr. Kraus in his letter read by Mr. Kennedy stated that the plan is satisfactory, and the site plan fee is $1500.
Board Discussion/Questions/Comments
Ms. Little questioned the landscaping on site. She was concerned about Bradford Pear trees being planted. She is requesting no Bradford Pear trees be planted due to their invasive nature. Mr. Brant stated they will not include Bradford Pear trees in the landscaping. Mr. Kennedy asked Mr. Birlson if he would like to amend his motion to include no Bradford Pear trees. Mr. Birlson amended his motion and Mr. Vlasic seconded the amended the motion.
Ayes – Mr. Birlson, Mr. Gill, Ms. Little, Mr. Vlasic, Ms. Wohland, Mr. Kennedy
Nays – None
Site Plan approved with the amendment for no Bradford Trees.
Mr. Mendoza gave a brief history: This is a reduction in the rear yard at 9970 White Jasmine Drive from 30 feet to 15 feet.
Mr. Kraus commented that this Easement Reduction should be taken care of back in November. Several individuals did a home site inspection and saw no reason why it would not be approved at 15 feet.
Open to Public Hearing 2021 – 11 THE GATES OF ST. JOHN, UNIT 13A, LOT 431, Final Plat of Easement Reduction (rear yard) at 9970 White Jasmine Drive
Mr. Mendoza stated everything was in order for the Public Hearing.
No Public Comments
No electronic correspondence for Public Comments
Closed to Public Hearing 2021 – 11 THE GATES OF ST. JOHN, UNIT 13A, LOT 431, Final Plat of Easement Reduction (rear yard) at 9970 White Jasmine Drive
Board Discussion/Questions/Comments
Mr. Kraus stated there are no deep sewers that would require easement in the area. There are two lines (NIPSCO and a storm sewer line) in the area, but they will not be affected.
Board Action
Mr. Kennedy asked for a motion to approve, deny or defer 2021 -11.
Mr. Birlson made a motion to approve the THE GATES OF ST. JOHN, UNIT 13A, LOT 431, Final Plat of Easement Reduction (rear yard) at 9970 White Jasmine Drive, zoned: R-2, 0.25 acres. Ms. Wohland seconded the motion.
Board Discussion/Questions/Comments
None
Ayes – Mr. Birlson, Mr. Gill, Ms. Little, Mr. Vlasic, Ms. Wohland, Mr. Kennedy
Nays – None
Final Plat approved
A brief history was given: update for expanding the Right-of-Way from 40 feet to 45 feet, which was given at the last Study Session, the changes have been made and submitted to the Town. There will be 8-foot sidewalks along Parrish. Wetlands are a roadblock, as they cross over property lines and cannot be removed in all areas. This was also a concern from residents in the area. Stub road is not a waiver requirement. The request to see if left-hand turn lanes would be allowable – it is not a possibility. It would remove the sidewalk due to the area needed. Mr. Fleming is deferring to the Plan Commission, as to which is more important a sidewalk or a left-hand turn lane. He is totally fine with the Plan Commission’s discretion for sidewalk or left-turn lane.
Board Discussion/Questions/Comments
There is no Plat Review from Mr. Kraus. There are still a couple of questions that need resolution from the original site plan notes.
Mr. Kraus does not recommend a left- hand turn lane or passing blisters currently, due to footage in the area. It was stated they are just waiting for the items to be addressed and corrected and shown on the plans.
Mr. Kraus asked for a current update on the address of the existing home. Mr. Fleming was uncertain and would defer to the Post Office.
There was a discussion of 8-foot vs 12-foot water line and recapturing along Parrish Avenue.
Mr. Kennedy clarified the 4 items that are still pending and need to be reviewed by Mr. Kraus.
Board Action
Mr. Kennedy asked for a motion to approve 2021 – 09 Parrish Woods Primary Plat contingent upon Mr. Kraus final review including the four (4) above mentioned items.
Mr. Birlson made the motion to approve 2021-09 PARRISH WOODS, Primary Plat review for 27 single-family residential lots at 11115 Parrish Avenue, zoned: R-1, 20 acres contingent upon Mr. Kraus’s comments. Mr. Vlasic seconded the motion.
Board Discussion/Questions/Comments
Mr. Kraus was asked if he was comfortable moving forward. Mr. Kraus stated that he was comfortable, as long as Jason Dravet is called regarding the SCADA System.
Ayes – Mr. Birlson, Mr. Gill, Ms. Little, Mr. Vlasic
Nays – Ms. Wohland, Mr. Kennedy
Primary Plat approved 3 – 2, contingent on final site review by Mr. Kraus.
Mr. Mendoza gave a brief history: this request is to install a sign package, 3 of the 5 requested signs were approved. The PUD limits one sign for out lots, this is a request for a 2nd sign.
Mr. Yurko (Legacy Sign Group) stated this is a monument sign with an LED digital board. We are seeking approval for the digital part of the board. Mr. Yurko gave a brief description of the sign’s construction and stated it is comparable to and to be operated in the same manner as other boards in the area. The second sign is for a directional sign that lets the public know where the entrance is located.
Mr. Mendoza stated that this does not require a Public Hearing.
Board Discussion/Questions/Comments
The Board questioned would that mean that all buildings in the area could potentially request an electronic sign. PUD requirements for this property were discussed. Mr. Decker stated that the developer (Mr. Boyer) and the Town must approve the PUD variance of an electronic sign. Mr. Boyer stated that CREW Carwash was approved as part of their Building Permit Package, as was Wendy’s, which does not include a digital board. Mr. Boyer stated he was fine with the digital sign at Centier. Mr. Decker stated that approval of this sign would have no bearing on the approval of other lots in Town.
These two (2) signs requested by Centier were not identified in the original package and go against PUD guidelines. This is the last of the out lots along US41.
Board Discussion/Questions/Comments
Mr. Kennedy asked Mr. Mendoza if the vote should be as a package or each individual request. Mr. Mendoza stated that it should be on the whole package.
Discussion was again held on additional digital signs in the area.
Mr. Kennedy asked for a motion to approve, deny or defer Centier Bank, proposed Development/Site plan to Shops 96 Sign Package to include a second monument sign (directional sign) and an electronic changeable programmable message sign on the primary monument sign at 9621 Wicker Avenue.
Mr. Birlson motioned to deny the Centier Bank, proposed Development/Site plan to Shops 96 Sign Package to include a second monument sign (directional sign) and an electronic changeable programmable message sign on the primary monument sign at 9621 Wicker Avenue. Mr. Vlasic seconded the motion.
Discussion/Questions/Comments
Centier Bank asked if there was a concern about Centier Bank and its planned foundational business and its business model. The Plan Commission has no objective basis for denial.
Mr. Kennedy explained his reason for his denial of the package. He believes that any changes in the PUD should be between the current Town Council and the Owner/Developer. Their ideas may be the same or different from the previous Town Council which crafted the PUD for this area and what they choose to allow in the PUD, but a discussion between them should be allowed with a possible update to the PUD.
No additional Discussion/Questions/Comments.
Ayes – Mr. Birlson, Mr. Gill, Ms. Little, Mr. Vlasic, Mr. Kennedy
Nays – Ms. Wohland
Motion to deny Approved.
No one from Tractor Supply was present to address the Plan Commission.
Mr. Kraus has not had time to review the proposal.
Board Discussion/Questions/Comments
No discussion
Mr. Kennedy asked for a motion to approve, deny or defer the Tractor Supply Co., proposed Development/Site plan to construct a 26’W X 96’L rooftop over an existing garden/greenhouse center at 9957 Earl Drive. Mr. Birlson made the motion.
Further discussion and attempts to communicate with Tractor Supply via phone were attempted. Attempts were not successful, although Aaron Blue was on line, possibly with his phone muted.
Mr. Kraus pointed out that Tractor Supply is set for a Public Hearing according to the Public Hearing Announcements.
Respectfully submitted,
Jan Barry, Recording Secretary
Town Council
Commissioners present: Bob Birlson, Vice-President; Yolanda Cardona, Jon Gill, Donna Little, Executive Secretary; Jason Vlasic, and Nancy Wohlandand.
Also present: Adam Decker, Board Attorney; Kenn Kraus, Town Engineer; Bryan Blazak, Town Council Liaison; Christopher Salatas, Town Manager; and Jason Dravet, I.T. Coordinator.
Absent: John Kennedy
A quorum was attained.
Nick Georgiou, Georgiou & Associates, stated they took a serious look at detention and whether or not enough space was allocated as well as where the detention outfall would be and the topography. More of a realistic size is now shown on the Master Plan. Because of the grading and drainage on the south end, we will have to create a detention berm in order to route and hold the water. The new detention pond has taken up more space than the original concept. Another aspect we looked at was the townhome units. Previously we were proposing thirty-five units with a six-unit building be our largest building, but now we have lobbed about a third of that off and are only proposing twenty-four units that consist of duplexes, triplexes, and some townhomes. He stated we are still showing a full thirty-foot roadway circulating through the residential component, but have also now connected the residential to the retail side. Because of the new connection being through the middle of the live/work buildings, we have downsized them. The main access from Calumet Ave. has always been a landscaped boulevard entry, but we are now intending to put a landscaped buffering to transition in to the live/work buildings, as well as another landscaped buffering when entering in to the residential side. Mr. Georgiou stated they have also added a twenty foot space for a small driveway at the back of the live/work units for parking and entrance in to the condo’s garages. As far as the retail side, we are still showing about 13,000 sq.ft. for the two buildings, with connection to the north for future commercial areas. After speaking with Jack Slager from Schilling Development, we have modified our bike path in order to line up with the bike paths that are being built through Greystone, with the intent to set it up to connect across Calumet Ave. in the future. Last, we reevaluated Red Rock Pl., which was initially a large cul-de-sac with trailhead parking, a gazebo, and restroom area. We did not feel it was a good idea to connect that road to the retail area, so we have proposed a few lots at the end of the cul-de-sac for duplexes. We believe we have come up with a better solution that has reduced some of the density and hopefully meets more of the criteria for the Town.
Brad Lambert, Lambert Concrete, stated as we connected the residential development to the retail development, we decided to make a false bridge and make it a retention pond rather than a detention pond. It will be a nice feature that works the transition between commercial and residential. There was also some discussion with homeowners on Red Rock Pl. regarding the connection to the retail space, which they were not in favor of. They did love the idea of the cul-de-sac so that the street had a more finished look with a few more residential units. This gave them the assurance that the street will end and no future homes will go there. Mr. Birlson stated he agreed that would be a natural reaction from those homeowners, but it still does not give people further south in the Greystone area connectivity to the retail center unless they go out to Calumet Ave.
Mr. Birlson stated he preferred the last Master Plan with the bike paths better than this one because we have lost the connectivity from Greystone to the retail area for people that would want to walk or ride over to shop. Mr. Georgiou stated there is potential where you come in from the east, turn in to Greystone, T this off and in a short connection establish a connection to the rest of the development. Discussion followed regarding the placement of the bike path and how the Commission would like to connect the bike path to Greystone as well as the commercial development. Mr. Lambert stated they were trying to come up with a plan that would lessen the chance of homeowners on Red Rock Pl. saying they did not want connectivity to the commercial side and have their street used as a thoroughfare, but would be happy to have bike paths all over to connect to everything. There also was a trailhead already in Greystone, so we did not want to be repetitive. Adding those duplexes to the cul-de-sac is making up for some of the loss on the residential side that occurred when we planned the connection to the commercial side as well as replaced the townhomes with more duplexes and triplexes.
Mr. Birlson stated it sounded like the Board would be more in favor of a trailhead parking area and gazebo than the proposed duplexes. Ms. Little stated she would rather see a gazebo and restrooms in that area, and cottage homes would be preferred instead of duplexes and townhomes to better suite that area. Ms. Wohland agreed with cottage homes and the idea of a park at the end of the cul-de-sac rather than more duplexes. Mr. Georgiou stated the duplexes and triplexes are larger footprints that will be $350,000 - $400,000 homes and we have already taken off about a third of the homes that were originally proposed. Mr. Birlson stated you have to put yourself in our place. The original plan showed a park and bike paths and now all of a sudden it is missing. Mr. Lambert stated he would need to see how the Parks Department would feel about the restrooms being there for maintenance issues. As far as the residential area, the townhomes will not be against any other residential area. We were intentional in placing those in the development to not be against any other homes. Mr. Georgiou stated they also continue to show a landscape berm on the perimeter of the two existing residential developments. Ms. Little stated if you ask the people of St. John, they will tell you that they do not want to see townhomes, duplexes, triplexes and condos. She stated we are responsible to our residents, which is why she has always stuck with not being a fan of the design because of the feedback she has received from residents. Mr. Georgiou stated he understood, but we also know there is a demand for upscale duplexes and townhomes because there are none around here. This is an excellent transitional development due to being surrounded by commercial, but we are also doing our best knowing there are residential developments around us too.
Mr. Birlson asked what materials would be used on the live/work spaces. Mr. Georgiou stated it is all masonry and is included in the packet. Concrete masonry units that are called out in the drawings are not concrete blocks, but are actual bricks. Mr. Birlson asked if the main floor would be the same. Mr. Georgiou stated the main floor would be a mix of masonry, stonework, and storefront.
Mr. Birlson asked if all of the lots were eighty feet wide. Mr. Herbers stated all but the corner lots, which would be one hundred feet wide. Mr. Birlson stated dimensions on the plans would be nice so we are not guessing. Mr. Herbers stated he would get dimensions on there to show. Mr. Birlson asked what the house widths are including the garage. Mr. Herbers stated the minimum is right around forty-three feet, and a third car garage would add ten feet. Mr. Birlson asked if there would then be about twenty feet in between the homes. Mr. Herbers stated there would be about forty feet between the actual homes. Mr. Birlson asked if there was anything to the east of the bike path that it would be tied in to. Mr. Herbers stated there is nothing there now because it is not being developed, but we are proposing that for future connectivity.
Mr. Kraus asked when he could expect to see the engineering plans. Doug Rettig, DVG, stated they will be submitted within a week.
Mr. Kraus mentioned, in regards to item J, a letter was written about a week ago with our opinion in favor of reducing the easement.
Ms. Wohland made a motion to adjourn at approximately 8:13 P.M., seconded by Ms. Little and carried by roll call vote with five ayes.
Ayes: Bob Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, Jon Gill, Donna Little, Jason Vlasic, Nancy Wohland.
| John Kennedy | Bob Birlson |
| Plan Commission President | Plan Commission Vice-President |
Members present:
Robert Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, John Gill, Nancy Wohland, John Kennedy
Members absent:
Jason Vlasic, Donna Little
Also present:
Mr. Decker, Attorney; Mr. Kraus, Engineer; Mr. Blazak, Town Council Liaison;
Mr. Salatas, Town Manager
Mr. Kennedy is seeking a motion to defer.
Mr. Birlson made a motion to defer the minutes. Mr. Gill seconded the motion.
Ayes - Robert Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, John Gill, Nancy Wohland, John Kennedy
Nays – None
Motion carried
Mr. Slager gave a brief history: Seeking Primary Plat approval for 137 lots on 34 acres. Project started in June 2020. PUD approval was given in October 2020.
Discussion/Questions/Comments
Mr. Kennedy asked about the entrance at 101st. Mr. Slager stated they will duplicate that entrance sign at the other two entrances.
Mr. Kennedy asked for a brief description of the bike paths.
Mr. Slager stated there are a couple designed into the system. The development is in 3 Phases. The 1st will get the connection into the existing Preserves and out to 101st. A bike path along the creek that will go to the entrance and a crosswalk across 101st and onto a sidewalk on the southside of 101st. This ties everything together with Saddlecreek and ultimately Greystone. A walking path on the westside of our site follows along the west border.
Mr. Kennedy questioned how far off the property lines is the bike path in Phase 1.
Mr. Slager stated 10-feet to at least 30-feet, with a 10-foot-wide paved path.
Discussion/Questions/Comments
None
Open to Public Hearing for 2020-18 PRESERVE WEST: Primary Plat review, 137 Single Family Lots and 5 Outlots at 10365 West 101st Avenue
Mr. Mendoza stated everything is in order for the Public Hearing.
Jeanne DeGrauwe
14310 W. 101st, St. John
The 16.8 acres adjacent to the development is our property. A request has been made to Mr. Eberly in October 2020 and again to Mr. Mendoza last month. We are requesting a privacy fence, or a delineation barrier be put up at the western border of this property line. We are concerned about safety to our horses. We are concerned about if there is going to be a bike path adjacent to our property within 10-feet of our property. We are concerned that this opens unwarranted risk and liability. We would like to see that risk and liability diminished to the extent possible. No amount of privacy fences no matter how high will help us regain our privacy. It is lost to us forever.
We are asking for the Board to work with the developer to have a delineation fence installed as there is no separation now.
Mr. Mendoza read the following electronic Public Comment letters.
Via email – Number 1
Hi Mr. Mendoza thank you for taking the time to speak with me today. As mentioned, here is a copy of the letter I delivered to Mr. Eberly in October of last year. I am respectfully requesting that the town would insist that the developer install a privacy fence along the western border of this proposed development (our east property line) to minimize disruptions to our privacy and for liability reasons, as outlined in the attached letter.
Thank you for passing this request on to the appropriate individuals. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 312-206-6845.
I appreciate your time and consideration.
Jeanne DeGrauwe
14310 West 101 st Avenue
Dyer, IN 46311
October 9. 202.0
Mr. Rick Eberly
Building and Planning Director
Town of St. John
10955 West 93rd Avenue
St. John, IN 46373
RE: Preserve West 13650 W. 101 st Avenue
Dear Mr. Eberly:
My husband and I own the 16.8 acre parcel immediately to the west of the 134 acres recently approved for rezoning by the St. John Planning Commission.
At the September 2 Planning Commission meeting, I asked that a permanent barrier be constructed on the western most border of this proposed development, which is our shared property line. We have horses located on our property, and this proposed development causes a great risk to the safety and welfare of our animals and our property. If our horse fencing is breached, allowing our animals to escape their enclosure, this poses a threat to their safety and the safety of anyone unfamiliar in handling large animals.
I noted that the newest preliminary drawings submitted by the developer has a proposed walking/bike path adjacent to our property line. We have standard electric horse fencing. I am not sure of the voltage of the electric charge going through the fence but it is such that it will knock back a 1500 pound animal. What if a small child leaves that path and approaches our fence? Since there is no clear delineation of where our property line exists vs. the end of the subdivision, this is a very likely scenario. Even if the electric fence is not activated at the time, any person can approach our horses and be bitten or kicked, or a person can trip and sprain an ankle on our property. This is a huge insurance liability that the town and the developer are asking us unfairly to assume.
At the September meeting, I believe it was mentioned that the town does not mandate barriers for "like use" properties. Right now, the parcels are 'like use" because they are both farm fields. Once the ground is broken for a road or a sewer, there is no commonality between the properties any longer.
Due to the high risk liability to us, I implore the town to make it incumbent upon the developer to erect a privacy barrier to protect us as property owners. We are not asking for construction grade concrete barriers, but a privacy fence that cannot be breached would be very much appreciated by us.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully yours,
Adolph and Jeanne DeGrauwe
312-206-6845
Via email – Number 2
The subject property is to be reviewed at a public hearing on Wednesday, July 7, 2021. I won't be able to make that public hearing.
I live in the Bramblewood neighborhood at Lot #32. A few years ago the farmer or someone intentionally or unintentionally flooded the area generally identified with a red circle in the attached photo of the development plat survey. It stayed flooded as a large pond the entire summer. My backyard was unusable for much of the summer and I was unable to mow it for much of the summer. How will this development affect my property? In looking at the development, can you tell me if the surface runoff into Bull Run Ditch will increase? Will the the rate of surface runoff into Bull Run Ditch during precipitation increase? Does the surface water drainage for this development result in no net increase into Bull Run Ditch compared to today?
Jack Payonk
Closed to Public Hearing for 2020-18 PRESERVE WEST: Primary Plat review, 137 Single Family Lots and 5 Outlots at 10365 West 101st Avenue.
Mr. Slager responded to the email regarding Bull Run Ditch, Doug Rettig is also present if anyone had questions for him regarding the same.
Mr. Slager stated they are currently digging an 8-acre lake at this area. The area circled in red (picture on display) has been identified as a wetlands area. It does flood and stay wet, so we’ve stayed away from any of the lower areas and are keeping the lots on the high ground and have channeled the run-off back into the lake.
Regarding the neighbor to the west at Preserve West, we are open to some type of fence as a west boundary line. We typically don’t allow fences other than wrought iron ones, but we’d be open to some type of fence, i.e., split rail. We would also install signage along the area stating No Trespassing. We are open to working with the neighbor to keep their property separate from ours.
Discussion/Questions/Comments
Mr. Kennedy asked Mr. Decker if working in cooperation with the neighbor is something we put on the primary plat approval or do we let them work together.
Mr. Decker stated the later of the two, as it is not part of the Subdivision Control Ordinance. The applicant is presenting plat for primary approval.
Mr. Kennedy stated he hoped the two parties could work out an agreement amenable to both parties.
Discussion/Questions/Comments
Mr. Birlson asked about the 30-foot NIPSCO easement across Lots 518, 519, 520 and 524. Mr. Slager stated it is the existing service line for the farmhouse and it will be gone before we get to the final plat approval.
Discussion/Questions/Comments
None
Mr. Kennedy read Mr. Kraus’s letter.
The plat is satisfactory. There were 2 areas needing attention, the sidewalks at 3T intersections are not shown to have access across the street and several easements are needed for flood routes between houses. The development fee of $1500 has been paid.
Discussion/Questions/Comments
None
Board Action
Mr. Kennedy asked for a motion to approve, deny or defer 2020-18 PRESERVE WEST: Primary Plat review, 137 Single Family Lots and 5 Outlots at 10365 West 101st Avenue. He asked to also reference the Findings of Fact and Mr. Kraus’s letter.
Mr. Birlson made a motion to approve 2020-18 PRESERVE WEST: Primary Plat review, 137 Single Family Lots and 5 Outlots at 10365 West 101st Avenue, referencing Findings of Fact and Mr. Kraus’s letter. Ms. Wohland seconded the motion.
Discussion/Questions/Comments
None
Ayes - Ayes - Robert Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, John Gill, Nancy Wohland, John Kennedy
Nays – None
Motion passes
Petitioners were not present.
Mr. Kennedy asked for a motion to defer to August 4th.
Mr. Gill made the motion to defer 2021-15 TRACTOR SUPPLY CO.: proposed Development/Site plan to construct a 26’W X 96’L rooftop over an existing garden/greenhouse center at 9957 Earl Drive. Ms. Wohland seconded the motion.
Discussion/Questions/Comments
None
Ayes - Ayes - Robert Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, John Gill, Nancy Wohland, John Kennedy
Nays – None
Motion passes
Mr. Rettig gave a brief history: this is for a Final Plat approval on the last block of Meyers Addition, Unit 3. This development was started many years ago in three separate approved platted blocks and includes a commercial property on the US41 frontage. This is for the remaining 4 lots on the south end. The loop road is installed, so that allows plats for those lots and completes Meyers Addition, Unit 3.
Discussion/Questions/Comments
Any plans for the south end? Mr. Rettig stated that the developer intends to put something, possibly a couple of buildings on the lake, or a cul-de-sac, but is looking towards fall of this year to finish.
Mr. Kennedy read Mr. Kraus’s letter. The plat is satisfactory, the development fee was paid in its entirety in May 2015. There was discussion regarding final work on the road before final approval. Mr. Kraus suggests a letter stating that the warranty will be extended for an additional two years.
Board Action
Mr. Kennedy is seeking a motion to approve, deny or defer 2017-03 MEYERS ADDITION, UNIT 3, BLOCK 4: Final Plat review, 4 Duplex Lots and 1 Outlot at 8237 Wicker Avenue, zoned R-3, 6 acres; Doug Rettig (DVG), Dennis Meyers (Dancing Waters Townhomes LLC), asking for a reference to Findings of Fact and Mr. Kraus’s letter.
Mr. Birlson made a motion to approve 2017-03 MEYERS ADDITION, UNIT 3, BLOCK 4: Final Plat review, 4 Duplex Lots and 1 Outlot at 8237 Wicker Avenue, referencing the Findings of Fact and Mr. Kraus’s letter dated July 2, 2021, and a letter from the developer to extend the road warranty for 2 additional years. Mr. Gill seconded the motion.
Discussion/Questions/Comments
None
Ayes - Ayes - Robert Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, John Gill, Nancy Wohland, John Kennedy
Nays – None
Final Plat approved
Mr. Yatsko gave a brief history: This is a final plat approval for 10 lots which will finish the development on the south side of 93rd Avenue. Seeking approval contingent on providing a Surety Bond in the amount of $81,077.75 and development fee as stated in Mr. Kraus’s letter.
Discussion/Questions/Comments
None
Mr. Kennedy read Mr. Kraus’s letter; the plat is satisfactory.
Board Action
Mr. Kennedy is asking for a motion to approve, deny or defer 2018-04 WALDEN CLEARING, PHASE 3: Final Plat review, 10 Single Family Lots and 2 Outlots at 8209 West 93rd Avenue, referencing Findings of Fact and Mr. Kraus’s letter.
Mr. Birlson made a motion to approve 2018-04 WALDEN CLEARING, PHASE 3: Final Plat review, 10 Single Family Lots and 2 Outlots at 8209 West 93rd Avenue, referencing Findings of Fact and Mr. Kraus’s letter, dated July 2, 2021. Mr. Gill seconded the motion.
Discussion/Questions/Comments
None
Ayes - Ayes - Robert Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, John Gill, Nancy Wohland, John Kennedy
Nays – None
Approved Final Plat for Walden Clearing
Walden Clearing Surety Bond
Mr. Kennedy is seeking a motion for a Recommendation to the Town Council to accept or deny the Surety Bond.
Mr. Birlson made a motion for a Favorable Recommendation to the Town Council to accept the Surety Bond in the amount of $81,077.75. Ms. Wohland seconded the motion.
Discussion/Questions/Comments
None
Ayes - Ayes - Robert Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, John Gill, Nancy Wohland, John Kennedy
Nays – None
Motion passed
Mr. Yatsko gave a brief history: This is Phase 3, which is 33 lots and will complete Summerlin Estates. Seeking approval of the Final Plat while asking for approval of the development fee as listed in Mr. Kraus’s letter and a Surety Bond in the amount of $112,514.93 will be provided.
Discussion/Questions/Comments
None
Mr. Kennedy read Mr. Kraus’s letter; the plat is satisfactory.
Board Action
Mr. Kennedy is looking for a motion to approve, deny or defer 2018-15 SUMMERLIN ESTATES, PHASE 3: Final Plat review, 33 Single Family Lots and 2 Outlots at 13201 West 109th Avenue, referencing Findings of Fact and Mr. Kraus’s letter.
Mr. Birlson made a motion to approve 2018-15 SUMMERLIN ESTATES, PHASE 3: Final Plat review, 33 Single Family Lots and 2 Outlots at 13201 West 109th Avenue, referencing Findings of Fact and Mr. Kraus’s letter dated July 2, 2021. Ms. Cardona seconded the motion.
Discussion/Questions/Comments
None
Ayes - Ayes - Robert Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, John Gill, Nancy Wohland, John Kennedy
Nays – None
Final Plat approved
Summerlin Estates Surety Bond
Mr. Kennedy is seeking a motion for a Recommendation to the Town Council to accept or deny the Surety Bond.
Mr. Birlson made a motion for a Favorable Recommendation to the Town Council to accept the Surety Bond in the amount of $112,514.93. Mr. Gill seconded the motion.
Discussion/Questions/Comments
None
Ayes - Ayes - Robert Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, John Gill, Nancy Wohland, John Kennedy
Nays – None
Motion passed
Mr. Slager gave a brief history: this is the Final Phase of Greystone on the east side of Calumet Avenue. Tis is for 21 single-family lots. There has been an expansion of the detention pond. There was hope that all the infrastructure would be in at this point, but with all the rain there is a delay of about 2 weeks.
The utilities are all in, but still working on the roads. We brought the plats we’re giving to you and asking you to wait to sign them until the roads are in, which is about 2 weeks out.
Discussion/Questions/Comments
None
Mr. Kennedy read Mr. Kraus’s letter. The plat is satisfactory. The development fee is paid, but the public improvements are not done. The developer is asking for signatures to be withheld from the secondary plat, until public improvements are constructed.
Discussion/Questions/Comments
None
Board Action
Mr. Kennedy is seeking a motion to approve, deny or defer 2021-05 GREYSTONE, UNIT 1, BLOCK 6: Final Plat review, 21 Single Family Lots and 1 Outlot at 10609 Calumet Avenue, referencing Findings of Fact and Mr. Kraus’s letter.
Mr. Birlson made the motion to approve defer 2021-05 GREYSTONE, UNIT 1, BLOCK 6: Final Plat review, 21 Single Family Lots and 1 Outlot at 10609 Calumet Avenue, referencing Findings of Fact and Mr. Kraus’s letter of July 6, 2021. Mr. Gill seconded the motion.
Discussion/Questions/Comments
None
Ayes - Ayes - Robert Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, John Gill, Nancy Wohland, John Kennedy
Nays – None
Final Plat approved.
Mr. Slager gave a brief history: this is the 1st Block of Unit 3 on the west side of Calumet Avenue. The utilities are complete, and the road is ready to go in. The mylars are here and we’re asking you to wait until the infrastructure and the roads are complete to sign.
Discussion/Questions/Comments
Is there a bike path? Mr. Slager stated there was a bike path that is going on the north side and a sidewalk along Calumet Avenue. There is a space for a park, it is staying as a green area.
Mr. Kennedy read Mr. Kraus’s letter. The plat is satisfactory. The development fee is paid, but the public improvements are not done. The developer is asking for signatures to be withheld from the secondary plat, until public improvements are constructed.
Board Action
Mr. Kennedy is asking for a motion to approve, deny or defer 2021-06 GREYSTONE, UNIT 3, BLOCK 1: Final Plat review, 31 Single Family Lots and 1 Outlot on 16.8 acres at 10606 Calumet Avenue, referencing Findings of Fact and Mr. Kraus’s letter.
Mr. Birlson made a motion to approve 2021-06 GREYSTONE, UNIT 3, BLOCK 1: Final Plat review, 31 Single Family Lots and 1 Outlot on 16.8 acres at 10606 Calumet Avenue, referencing the Findings of Fact and Mr. Kraus’s letter dated July 2, 2021. Ms. Cardona seconded the motion.
Discussion/Questions/Comments
None
Ayes - Ayes - Robert Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, John Gill, Nancy Wohland, John Kennedy
Nays – None
Final Plat approved.
Mr. Kennedy stated that this is mostly just a status update for the Board. There were multiple contingencies on the Parrish Woods proposal.
Mr. Kraus stated he spoke with Randall Peterson asking about the lift station. He was instructed to get a hold of Jason Drevet, as he has all the requirements for the lift station and the SCADA System. Jason has said as of the time of tonight’s meeting he has not heard from them. They have not contacted Austin Electric, either. They are on the list of people to contact about the SCADA System.
Mr. Kraus has received nothing on the 4 contingencies.
Mr. Kennedy stated that is why they are keeping an eye on it.
Mr. Birlson asked how long should we keep an eye on it.
Mr. Decker responded it is totally up to the Board’s discretion and the Chairman as to whether it can stay on the agenda or needs to come off.
Mr. Kraus stated that until those 4 contingencies are corrected approval of the Primary Plat does not take effect, so he cannot start construction.
Mr. Decker agreed.
Mr. Herbers gave a brief history: this is for 97 single-family homes. There is a bike path and a park area on the south border. The proposed re-zoning is for a minimum of 80-foot-wide lots. Due to the pipeline and overhead power lines, this is the most economical way to make this piece work. There will be an upping of the covenants on this development. Looking to full LP, stone façade on the front with a typical minimum of 25% and concrete driveways, and others.
A discussion with the Director of Sales centered on Tax Comparisons between 1/3 acre lots vs. ¼ acre lots. The data used for comparison was raw data from the County Assessor’s office.
There is connectivity between areas.
There was discussion of multiple lots adjacent to the rear yard of a larger neighboring lot. Several lots in the development were referenced. There was also a discussion of the summary of covenants for roof pitch minimum, 25% stone façade and architectural reviews processes. A good portion of the discussion centered around the verbiage regarding “architectural review” in the current covenants. Mr. Kennedy suggested any upgrades you do would be good to have in the packet.
Discussion/Questions/Comments
A question was asked about the side yard setbacks. Mr. Herbers responded that they were standard for R-2 side yards.
Mr. Decker gave the historical background for the Resolution, an update or revision to the requirements was needed to make them more consistent with State Law, which requires a minimum of publication in 1 paper at least 10 days before the date of hearing. There was some action by the Town Council. There was no action taken by the Plan Commission on the Town Council action, so that ordinance amended by the Town Council effectively became law. The Plan Commission can make a change to its Rules and Regulations to be more consistent with the Zoning Ordinance.
Discussion/Questions/Comments
Mr. Kennedy asked if State Law had changed the rules. Mr. Decker led a brief discussion of the current state law and its changes. He added that the Plan Commission could amend its Rules and Regulations to make it consistent with where the BZA and the Zoning Ordinance is at, which is publication once with 2 newspapers and 10 days before the date of the hearing. If the Plan Commission were to take that action, then they’d be consistent with the BZA. Ms. Cardona stated she liked Option 1 with the BZA for purposes of consistency and compliant with State Law. Mr. Birlson seconded Ms. Cardona’s suggestion.
Mr. Kennedy stated they would get a Resolution together to discuss at the next study session and then put on the agenda for August.
Respectfully submitted,
Jan Barry, Recording Secretary
Town Council
Commissioners present: Bob Birlson, Vice-President; Yolanda Cardona, Jon Gill, Donna Little, Executive Secretary; Jason Vlasic, and Nancy Wohland, and John Kennedy, President
Also present: Adam Decker, Board Attorney; Kenn Kraus, Town Engineer; Bryan Blazak, Town Council Liaison; Christopher Salatas, Town Manager; and Sergio Mendoza, Director of Building and Planning.
A quorum was attained.
Director Mendoza stated they are scheduled for public hearing at the next meeting. There are some missing items such as the building renderings, landscaping plan, and lighting plan that need to be submitted before the public hearing.
President Kennedy asked if the residential and commercial space would be purchased together in the live/work buildings. Mr. Georgiou stated no. President Kennedy stated he did like the emergency access, but asked if it could be on the south side of the pond to give more buffer between the R-2 and duplexes. Mr. Georgiou stated explained that due to the flow and the inlet, more work would need to be done in order to put the road there. We did extend the landscaping berm on the south side of the pond to screen as much as possible. President Kennedy asked if some character could be added to the bike path and if it can be connected to the retail area. Mr. Georgiou stated the bike path goes to Calumet, which will have the eight foot sidewalk and become your connection to the retail center. President Kennedy stated as we look at the PUD, we need to get specific material lists for the duplexes so we can make a proper recommendation. Mr. Georgiou stated he understood.
Mr. Kraus stated we are still in the rezoning process of this development. President Kennedy stated that was correct. Mr. Kraus stated everything that is being asked will not have to be presented until the PUD is presented, then. President Kennedy agreed.
Ms. Little asked if the retail spaces and offices would be leased or owned. Mr. Georgiou stated right now they are leased. Ms. Little asked if the condos were purchase only. Mr. Georgiou stated right now the intent is to have them “for sale”. Ms. Little asked if they could be rented. Mr. Georgiou stated technically anything that someone buys can be rented out. Ms. Little asked if there was any idea as to what stores would be interested in the retail spaces. Mr. Georgiou stated professional offices, personal service facilities, insurance companies, etc. Discussion followed regarding the financial benefits for the Town in regards to the type of businesses that rent/own the retail spaces. Brad Lambert, Lambert Concrete, stated the units below the condos are smaller so they make sense for offices, but they also make sense for boutique retail stores. We are trying to attract tenants in that area to add to the “commons” feel of the overall development. The larger retail spots will be about 2,400 sq.ft. which would be a sizeable space for a restaurant or doctor’s office.
President Kennedy asked if there are existing lots to the north. Mr. Herbers stated yes. President Kennedy stated it would be nice if your lot lines lined up with theirs. Mr. Kraus stated the reason they are not is because there was not enough depth on the lots to the north, so they made them wider to meet the square footage requirements. President Kennedy asked how the anti-monotony clause would be followed. Mr. Herbers stated that would be part of the PUD guidelines and our staff knows to not sell the same houses next door to each other. Mr. Gill gave examples of elevations that could be changed in order to make the same floor plans acceptable next to one another while still following the anti-monotony clause. Mr. Vlasic asked how many floor plans were offered. Mr. Herbers stated twelve, but we are continuing to add to that.
Mr. Birlson stated he is still concerned about lot width and asked how wide the homes were. Mr. Herbers stated the narrowest floor plan is thirty-seven feet wide, forty-seven with a three car garage, and the widest home is forty-eight feet wide, fifty-eight with a three car garage. The widest a home would be is sixty feet, giving you ten feet for sideyard. President Kennedy confirmed with Mr. Gill that the minimum is eight feet. President Kennedy asked why they were requesting eight foot sideyards when the maximum sized home allows for ten feet. Mr. Herbers stated they could look in to that, but that they were lining up with the current R-2 guidelines. Mr. Kraus asked if the setback included the eaves. Mr. Gill stated there is language that states it does, but when we review the building plans we go off of the foundation.
Ms. Little asked if the blue dotted line was the wetlands. Mr. Rettig stated that is a rough estimate of where the wetlands are. Ms. Little stated it looked like it would go up to the house on lot 33. Mr. Rettig stated this is an estimate only, but once we get the delineation back, there could be an issue that we have to address. President Kennedy asked why they were not tying in to Calumet Ave. Mr. Rettig stated the subdivision to the west dedicated half of a right-of-way, but did not build the road. To the north, Calumet Ave. is not dedicated so we physically cannot make the connection to the north. President Kennedy stated he lives in this neighborhood and currently there are only two ways to get in/out of here. Now we are adding forty-seven more homes and pushing people either south or east towards 81st. There are road stubs on either side and maybe only ten feet that needs to be developed to finish the road off for a new connection. He stated he understood that no one wants extra traffic in their neighborhood, but connectivity needs to be made at this point. Mr. Rettig showed on the GIS map where the stubs were and what needed to be dedicated in order to connect. Discussion followed.
President Kennedy stated if the project in Dyer does not go through, then we are taking ninety-four more cars and shoving them down through the subdivision. Mr. Rettig stated that project is a month or two ahead of this one so you will see where they are before this one gets started. Mr. Gill asked if the other project was one phase or multiples. Mr. Rettig stated it will probably be two phases and the connection will be done in the second phase. President Kennedy asked if the Town of Dyer’s Plan Commission was aware of the connectivity. Mr. Rettig stated they were aware and agreed it would be the best thing to do. Mr. Birlson asked what the possibility was to connect to Columbia. Mr. Rettig stated those are acreage parcels so the right-of-way was never platted and the residents have spoken out that they do not want it. President Kennedy stated his confidence in this project will increase as long as he sees the project in Dyer moving forward. Andy James, Hamms Lake Development, stated Dyer’s project is reliant on us as well because they only have two entrances in to this development.
President Kennedy stated this is just to plat the well. Mr. Kraus stated the two lots come with it. The primary plat was approved with The Gates Unit 21-26. President Kennedy stated he thought they took the well and two lots out. Mr. Kraus stated they did, but now we are plugging it back in. This has already received primary plat approval under Units 21-26, but taken out for secondary with Units 21, 23, and 26. Discussion followed regarding the existing lots and units.
Mr. Mendoza stated this notice creates a zoning lot, but not a lot of record. A lot of record identifies the lot lines themselves that have been recorded and recognized by a municipality through action. He stated he did not see how this notice eliminates the lines of the record. Mr. Mendoza gave an example on the GIS map. He stated he did not know if the placement of the proposed home would comply with the zoning setback requirements on a lot of record. Whatever we do, we need to be cognizant of the impacts from a record standpoint and set a precedent moving forward. Mr. Decker stated if the lots were reduced to one lot, it would reduce the fees the owner would have to pay to the HOA. Mr. Gill stated replatting is cleaner from the permit standpoint. He stated he did not understand how the HOA collection is the Town’s issue if a lot is combined. Unless you can stipulate something in the notice, that lot line still exists and needs to be taken in to consideration when it comes to placement of the home and accessory structures. Mr. Mendoza stated the other option would be to amend the PUD to include language of what can and cannot be done. President Kennedy asked if the current thought of the Board is to not change the previous process and procedures. The majority agreed.
| John Kennedy | Bob Birlson |
| Plan Commission President | Plan Commission Vice-President |
Members present:
Robert Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, John Gill, Jason Vlasic, Nancy Wohland, John Kennedy
Members absent:
Donna Little
Members also present:
Mr. Decker, Lawyer; Mr. Kraus, Engineer; Mr. Blazak, Town Council Liaison.
Mr. Salatas, Town Manager
Mr. Mendoza stated everything was in order for the Public Hearing.
Mr. Wieser, Attorney for the Applicant, gave a brief history: They have previously been to the BZA, they are now seeking approval of an easement reduction, due to a drainage easement that exists in the area. There is a NIPSCO easement which we’ve already provided documentation to the Town for. Perm Machine Tool is an original business in this area and has already expanded once. Due to a successful business that is nationwide and international there is a need to expand again. The 9000 sq. feet being asked for allows Perm Machine Tool to operate and conduct business.
Discussion/Questions/Concerns
None
Open to Public Hearing for 2021-14 ST. JOHN INDUSTRIAL PARK, LOT 3: Preliminary Plat review, Easement Reduction Plat (rear yard) and consideration of proposed Development/Site plan to expand existing Perm Machine Tool Co. use at 9640 Industrial Drive
No Public Comments
No electronic comments for Public Comment
Closed to Public Hearing for 2021-14 ST. JOHN INDUSTRIAL PARK, LOT 3: Preliminary Plat review, Easement Reduction Plat (rear yard) and consideration of proposed Development/Site plan to expand existing Perm Machine Tool Co. use at 9640 Industrial Drive
Discussion/Questions/Comments
Mr. Kraus stated that the easement in question does not have any St. John Public Utilities within that easement, there is a drainage swale in the easement.
Mr. Kraus stated he has no objection to reduce the easement from 20 feet to 12 feet.
Mr. Mendoza stated there are no Ordinance issues.
Board Discussion/Questions/Comments
None
Board Action
Mr. Kennedy asked for a motion on 2021-14 ST. JOHN INDUSTRIAL PARK, LOT 3: Preliminary Plat review, Easement Reduction Plat (rear yard) and consideration of proposed Development/Site plan to expand existing Perm Machine Tool Co. use at 9640 Industrial Drive
Mr. Kraus stated this should be separate motions.
Mr. Kennedy asked that the Findings of Fact also be referenced.
Mr. Birlson made a motion to approve 2021-14 ST. JOHN INDUSTRIAL PARK, LOT 3: Preliminary Plat review, Easement Reduction Plat (rear yard) to 12 feet and referencing the Findings of Fact. Mr. Gill seconded the motion.
Discussion/Questions/Comments
none
Ayes - Robert Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, John Gill, Jason Vlasic, Nancy Wohland, John Kennedy
Nays – None
Easement Reduction Approved
Primary Plat Approval for 2021 -14 ST. JOHN INDUSTRIAL PARK, LOT 3
Discussion/Questions/Comments
none
Board Action
Mr. Kennedy asked for a motion for Primary Plat Approval for 2021 -14 ST. JOHN INDUSTRIAL PARK, LOT 3
Mr. Birlson motioned to approve Primary Plat Approval for 2021 -14 ST. JOHN INDUSTRIAL PARK, LOT 3 to expand existing Perm Machine Tool Co. use at 9640 Industrial Drive and referencing Findings of Fact. Mr. Vlasic seconded the motion.
Discussion/Questions/Comments
none
Ayes - Robert Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, John Gill, Jason Vlasic, Nancy Wohland, John Kennedy
Nays – None
Primary Plat approval granted.
Mr. Wieser was asked by the Commission when they would be returning for Secondary Plat approval. Mr. Wieser said he would talk to Torrenga as to when they’d come back for Secondary Plat approval.
Mr. MacKinney gave a brief history of the proposed project: Tractor Supply is wanting to put a translucent roof within the existing fenced area in the side yard at the store. It would be for seasonal plants, gardening tools and fertilizer.
Discussion/Questions/Comments
none
Open to Public Hearing for 2021-15 TRACTOR SUPPLY CO.: proposed Development/Site plan to construct a 26’W X 96’L rooftop over an existing garden/greenhouse center at 9957 Earl Drive, zoned: C-2 in the US 41 Overlay District, 3.7 acres
Mr. Mendoza stated everything was in order for the Public Hearing.
No Public Comments
Mr. Mendoza read an email for the record.
Via email – Number 1
Sergio,
As the association manager, our concern is primarily the impact (if any) to the roads and grounds outside of TSC's building footprint. As I try to determine that, I want to ask do you have contact information for the general contractor, or a TSC representative? My contact is the property owner (Vereit/Cole) out of Phoenix area, but they do not have many details on the project.
Thanks in advance!
Chip Sanders phone: 630-480-4081 | mobile: 630-956-8121 email: csanders@sanderscommercial.com
www.sanderscommercial.com
Mr. Mendoza stated he interpreted the concern as how it will be affixed to the ground.
Mr. MacKinney stated there would be no impact, as they are working entirely within the fenced-in area.
Closed to Public Hearing for 2021-15 TRACTOR SUPPLY CO.: proposed Development/Site plan to construct a 26’W X 96’L rooftop over an existing garden/greenhouse center at 9957 Earl Drive, zoned: C-2 in the US 41 Overlay District, 3.7 acres
Discussion/Questions/Comments
Mr. MacKinney stated the only thing moving to the outside of the fence area will be propane.
There will be no parking issues.
Board Action
Mr. Kennedy asked for a motion to approve, deny or defer and reference the Findings of Fact for 2021-15 TRACTOR SUPPLY CO.: proposed Development/Site plan to construct a 26’W X 96’L rooftop over an existing garden/greenhouse center at 9957 Earl Drive, zoned: C-2 in the US 41 Overlay District, 3.7 acres.
Mr. Birlson made a motion to approve the TRACTOR SUPPLY CO.: proposed Development/Site plan to construct a 26’W X 96’L rooftop over an existing garden/greenhouse center at 9957 Earl Drive and he is referencing the Findings of Fact. Ms. Cardona seconded the motion.
Discussion/Questions/Comments
none
Ayes - Robert Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, John Gill, Jason Vlasic, Nancy Wohland, John Kennedy
Nays – None
Motion approved
Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Kraus gave a brief history of the project: This was initially removed from Secondary Plat and had remaining plats approved for the Gates. This has now been added back in and the petitioners are now looking for Secondary Plat approval. Mr. Kraus explained that other parcels were left out of Secondary Plat approval in Unit 22 that received Primary Plat approval also. Mr. Kennedy asked if it had been determined how it is going to be transfered to the Town. A deed, for recording purposes? Mr. Decker explained that a deed to convey the well out lot would transfer the Title to the Town. That would be the cleanest indication in record of the Town’s ownership of the well and surrounding property. It is considered an out lot in this subdivision. Mr. Kraus added that is why he put the words “and convey” to the Town of St. John. It now reads “hereby dedicated and conveyed to the Town of St. John.”
Mr. Decker stated that the developer is willing to convey shows the Town’s ownership and control of the property. It eliminates any potential future concerns with the out lot or ownership of the out lots or taxes being paid or not paid in the future. If there is an indication on the plat that the easement is being conveyed, that should allow the Town to effectively control the parcel. The assured way would be to have the developer execute a deed of the out lot (the well out lot) that is in the secondary plat to the Town.
Mr. Kennedy read Mr. Kraus’s letter. The plat is satisfactory. The development fee is $900, and the public improvements are part of Units 21, 22,23 and 26 project letters, so a letter of credit is not needed.
Mr. Kraus stated he has no objections to getting a deed for this property in addition to this plat. Mr. Kraus further explained that what is important for the Town is the 100-foot isolation circle easement. Without that being recorded no application to ITEM can be made to drill the well. We can’t move forward on producing that well, without that 100-foot isolation circle.
Mr. Kennedy recommended that a contingency to a motion is that a deed be provided to the Town of St. John.
Discussion/Questions/Comments
Mr. Blazak and Mr. Salatas were asked if they were good with having a deed recorded. Both stated that they agreed with a deed being recorded.
Mr. Kennedy asked for a motion for 2019-10 THE GATES OF ST. JOHN, UNIT 21C: Final Plat review, 1 Well Outlot, approximately 700 feet north from the northeast corner of 105th Avenue and Privet Drive.
Mr. Gill made the motion to approve 2019-10 THE GATES OF ST. JOHN, UNIT 21C: Final Plat review, 1 Well Outlot, approximately 700 feet north from the northeast corner of 105th Avenue and Privet Drive contingent upon a deed for the well out lot. Mr. Birlson seconded the motion.
Discussion/Questions/Comments
none
Ayes - Robert Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, John Gill, Jason Vlasic, Nancy Wohland, John Kennedy
Nays – None
Motion approved, contingent upon the deed to the Town of St. John
Mr. Kennedy explained that this is a change back to 1 notification for 10 days in 2 newspapers. This is like what the BZA is currently doing. This makes things convenient for BZA and Plan Commission to have both entities.
Mr. Decker stated that was accurate as to what the resolution means.
Discussion/Questions/Comments
None
Board Action
Mr. Kennedy asked for a motion for 2021-07 RESOLUTION: proposed amendment to Plan Commission Rules and Regulations, Article V Section 3, entitled “Notice Requirements.” to increase the number of legal notice publications from one newspaper to two newspapers.
Mr. Decker stated that it should actually be for Article V and VI Section 3.
Mr. Birlson made a motion to approve the 2021-07 RESOLUTION: proposed amendment to Plan Commission Rules and Regulations, Article V and VI Section 3, entitled “Notice Requirements.” to increase the number of legal notice publications from one newspaper to two newspapers. Ms. Cardona seconded the motion.
Discussion/Questions/Comments
None
Ayes - Robert Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, John Gill, Jason Vlasic, Nancy Wohland, John Kennedy
Nays – None
Resolution approved
Respectfully submitted,
Jan Barry, Recording Secretary
Town Council
Commissioners present: Jon Gill, Donna Little, Executive Secretary; Jason Vlasic, Bob Birlson, Vice-President
Also present: Adam Decker, Board Attorney; Kenn Kraus, Town Engineer; Bryan Blazak, Town Council Liaison; Christopher Salatas, Town Manager; and Jason Dravet, I.T. Coordinator.
Absent: Yolanda Cardona, Nancy Wohland, John Kennedy, President; Sergio Mendoza, Director of Building and Planning.
A quorum was attained.
Attorney Decker asked if an agreement would be made with the Town regarding architectural standards. Per the Town Ordinance, covenants are not the only area where those standards need to be listed. There needs to be an actual agreement entered in to in order to bind the developer with the Town. Attorney Anderson stated they would work on that. Mr. Gill stated on page twenty-three, the shed maximum is listed as 12 feet by 14 feet, 168 sq. ft., but the Town’s Ordinance is a max of 10 feet by 16 feet, 160 sq.ft., with a maximum of 14 feet to the peak of the roof. Mr. Herbers stated he would make that change.
Mr. Birlson asked how close the sewer is. Stuart Allen, Torrenga Surveying, stated there is a line that runs north and south on Parrish. Mr. Allen showed on the plat where the closest sewer line is that could be tied in to. He explained that if a manhole can be installed on lot 3 of the subdivision behind Mr. Meaney, they could try to obtain an easement from the developer and tie in there. This would also be able to service the lot next to Mr. Meaney, if they decide to annex in to the Town. If a tie-in is not able to happen, there is an area shown that he would have to install a mound system on, and we would be asking for your approval on that as well. Mr. Birlson asked what the lot size requirement is for a mound system. Mr. Kraus stated he did not know off the top of his head, but you have to be able to do a 100% change over if it is a normal septic system. It really depends on what load you are going to put on it. Mr. Kraus stated the plan that they came up with is feasible if they can get the easement to put the sewer in. If the owners to the south subdivide and annex in to the Town, it would be on him to extend it. Discussion followed in regards to the potential placement of the sewer.
Mr. Birlson asked if the right-of-way was large enough. Mr. Allen stated it is thirty feet from the center line. There is an eighteen foot parcel that is unincorporated to the north, so technically you have forty-eight feet from where the section line would be. You can see on the plat the difference between the dedication from Rose Garden and where Mr. Meaney’s line is. Mr. Birlson stated they would need to look over everything and see about the waivers requested. Mr. Meaney stated the goal would be to hook up to the sewer, but if we cannot do that, then a mound system is our only option. Mr. Kraus stated he would recommend the gravity sewer. Mr. Allen has a great plan for that if they can get the easement to get to the existing sewer. They would also need a waiver for curbs on this site as well as streetlights and sidewalks. Mr. Meaney stated if the waivers cannot be passed, then we cannot afford to build on the site. Mr. Allen stated there are also no sidewalks on 89th Ave. to connect to because the lot 1 behind them was granted a waiver for sidewalks. Mr. Birlson stated he understood that, but that decision was not made by this Board. Discussion followed.
Mr. Birlson asked what the widths of the homes would be. Mr. Krusemark stated the minimum is about forty-feet wide and the max is sixty-feet wide. Mr. Birlson asked what the reason was for not doing one hundred foot lots since the subdivision right next to this is Olthof’s as well. Mr. Krusemark stated to offer variety, but we are also working with a site that has wetlands and is a smaller parcel overall. Mr. Birlson asked how many lots were currently built on in Summerlin. Mr. Krusemark stated we are about a third of the way through that project. On a typical home with a two-car garage, we would have about thirty to forty feet between homes. If two of our largest homes were put next to each other with three car garages, the separation would be about seventeen feet, but we do watch where homes are placed so we do not have that happen very often.
Mr. Birlson suggested making a bike path along lot 5 to tie in to White Oak as well as the bike path that is running north/south along lot 5, and to also run the path behind the lots there to tie in to the bike path around the detention pond. Mr. Krusemark stated that was a good idea. Mr. Birlson asked how close the wetland was to 109th. Mr. Krusemark stated it is right there up against the property. Mr. Birlson asked if a possible deck could be put across the wetlands to continue the bike path. Mr. Krusemark stated it is worth looking in to, but we need to see how it would impact the wetland as well. Town Manager Chris Salatas stated we had spoken about the park that is proposed and requested that it be maintained by the HOA rather than our Parks Department, and we also did discuss a bridge of sorts crossing the wetlands to connect. We also talked about proper road dedication for if those roads were to be widened in the future, as well as making the northeast corner a roundabout at 109th and White Oak since it does not align right now and is heavily trafficked. Ms. Little stated one of her concerns is the density and how that can create more traffic as well as having very high architectural standards for the development. Mr. Krusemark stated he would be happy to work with the Town on those. Mr. Birlson asked what Summerlin dedicated on 109th. After some research, Mr. Dravet found they dedicated fifty feet. Mr. Krusemark stated they would match that.
Mr. Gill stated he believed the square footage should be brought up to the rest of the subdivisions around it with ranches being 1,900 sq.ft., one and a half stories at 2,250 sq.ft., and 2,200 sq.ft. for a two-story. Mr. Krusemark stated we can change those, we have just seen a variety of people coming in that want a little smaller house and lot.
Mr. Birlson asked what the rear yard setback is. Juan Villagomez, APEX Design Build, stated it is forty-five feet, which is why we are proposing more landscaping and a variance since we only have twenty-three feet. It is hard to fit the parking spaces required with the forty-five feet setback as well as the doctor’s requirements for the building size and staffing needs. Mr. Kraus asked if storm drainage has been reviewed. Mr. Kilburg stated there are utilities already on Park Pl. that we will tie in to in order for the stormwater to be taken to one of the detention sites within The Gates. Attorney Decker stated in the Route 231 Overlay District, a roof structure is required over an accessory building that is used for refuse.
Karen Schranz, 10720 Walnut Drive and Teresa Flamini, 10707 Walnut Drive, were allowed to express her concerns about bringing in single family homes or duplexes that would not match the current look of their townhomes.
| Bob Birlson | Jon Gill |
| Plan Commission Vice-President | Plan Commission Member |
Members present:
Yolanda Cardona, John Gill, Donna Little, Nancy Wohland, Jason Vlasic, John Kennedy
Members absent:
Robert Birlson
Also Present:
Mr. Decker, Attorney; Mr. Kraus, Engineer; Mr. Blazak, Town Council Liaison; Chris Salatas, Town Manager
None available to defer
Mr. Mendoza stated he had no updates on availability of previous minutes
Board Action
Mr. Kennedy is seeking a motion to defer.
Mr. Gill made a motion to defer to October 6th for Primary Plat approval. Ms. Cardona seconded the motion.
Discussion/Questions/Comments
None
Ayes - Yolanda Cardona, John Gill, Donna Little, Nancy Wohland, Jason Vlasic, John Kennedy
Nays – None
Motion to defer granted
Mr. Kennedy stated this is for Secondary Plat approval. Mr. Kennedy read Mr. Kraus’s letter. The plat is satisfactory, the development fee is $13,569.94, the public improvements are not done. Either an irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of $62,885.19 OR a Surety Bond or other form of payment in the amount of $74,318.86 will be accepted ensuring completion of the work.
Mr. Rettig gave a brief history: this is for final plat approval for Three Springs Addition, as Phase 3 Block 1. It was originally approved in 2020, construction was started at the end of 2020.
Regarding the unfinished improvements, the asphalt was done today, streetlights are on their way and soil erosion control needs to be done.
The developer will not be paying the bond fee, instead he will finish all improvements and then have the mylars signed by the Plan Commission.
Discussion/Questions/Comments
Mr. Kraus stated that Public Works told him that everything looks good.
Board Action
Mr. Kennedy is seeking a motion to approve, deny or defer 2020-11 THREE SPRINGS ADDITION, PHASE 3, Block 1: Final Plat review.
Mr. Gill made a motion to approve 2020-11 THREE SPRINGS ADDITION, PHASE 3, Block 1: Final Plat review with the understanding not to sign mylars until all improvements are completed and referencing the Findings of Fact. Mr. Vlasic seconded the motion.
Discussion/Questions/Comments
None
Ayes - Yolanda Cardona, John Gill, Donna Little, Nancy Wohland, Jason Vlasic, John Kennedy
Nays – None
Motion to approve
Board Action
Mr. Kennedy asked for a motion to approve, deny, or defer 2021-14 ST. JOHN INDUSTRIAL PARK, LOT 3: Final Plat review, Easement Reduction Plat (rear yard) at 9640 Industrial Drive,
Discussion/Questions/Comments
Mr. Wieser stated that the mylars have been submitted to Mr. Mendoza and they are signed by the developer and notarized. Mr. Wieser asked if there was any possibility from a practical perspective to get the mylars signed by the Town so they can be recorded as quickly as possible. They do have a contractor ready, willing, and waiting to start construction.
Mr. Gill stated that it must be 30 (thirty) days since the Primary Plat was approved. Mr. Kennedy stated that this Friday, Sept.3, was 30 days since Primary approval.
Mr. Gill stated it can be approved tonight but they can’t be signed until Friday, Sept. 3, 2021.
Mr. Wieser state he can come back on Friday to pick up the signed mylars.
Mr. Kennedy restated that Secondary Plat cannot be signed for 30 days.
Board Action
Mr. Kennedy is asking for a motion to approve, deny or defer 2021-14 ST. JOHN INDUSTRIAL PARK, LOT 3: Final Plat review, Easement Reduction Plat (rear yard) at 9640 Industrial Drive.
Mr. Gill made the motion to approve 2021-14 ST. JOHN INDUSTRIAL PARK, LOT 3: Final Plat review, Easement Reduction Plat (rear yard) at 9640 Industrial Drive referencing the Findings of Fact and the 30 days wait period for signature is observed. Ms. Wohland seconded the motion.
None
Ayes - Yolanda Cardona, John Gill, Donna Little, Nancy Wohland, Jason Vlasic, John Kennedy
Nays – None
Motion to approve passes
Mr. Kennedy stated he received a plethora of information from Astoria at the last Study Session. He has discussed this information with Mr. Mendoza and Mr. Decker. The information received does not look like something we can use. We need a Subdivision Control document. There is nothing in this information that spells out specifics of the development. It looks more like mortgage information for owners.
We need something for our referencing of facts that states if they don’t follow it, no building permits can be approved.
Mr. Kennedy stated he has asked Mr. Mendoza and Mr. Decker to reach out to the developer to give us these documents.
No additional comments.
Respectfully submitted,
Jan Barry, Recording Secretary
Town Council
Commissioners present: Jon Gill, Donna Little, Executive Secretary; Jason Vlasic, Bob Birlson, Vice-President, John Kennedy, President; Yolanda Cardona, and Nancy Wohland.
Also present: Adam Decker, Board Attorney; Kenn Kraus, Town Engineer; Bryan Blazak, Town Council Liaison; Christopher Salatas, Town Manager; and Sergio Mendoza, Director of Building and Planning.
A quorum was attained.
Director Sergio Mendoza stated he is very comfortable with this document and it will help with the building permit process because everything is spelled out. Ms. Little asked why the homeowners were responsible for installing their own sidewalks. Mr. Herbers stated it is included in the price of the home, but we will be putting the sidewalk in prior to close. We can work on the verbiage of that. President Kennedy highlighted that Mr. Herbers has put in the agreement that 30% of the front of the house needs to be stone unless approved by the Plan Commission. He asked Mr. Herbers if it was only the front exterior of the home. Mr. Herbers stated that was correct. President Kennedy stated he believed that was low and was hoping for 30% of the entire exterior, with the front and the wrap around. Ms. Little stated she would at least like the entire front. Mr. Herbers stated it has been 30% of the front exterior since we first came in. President Kennedy stated he apologized that he did not notice that earlier, but as is, he would not feel comfortable passing that. Mr. Vlasic asked if the cul-de-sac was smaller than it needed to be at a forty-five foot radius. Doug Rettig, DVG, stated the wording may not be correct. Discussion followed regarding the right-of-way in a cul-de-sac and the changes that needed to be made in the agreement regarding that. Mr. Kraus stated he would go through the roadway standards before the public hearing.
Councilman Blazak asked for price points of the condos and paired villas. Mr. Georgiou stated the price points in Waterford were around $400,000, which would be very similar to ours. Brad Lambert, Lambert Concrete, stated the paired villas will be around 1,800 sq.ft. with full basements, two car garages, granite countertops, hardwood floors, and masonry. They should come in around upper $300,000 with a partially finished basement. President Kennedy stated any architectural standards that are met will be in a PUD agreement between the Town and developer. Mr. Lambert agreed. President Kennedy asked for information on the size of parking spaces, signs being requested, and to really start getting in to the details of the property. Discussion followed regarding the details that will be coming in the next set of plans.
Mr. Kuiper asked if they were good for public hearing. Mr. Kraus stated he does not have the plat yet and would need to review that. All infrastructure is in place, though. President Kennedy asked if a first and second would be done on the same night. Mr. Kraus stated you would still need to wait the thirty days between approvals.
Mr. Kraus asked if a piece of land is purchased with the home. Mr. Kuiper stated an undivided portion of it, yes. Mr. Kraus stated a formal lot would not be sold with the unit. Mr. Kuiper stated that was correct. President Kennedy asked if there were private driveways. Mr. Kuiper stated he believed there were private drives. Ms. Little asked if there were garages. Mr. Kuiper stated there were. Mr. Birlson asked what a row home was. Mr. Kuiper stated they are homes that are all connected in one large block. Ms. Little asked if the fire department had ever been notified because it looks like a tight turnaround for a truck. Mr. Kuiper stated they were not notified of this plan, but the streets should be sufficient for emergency vehicles and we will get with Mr. Kraus on that. Ms. Little asked what would happen if the Plan Commission did not approve the amendment. Mr. Birlson stated you would not have unit numbers, easements, or building numbers. Attorney Decker stated he would have to confer with Town Attorney Westland, but the terms of the settlement agreement provides what it does. President Kennedy asked if the PUD needed to be amended, would the Plan Commission then have a say. Mr. Kuiper stated the Town Council has already approved the amendment so the Plan Commission has no further action in regards to the PUD. Mr. Kraus asked if there would be a development fee that needs to be paid and how it would be structured. Mr. Kuiper stated he would think there would be a review fee since Mr. Kraus will need to review the plans, but not a development fee. President Kennedy asked what the timeframe would be. Mr. Kuiper stated they could be on the agenda the 6th since there is no public hearing. Ms. Little asked if it would be up to the Council to approve this. Mr. Kuiper stated the Plan Commission is in charge of plats, which is why this falls here.
President Kennedy asked if they should be prepared to have a secondary access point to the north. Mr. Kilburg stated it could be discussed, but currently it is proposed to be a private driveway, which we would not be able to tie in to. Mr. Kraus asked if there was a landscape plan. Mr. Kilburg stated they will be putting that and a lighting plan together. Mr. Kraus stated he would need to take a look at the flood route and calculate the stormsewer sizing and will provide a letter. Discussion followed regarding the next steps with the BZA and then coming back to the Plan Commission and whether or not a public hearing will be needed.
Mr. Birlson stated the example of the home plans did not look to be 30% coverage of masonry. President Kennedy stated with asking for smaller lots, there should be a trade-off, which should include higher architectural standards. 30% of brick on the front of a home is not creating value. We need to set some sort of guideline for the PUD’s that are coming in. Mr. Krusemark stated he understood and had no problem addressing those issues with higher architectural standards. President Kennedy asked if connectivity could be made to the south even though it is not annexed currently, just to have an option for the future. Mr. Krusemark stated he would look in to that.
Mr. Birlson asked if the homes could not have white trim because he has noticed that seems to be a trademark of Olthof. Mr. Krusemark that is part of the color package when a person picks their home, which it is popular right now, but there are other options. President Kennedy highlighted the area of the covenants that stated the homes would have asphalt driveways and stated he would like that to be changed to concrete driveways. He suggested working with Attorney Decker on the PUD to make sure that the same standards are being met. Mr. Krusemark agreed.
| John Kennedy | Bob Birlson |
| Plan Commission President | Plan Commission Vice-President |
Commissioners present: Jon Gill, Donna Little, Executive Secretary; Nancy Wohland, and Bob Birlson, Vice-President.
Also present: Adam Decker, Board Attorney; Kenn Kraus, Town Engineer; Bryan Blazak, Town Council Liaison; Christopher Salatas, Town Manager; and Sergio Mendoza, Director of Building and Planning.
Absent: Yolanda Cardona, Jason Vlasic, and John Kennedy, President.
A quorum was attained.
Mr. Birlson stated he was not worried about the amenities on the house itself, but rather the lot width. Mr. Herbers stated he understood, but they did increase the size. Mr. Birlson stated the smaller lots do not match what St. John is. He stated he did not have an issue with the home styles, though. Ms. Cardona stated she did not have issues with the 30% stone, but agreed with Mr. Birlson about the lot sizes. Councilman Blazak stated he believed Mr. Kennedy’s concern was the actual value of the home rather than the lot width. Ms. Wohland stated she agreed with Ms. Cardona and Mr. Birlson about the concern of the lot size. Mr. Herbers stated he understood, but what is offered fits in with the surrounding areas and is even better than some of the widths that were approved. Ms. Little agreed with what the previous Board member stated, and that she would always like to see less density.
Mr. Georgiou went on to the live/work spaces highlighting the twenty foot driveways for extra parking for the condos as well as the proposed foot prints of the condos, one-story units being approximately 1,800 sq.ft. and two-story units being approximately 3,000 sq.ft. The spine of the building will be a walkway that will hopefully house the mailboxes for the condos and allow for access after-hours and fire exits. There are extensive balconies and decks on the condos as well as canopy entrances in the back for the residents. He then presented duplex plans for the residential side of the development stating each home will total about 1,850 sq.ft. with three bedrooms and two baths, masonry on the entire front and side of the homes, and unfinished basements. There was quite a discussion regarding the multiple easements and we may have picked up ten feet from the north side of the high tension line easement to where we had our improvements, so we may be able to avoid any encroachments. We are continuing to work on the fire truck routing, a formal signage plan, a monument sign plan, parking summary, and site lighting. The intent in the residential area is to install decorative lighting, which will be copied along the boulevard entrance as well.
Nathan Vis, Attorney, stated the PUD agreement will govern how this development is developed as well as how it is maintained in the future. The master PUD agreement will govern the entire development, and then we have specific declarations that will govern the villas as well as the condos. Those covenants will contribute to both the maintenance of the pond and the green space shown. The remainder of the declaration of the PUD will govern the retail buildings, which will contribute to the maintenance of the parking lots, green space, and pond area. In the PUD that was sent out, section two highlights the use and bulk regulations which expresses that, unless stated otherwise in the PUD, we will be following the Town of St. John’s Ordinances for signage, landscaping, infrastructure, etc. Mr. Vis moved on to the permitted uses for the retail and live/work spaces, which prohibits tobacco sales as well as hotels/motels. One of the things outlined is a restriction on no more than two bars or taverns as well as prohibitions on any operations that emit an obnoxious odor, perfume, or sound; any operation used as warehousing or manufacturing, pawn shops, funeral homes, adult use stores, tattoo parlors, tobacco stores, auto sales retails, and storage facilities. We also reference the declarations for the condos and villas, where the intention is to be owner occupied. We do, however, seek to address that there can be leasing with restrictions on short-term leasing as well as it will be subject to the scrutiny of those association boards that govern the villas and condo’s. Mr. Vis stated his recommendation was six months, but it can be changed to a year. Councilman Blazak stated six months would be a little short and suggested a year.
Mr. Vis moved forward to the lot sizes, minimum floor plan area, minimum front and side yards, and height standards that were written out in the PUD. One thing that was spoken about with Mr. Mendoza is the importance of the design and development standards. We will be working final drawings in to the PUD as part of the architectural standards to ensure that what has been shown is what will be built. For the exterior of all buildings, we have the intention of brick and stone with architectural styles to come out on the retail and live/work buildings. Mr. Birlson asked if they were switching to brick because the pictures show CMU. Mr. Georgiou stated there is decorative CMU that looks nothing like concrete block, and that is what we intend on using. It is a decorative masonry unit, which we can show you some examples of. Mr. Vis stated a section on signage will also be included in the PUD that follow the Town Ordinances, as well as a landscape design and maintenance standards. The developer and owner will be maintaining the public spaces and all infrastructure will follow St. John Code. Any exterior refuse or recycle centers will match the exterior of the retail buildings and all cans will need to be stored in the garages of the villas or within an architectural screening that matches the exterior of the home. This PUD governs all of the development and maintenance standards, and then we have the two separate declarations that will guide the development as well as the ongoing maintenance of the villas and condos. The goal of the condos will be ownership of the drywall in and the remainder will be maintained by the association.
Mr. Birlson asked if there would be shoreline prevention around the retention pond, and if not that is something that should be addressed. Mr. Vis stated the contributions from the condos and villas will be contributing to the maintenance of that pond. Mr. Birlson asked if the widths of the parking spaces could be changed from nine feet to ten feet due to the size of vehicles that are driven today. Mr. Georgiou stated we will revisit that. Mr. Vis stated it was important to add that they did include outdoor dining options on the retail side and they are hoping that someone will come along and take advantage of the beautiful outdoor spaces they are creating. We have people that are really excited about this development and already claiming spaces. Ms. Little asked if they could get an idea of what types of businesses have spoken for some units. Mr. Vis stated there are some extracurricular education tenants, salons, and a few food establishments.
Mr. Birlson asked if there was sewer and water. Mr. Rettig stated there was. This is an older area so there are no curbs, just pavement and the ditch. Mr. Birlson asked if a sidewalk variance was needed. Mr. Rettig stated yes, they would be requesting that.
| Bob Birlson | Jon Gill |
| Plan Commission Vice-President | Plan Commission Member |
Members present:
Robert Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, John Gill, Donna Little, Jason Vlasic, Nancy Wohland, John Kennedy
Members absent:
None
Also present:
Mr. Decker, Attorney; Mr. Kraus, Engineer; Mr. Blazak, Town Council Liaison; Mr. Salatas, Town Manager; Mr. Mendoza, Director of Building and Planning
Michael Herbers asked the Board for a deferral to the next Plan Commission Meeting. They are working hard to devise a plan to appease the Board as much as possible. Mr. Herbers stated they have done some research and it has shown that there are other developments in St. John that have a mix of lot sizes within the development. He questioned whether the Plan Commission would accept 80-foot wide to 100-foot-wide lots?
Board Discussion/Questions/Comments
Mr. Kennedy explained his concern about the 30% brick on the homes, he stated it was purely for more value.
Mr. Herbers explained their choice of of 30% brick and the remaining would be LP Smartside vs vinyl siding on their homes. He stated that there would be 0% (zero) vinyl on any of the homes. He further explained that LP Smartside holds the same value as brick or stone.
Ms. Cardona asked what the original lot sizes were in Astoria.
Mr. Herbers stated that in April 2021 they were at 70-foot-wide lots, currently they are 80-foot-wide lots. He stated that the 80-foot lots were not being taken too well. He stated that the mix of lots could possibly be:
30-40% - 80-foot-wide lots
20-25% - 90-foot-wide lots
35% - 100-foot-wide lots
They are currently working to make the easements work with the lot sizes. He believes that at the next Study Session they will have a total count of lot sizes in each size.
Mr. Birlson stated that he felt the lot size %’s seemed fair for the layout of the land.
Open to Public Hearing for 2021-17 ASTORIA REZONE: proposed Rezone to RC-2 PUD for 97 single-family lots and 3 out-lots at 10122 Parrish Avenue
Mr. Mendoza agreed everything was in order to proceed.
No Public Comments
No Public Comments via email
Closed to Public Hearing for 2021-17 ASTORIA REZONE: proposed Rezone to RC-2 PUD for 97 single-family lots and 3 out-lots at 10122 Parrish Avenue
Board Discussion/Questions/Comments
Mr. Kennedy stated they were asking for a deferral at this time.
Mr. Kennedy also stated that they have historically approved 80-foot lots unanimously.
Board Action
Mr. Birlson made a motion to defer 2021-17 ASTORIA REZONE: proposed Rezone to RC-2 PUD for 97 single-family lots and 3 out-lots at 10122 Parrish Avenue, zoned: Open Space, 74 acres; Michael Herbers (Diamond Peak Homes), Doug Rettig (DVG), Mark Anderson (Attorney). Ms. Cardona seconded the motion.
Ayes - Robert Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, John Gill, Donna Little, Jason Vlasic, Nancy Wohland, John Kennedy
Nays – None
Motion to defer approved
Mr. Salatas stated that this was part of the settlement agreement, separating the two parcels. One will remain with the Town of St. John and the other will be deeded over.
Mr. Kraus stated that they were creating a lot for the existing water tower in the west half of the right-of-way formerly known as Gates of St. John. The plat was signed in 2007, however it was never recorded. The Primary /Secondary plats are satisfactory. All public improvements have been installed, as part of the existing surrounding subdivision, except for the sidewalk on the Westside of Walnut Drive. Public Works is currently working on having the sidewalk installed.
Board Discussion/Questions/Comments
None
Open to Public Hearing for 2021-19 GATES WATER TOWER: proposed Preliminary/Primary and Final/Secondary Plat for a 1-Lot subdivision for utility use at the southwest corner of Walnut Drive and Sagebrook
No Public Comments
No Public Comments via email
Closed to Public Hearing for 2021-19 GATES WATER TOWER: proposed Preliminary/Primary and Final/Secondary Plat for a 1-Lot subdivision for utility use at the southwest corner of Walnut Drive and Sagebrook
Board Discussion/Questions/Comments
None
Board Action
Mr. Birlson made a motion to approve 2021-19 GATES WATER TOWER: proposed Preliminary/Primary for a 1-Lot subdivision for utility use at the southwest corner of Walnut Drive and Sagebrook. Mr. Gill seconded the motion.
Board Discussion/Questions/Comments
None
Ayes - Robert Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, John Gill, Donna Little, Jason Vlasic, Nancy Wohland, John Kennedy
Nays – None
Motion approved for Primary Plat
Mr. Kennedy asked for a motion to approve, deny, defer a Final/Secondary Plat for a 1-Lot subdivision for utility use at the southwest corner of Walnut Drive and Sagebrook, with the signature in 30 days.
Mr. Birlson made a motion to approve the Final/Secondary Plat for a 1-Lot subdivision for utility use at the southwest corner of Walnut Drive and Sagebrook. Ms. Wohland seconded the motion.
Board Discussion/Questions/Comments
None
Ayes - Robert Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, John Gill, Donna Little, Jason Vlasic, Nancy Wohland, John Kennedy
Nays – None
Final/Secondary approved with signatures in 30 days
Tim Kuiper gave a brief history.
Mr. Kennedy stated there have been some discussion regarding holding a Public Hearing based on the Public Interest.
Board Discussion/Questions/Comments
Mr. Kuiper stated he had no comments, but this was submitted as a mandatory final plat it is listed as a Public Hearing for tonight. If you wanted to have a Public Hearing it was advertised for October 6, 2021 with no quorum at that time. He further stated, you can certainly hold a Public Hearing at any time under your rules. He is available to answer any questions about specifics that the Plan Commission may have.
Mr. Kennedy reminded the Board of their ability to hold a Public Hearing based on Public Good, to hold a Public Hearing in the interest of the town with the Town to pay for all cost incurred for the Public Notice.
Mr. Gill stated he thought they should start at Primary Plat due to the significant changes made to the easements, ingress/egress easements, and the proposed use. It is in the best interest of the public to hold a Public Hearing.
Ms. Wohland agreed and to also get impact statements from the Police Department, the Fire Department and Safety due to the way the lots are laid out.
Board Action
Mr. Kennedy entertained a motion to hold a Public Hearing for 2021-20 THE GATES OF ST. JOHN, UNIT 17B: proposed Amended Final/Secondary Plat for lots 1420 and 1421 for new easements, building line setbacks, ingress/egress routes for a total of 120 Row Homes at 10705 Park Place and 10775 Park Place, northeast and southeast intersection of 107th Avenue and Park Place contingent on the costs incurred would be bore by the Town of St. John.
Mr. Gill made a motion for a Public Hearing on December 1, 2021 for 2021-20 THE GATES OF ST. JOHN, UNIT 17B: proposed Amended Final/Secondary Plat for lots 1420 and 1421 for new easements, building line setbacks, ingress/egress routes for a total of 120 Row Homes at 10705 Park Place and 10775 Park Place, northeast and southeast intersection of 107th Avenue and Park Place contingent on the costs incurred would be bore by the Town of St. John. Also requesting impact statements from Public Works, Police Department, and Fire Department in regards as public interest to the Town.
Ms. Little seconded the motion.
Board Discussion/Questions/Comments
None
Ayes - Robert Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, John Gill, Donna Little, Jason Vlasic, Nancy Wohland, John Kennedy
Nays – None
Motion for a Public Hearing on December 1, 2021 has been approved.
Questions/Comments
Mr. Kuiper asked for clarification on the motion.
Mr. Gill stated he thought because of the significant changes it required replatting the Primary.
Mr. Decker stated that Mr. Kuiper had a legitimate concern and it needed to be addressed. If it’s coming back to the Plan Commission for essentially a replat of the Primary that would still require notice and notice requirements don’t change at all. It could possibly change the responsibilities of the developer following the meeting. I’m not opposed to considering it an amendatory secondary.
However, it is the up to the Board’s discretion how they want to proceed.
Mr. Gill historically if there has been significant change, we always started over at the Primary Plat level. Going from 2 lots with no end use to 120 Row Houses - that’s a significant change that would warrant starting a Primary and work towards a Secondary.
Mr. Kuiper stated just so everyone is aware 242 units were approved when these lots were platted for 2 apartment buildings. This proposal is a reduction in that. The zoning is listed as R2, but it’s actually an R4, by Ordinance 1396.
Mr. Kennedy asked for any recommendations or suggestions?
Mr. Kennedy was wondering if they would be better going with a Secondary amendatory vs. going with a Primary.
Mr. Decker stated that the first course of action should be to confirm the current zoning for that parcel. I’m not sure the zoning is clear on the parcel.
Mr. Mendoza stated he needed to know from the Board if they want to work with the applicant at the preliminary stage or work with him on the process based on the information that was presented as a significant change. Moving forward with a Public Hearing as directed by the Plan Commission or looking to see this as an amendatory plat from what was initially recorded. If the commission would please advise the staff as to how they’d like to see this move through the process.
Ms. Cardona agreed with Mr. Gill what was recorded and what is being proposed is significantly different. She also believes the need is to start with a Primary.
Mr. Kennedy stated they would then go with the motion that was made.
Mr. Kuiper gave a brief history: These are 3 lots on the eastside of the drive, as the Town Manager mentioned pursuant to the settlement agreement, it was deeded over to LBL Development and we are requesting a 3-Lot subdivision to finish out the units that are to the south of this. They will be exactly the same, they are included in the covenants for that and within a “year-ish” from now, you won’t know it wasn’t part of the original. It is set for Public Hearing tonight, originally scheduled for October 6, 2021, it has been continued because of a lack of a quorum.
Board Discussion/Questions/Comments
Mr. Gill asked what the zoning on the parcel is?
Mr. Kuiper responded R2, but he did not recall if it was PUD or not.
Mr. Gill stated that according to Tony Strickland it is R2-PUD, but I think it is Public, so it will probably have to be rezoned.
Mr. Kuiper stated he believed that zoning was correct but with the watertower property. He would confirm that later with Ordinance 1396 – the original annexation ordinance. He did not believe anything in there was Public, he believes it is R3.
Mr. Birlson commented about the area and whether it was to be a Fire Station.
Mr. Kuiper stated at one time he thought that that was the plan, but due to different variables, the location was not optimum.
Open to Public Hearing for 2021-21 THE GATES OF ST. JOHN, UNIT 1H: proposed Preliminary/Primary Plat for a 3-Lot Subdivision for 3 duplex units, 6 residential units total at the southeast corner of Walnut Drive and Sagebrook.
Terry A Neliman
9500 W. 103rd Place, SJ
Mr. Neliman spoke to the Board regarding the Gates of St. John HOA, a part of John Lotton’s corporations. The main reason to postpone, defer due to pending litigation of the dangerous homes by Lennar.
Mr. Kennedy reminded him that he was to only address the board regarding the reason for this Public Hearing. There was a time at the end of the Meeting where he could speak on any topic.
Mr. Mendoza stated there were no electronic Public comments.
Closed to Public Hearing for 2021-21 THE GATES OF ST. JOHN, UNIT 1H: proposed Preliminary/Primary Plat for a 3-Lot Subdivision for 3 duplex units, 6 residential units total at the southeast corner of Walnut Drive and Sagebrook.
Board Discussion/Questions/Comments
Mr. Kuiper replied to Mr. Neliman that there were no Lennar Homes in this section of the Gates, they are all located further north.
Mr. Kennedy read Mr. Kraus’s letter. They have received the Primary/Secondary plats and find them to be satisfactory. The Development Fee of $1500 should be paid prior to signing of the Secondary Plat. All Public Improvements have been installed, except sanitary sewer extension along the east property line.
Board Discussion/Questions/Comments
None
Board Action
Mr. Birlson made a motion to approve 2021-21 THE GATES OF ST. JOHN, UNIT 1H Preliminary/Primary Plat for a 3-Lot Subdivision for 3 duplex units, 6 residential units total at the southeast corner of Walnut Drive and Sagebrook.
Mr. Vlasic seconded the motion.
Board Discussion/Questions/Comments
None
Ayes - Robert Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, John Gill, Donna Little, Jason Vlasic, Nancy Wohland, John Kennedy
Nays – None
Primary Plat approved
Board Action
Mr. Kennedy asked for a motion to approve, deny or defer the Secondary Plat.
Mr. Birlson made a motion to approve Secondary Plat for 2021-21 THE GATES OF ST. JOHN, UNIT 1H a 3-Lot Subdivision for 3 duplex units, 6 residential units total at the southeast corner of Walnut Drive and Sagebrook, with signature in 30 days.
Mr. Gill seconded the motion.
Board Discussion/Questions/Comments
None
Ayes - Robert Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, John Gill, Donna Little, Jason Vlasic, Nancy Wohland, John Kennedy
Nays – None
Secondary Plat approved with signature in 30 days.
Mr. Kennedy stated they had received a letter from the attorney asking to withdraw application for Primary approval.
Mr. Gill made a motion to approval withdrawal for Primary approval for 2021-18 MEANEY SUBDIVISION: Preliminary Plat for a 1-lot Subdivision for a single-family home at 8901 Deodor Street, located at the southeast corner of Deodor Street and 89th Avenue. Ms. Little seconded the motion.
Board Discussion/Questions/Comments
None
Ayes - Robert Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, John Gill, Donna Little, Jason Vlasic, Nancy Wohland, John Kennedy
Nays – None
Motion to withdraw approved.
Mr. Kuiper stated the Engineer letter is in the packet and everything is in order. Fees have been paid. A check for performance improvement cost has been submitted to the Town for Items F and G.
Mr. Kennedy asked when was the initial plat approved for Unit 23B.
Mr. Kuiper stated that it was initial plat for 23B and 26B was in December2019. The whole area was done in December 2019. We did the First Phase which extends the Primary Plat automatically under your rules. The idea when we came in for Primary was for 5 Phases, a little over 100 lots each time.
Mr. Kennedy asked if it was done in July 2019 and November 2020 which extends beyond a year, the Subdivision control Ordinance has to be approved within 12-months.
Mr. Kuiper said it wasn’t July 2019, that could have been the application for zoning.
Mr. Kennedy asked Mr. Mendoza and Mr. Decker if there was a way to move forward with verification on when Primary Plat was approved.
Mr. Mendoza stated he would check the December 2019 minutes. He offered that there was a November 2020 – Phase 1, it was recorded on November 4, 2020.
There was reference to 23B and 26B recorded on Sept. 30, 2020.
Mr. Kraus checked his notes and indicated that on June 3, 2020 The Gates of St. John 2249 – 2258 were at Public Hearing and at that time they received Primary Plat approval.
Mr. Mendoza stated Primary Plat in July 2019 and then they came back for one of the Phases. There are two recorded plats, Nov. 4, 2020 and identified as Privet drive and 105th and then as Whitney Place and 105th.
Mr. Kuiper indicated where these two were located on the displayed map.
Mr. Kennedy read Mr. Kraus’s letter for Secondary Plat for 23B
Secondary plat has been reviewed and it appears satisfactory. The application fee of $10,000 needs to be paid prior to signing the secondary plat. The development fee is $1682. Public improvements have not been completed. An irrevocable letter of credit needs to be paid for $16,610 to cover the cost of improvements or a Surety bond or other form of payment in the amount of $19,630 needs to be submitted.
Mr. Kuiper stated they have submitted Cash Escrow with the Clerk-Treasurer and he has the receipts for that deposit.
Board Discussion/Questions/Comments
None
Board Action
Mr. Birlson motioned to approve 2021-22 THE GATES OF ST. JOHN, UNIT 23B: Final/Secondary Plat for a 50-Lot Subdivision for single family homes, located approximately 150’ south from the southeast intersection of W. 105Th Avenue and Azalea Drive and referencing Mr. Kraus’s letter. Ms. Cardona seconded the motion.
Board Discussion/Questions/Comments
None
Ayes - Robert Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, John Gill, Donna Little, Jason Vlasic, Nancy Wohland, John Kennedy
Nays – None
Secondary plat approved for 23B
Mr. Kennedy read Mr. Kraus’s letter stating that the Secondary Plat was received and it is satisfactory. The application fee is $10,400 which needs to be paid prior to signing of Secondary Plat approval. The development Fee is $0. Public improvements have not been completed. An irrevocable letter of credit needs to be paid for $16,280 to cover the cost of improvements or a Surety bond or other form of payment in the amount of $19,240 needs to be submitted.
Board Discussion/Questions/Comments
None
Board Action
Mr. Birlson motion to approve 2021-23 THE GATES OF ST. JOHN, UNIT 26B: Final/Secondary Plat for a 52-Lot Subdivision for single family homes, located approximately 150’ east from the northeast intersection of W. 105Th Avenue and Whitney Place and referencing Mr. Kraus’s letter. Mr. Gill seconded the motion.
Board Discussion/Questions/Comments
None
Ayes - Robert Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, John Gill, Donna Little, Jason Vlasic, Nancy Wohland, John Kennedy
Nays – None
Secondary plat approved for 26B
Mr. Kilburg gave a brief history: this was for formal site approval, we’ve been before the BZA for variance approval; which we received approval on all but 1 of the requested variances. That was for bicycle parking, so we’ve added a new bicycle parking spot on the site plan. We’ve also added 1 landscape island in the parking lot per Mr. Kraus’s suggestion. The overall site plan remains the same as previously shown.
Mr. Kennedy stated they have a residential area to the north, so they are held to a higher standard.
Mr. Kilburg stated that a finalized landscape plan was not yet available due to landscapers being pretty backed up.
Mr. Kennedy stated an application and an application fee needed to be paid to the Town. Mr. Kennedy read Mr. Kraus’s letter stating the site plan is satisfactory, but there are several lots listed erroneously that need to be corrected. The architectural plan or exhibits have not been reviewed and that is being left with the Building and Planning department. The revised landscape plan needs to be submitted for review, we understand that is not ready yet. The parking calculations are satisfactory. The site plan review fee is $1500. The SWPPP is included and has not been reviewed.
Board Discussion/Questions/Comments
None
Board Action
Mr. Birlson made a motion to approve 2021-24 SMYTHE DDS: Development/Site Plan of a medical office use for a dental practice/oral surgeon at 10815 Park Place contingent on the Application and Application fee being submitted to the Town and a landscape review being completed, also referencing Mr. Kraus’s letter.
Mr. Gill seconded the motion.
Board Discussion/Questions/Comments
None
Ayes - Robert Birlson, Yolanda Cardona, John Gill, Donna Little, Jason Vlasic, Nancy Wohland, John Kennedy
Nays – None
Motion to approve
Possibly three for Public Hearing at the next meeting:
St. John Commons
Monfort Subdivision (Avendale, a 1-Lot Subdivision)
Gates of St. John 17B
Terry A. Neliman
9500 West 103rd Place, SJ
He is asking the Board that with all the documents that numerous people in Town and out of Town have regarding Gates of St. John HOA affiliation with John Lotton, he is asking for a Nonfavorable Recommendation to the Town Council on any and all items.
It involves dangerous homes that Lennar built which Mr. Gill and the Hammond Times have copies of.
Please make it a Nonfavorable recommendation to the Town Council. Lennar has notified us of legal action which has a lot to do with the harboring of dangerous homes in St. John. Please on anything with Gates of St. John HOA or John Lotton’s LLC., a Nonfavorable recommendation.
Respectfully submitted,
Jan Barry, Recording Secretary
Town Council
Commissioners present: Yolanda Cardona, Jon Gill, Donna Little, Executive Secretary; Nancy Wohland, and Bob Birlson, Vice-President; Jason Vlasic, John Kennedy, President
Also present: Adam Decker, Board Attorney; Kenn Kraus, Town Engineer; Bryan Blazak, Town Council Liaison; and Sergio Mendoza, Director of Building and Planning.
A quorum was attained.
President Kennedy stated this will be back in front of the Board for approval in December so if there are any further concerns, we need to let Mr. Herbers know now. Mr. Birlson stated he thought the new plan looked good. Mr. Herbers stated he knew there was a question regarding the difference between vinyl and LP siding so he brought samples to give the Board to show the difference. President Kennedy stated he would take it at Mr. Herbers word that LP siding holds the same value as stone. President Kennedy asked if the rest of the PUD agreement met the Town’s Subdivision Control Ordinance other than the lot sizes. Mr. Herbers stated it did.
President Kennedy stated at the last meeting we had asked about police and fire review, which we will get to Mr. Kuiper as they were recently received. Mr. Kraus stated on the amended secondary plat, there appears to be lot lines for each individual home. He asked if the land that is delineated is owned when a home is purchased. Mr. Kuiper stated his understanding is that the ownership is inside of the walls of the building and all other areas will be common areas. Mr. Kraus stated we may not want to show these “lot lines” on the plan because it looks like you are buying a piece of land with a row house on it. Mr. Kuiper stated he would confirm that. President Kennedy asked who owned the land. Mr. Kuiper stated there would be an HOA that would be transferred over to an individual.
President Kennedy stated we are used to allowing one monument sign and you have multiple. We allow fifty square feet of signage and you are asking for one hundred and seventy-eight per a couple of the signs. Not only do you have monument signs, but each commercial development will also have a sign above its door. There are several retail spaces that have two sides. President Kennedy asked if those units will be allowed to have signs on both sides of their units. Mr. Georgiou stated they will not. President Kennedy asked what the size of the signs above the building would be. Mr. Georgiou stated forty-eight square feet per retail space. Each building mounted sign above the individual tenant meet the Zoning criteria. President Kennedy asked the difference between the live/work tenant signs and live/work building signs. Mr. Georgiou stated we are showing five tenant spaces per retail building, ten total; live/work has ten potential tenants with their own sign above at thirty-three square feet per tenant. President Kennedy stated any building sign meets our Zoning Ordinance, but the four monument signs exceed it. Mr. Georgiou agreed. President Kennedy asked if the two signs off of Calumet Ave. were the sixteen foot signs. Mr. Georgiou stated that was correct. Director Mendoza stated he believed the maximum was seven feet. Mr. Georgiou stated the next pair of monument signs would be at the entrance of the live/work area, one sign on the right and one on the left, each at twelve feet tall and double sided. The residential sign would go at the entrance off of Blue Sky Drive. President Kennedy stated he wanted to make sure the Board was aware of the proposed signage and that it exceeds the Ordinance.
Mr. Georgiou stated he did want to point out that the residential portion has a legal right-of-way and meets the Town Ordinances for subdivision roads. We are also doing coach light lamps throughout the residential portion in lieu of the standard street light that is called for. Mr. Kraus asked if the entrance off of Calumet would be a public road. Mr. Georgiou stated that would be a private road. Mr. Kraus stated the utilities will be in an easement then instead of a right-of-way. Mr. Georgiou stated that was correct.
Mr. Birlson asked to go through the configuration on Calumet. Mr. Georgiou stated we have decel/accel shown on Calumet with a forty-five foot right-of-way with a left turn lane off of Calumet. Engineering details will be in the next phase. Councilman Blazak asked if the legal document was finished for the live/work space. Brad Lambert, Lambert Concrete, stated the PUD agreement has been submitted, but there are some formatting adjustments that need to be made per Attorney Decker’s suggestions. Attorney Decker stated the purpose of the Ordinance is to incorporate those terms and provisions of the development plan that address the architectural and design standards that have been submitted. The Town is not seeking to approve the terms of covenants or an HOA as those are typically agreements that are submitted by the developer as part of the development of a subdivision. For the PUD aspect, or the approval of the PUD development plan, the Town wants to incorporate the architectural and design standards that are part of that development plan. The development plan is not in a final form yet, which will hopefully be completed by the December 1st meeting, along with the Ordinance that would be used to approve the development plan. Councilman Blazak stated he was interested in knowing if the leasing terms had been fixed in the PUD from six months to a year, per discussions at the last meeting. Mr. Lambert stated the residential units are intended to be sold. Councilman Blazak stated Nathan Vis had spoken about six month leases at the last meeting. Mr. Lambert stated that has been addressed in the covenants. President Kennedy asked if the condos are being sold, do we have the ability to tell the owner they are not allowed to sub-lease their property. Mr. Georgiou stated leasing out a condo or villa is not restricted in the PUD agreement or covenants currently, but it can be looked in to.
Ms. Little asked if a waiver is needed for the signage. President Kennedy stated no because this is a PUD so whatever is stated in the PUD is what we are allowing. Ms. Little stated at recent developments we did not allow the larger or extra signage that was being requested. Mr. Decker stated in that particular development, there was signage district created that we can also do for this applicant. President Kennedy stated he would like to see the signs downsized some, but we understand that this is a unique development and our sign standards may not match what is needed here. Mr. Georgiou stated because of the location and proportion of the development, these signs are appropriate for the retail shops to have a presence and be seen. President Kennedy stated he understood that, but still asked for smaller signage. Mr. Decker stated our Zoning Ordinance requires that the developer submit, as part of the PUD development plan, signage that is proposed subject to approval and obtaining sign permits, and that the Plan Commission in reviewing any PUD development plan may impose reasonable conditions as part of its approval process. Those conditions can be limits on the total gross area of those signs that would be a recommendation to the Town Council. Mr. Georgiou stated please take a look at how these signs are proposed with the landscape treatments around them. They will not be sticking out. President Kennedy asked if a tenant leases two units, would they get the two spots for a sign. Mr. Georgiou stated they would get the equivalent of two signs, which meets the Zoning Ordinance, there would just be less signs on the building front. Discussion followed regarding the area of this development versus the Shops on 96th.
President Kennedy asked if the masonry around the signage counts towards the square footage. Mr. Mendoza stated when the height is calculated, the base is considered, but the square footage of the sign is the square footage of the sign, not the surrounding monument. Mr. Georgiou stated the sign face is maybe sixty to seventy square feet per face. The calculation that was presented is the entire sign including the masonry. If the Code is per the sign face, we have way less than what was presented.
Mr. Krusemark went on to discuss the restrictive covenants that included minimum home sizes, the fact that there will be no bi-level, tri-level or quad-level homes, roof pitches must be a minimum 6/12 pitch except for dormers which may be 4/12 pitch, 30% brick or stone will be required on 80% of the homes front elevations, homes will be encouraged to have three car garages, homes adjacent to White Oak will have a rear bump-out sunroom or breakfast nook, there will be no above-ground pools, front and side yards will be sodded, rear yards may be seed, each home style will have its own unique architectural elements, and there will be strict anti-monotony language for elevations and colors of homes.
Mr. Vlasic asked what the lot size was in the development to the west. Mr. Krusemark stated that is an R-1 development so they would be around one hundred feet wide. Mr. Vlasic asked if you say lots are above eighty feet wide, how large are they. Mr. Krusemark stated twenty-five lots are eighty-five feet or wider. Of those twenty-five, nine are ninety feet or wider. Mr. Vlasic stated the center section looks compressed. Mr. Krusemark stated those are mainly eighty foot lots. President Kennedy asked why a PUD was being requested for this site. Mr. Krusemark stated it would be for lot size. President Kennedy stated other than the wetlands, there does not seem to be much wrong with the site, so the PUD is being sought to have smaller lot sizes. Mr. Krusemark stated the wetlands themselves are about four acres of the site. President Kennedy stated so that is roughly ten percent of the site. When Astoria came in, they have an oil/gas line impact, another easement, and wetlands on their site, but this Board made it clear that they did not want to see eighty foot lots. He stated his concern was if this project would qualify for a PUD. You may just need to come back for an R-2 zoning since there does not seem to be any other issue with the site other than you want eighty foot lots. Mr. Birlson stated the property to the west is R-1 with one hundred foot lots and now we are going to eighty feet. Mr. Krusemark stated when he was here in September, this issue was not raised. Mr. Birlson stated he had brought up lot sizes multiple times in previous meetings. President Kennedy stated he believed the Board’s responsibility was to show that the developer has a hardship on the property and in having that hardship, we would consider a different zoning that would be beneficial. It is not our intention to have you come back multiple times and get nowhere. Mr. Krusemark stated he appreciated that, which is why 40% of the lots are eighty-five or wider. A variety in size is nice to offer. President Kennedy stated he is the most lenient on lot size, but we also need to look at where we are doing PUD’s and allowing eighty-foot lots. Here we have R-1 to the side and lot forty to the west will end up having three neighbors in his side yard. We need to make some sort of understanding in the future of how we are allowing PUD’s to move forward so every site is not a PUD. Mr. Krusemark asked if the Board would consider this site if there were ninety-foot lots. President Kennedy stated he still did not feel comfortable granting a PUD for that reason. Mr. Mendoza stated it would still need to come in as a PUD if they cannot follow the zoning standards, because with the annexation it will come in as an R-1. Mr. Krusemark stated typically when they present a PUD they see something where rather than going straight zoning and applying the standard rules and regulations, there is more brought to the table to make the site more unique. We have gone above and beyond with the amount of paths, pergolas, benches, extensive landscaping, and amount of brick on the homes that we probably would not need to have in a typical zoning. We are trying to add some things to the mix to make it more interesting, even with materials used for building. President Kennedy stated he appreciated Mr. Krusemark’s comments, but the Board needs to figure out how to move forward with PUD’s because overall eighty foot lots do not seem acceptable. Mr. Krusemark stated he would go back and meet with Mr. Mendoza to see how we can balance this out. He asked if ninety-foot wide lots would be acceptable. President Kennedy stated he believed he would have a better chance.
Mr. Vlasic asked if the three commercial buildings would be possible future or generic buildouts. Mr. Slager stated we would wait to get a user to design the building and have them as grass lots until then. Mr. Vlasic asked if there would be a better way to enter the development because there is already a street light just north of that entrance. Mr. Slager stated there is a light at 85th and the light we are proposing is on the Town’s thoroughfare plan. We could potentially have it move further south, but we placed it there since it lines up with Kohling’s entrance. Either way a light would be advantageous to us with all of the trucks moving in and out of the site. Councilman Blazak asked if the three buildings would be custom to the tenant. Mr. Slager stated yes. What is shown is just an idea of what can be there. The maximum size of the building would be part of the PUD, but right now it is flexible. We would just need to follow the US 41 Overlay District as well as the strict standards we are proposing for the area. Mr. Birlson asked when semis would be anticipated to come in. Mr. Slager stated we would probably have two or three a day and we also get about twelve train cars per week of material. Part of this development involves demoing the Nelson warehouse as well as the two rental houses in front of that property. Councilman Blazak asked if it would all end up being pavement. Mr. Slager stated there would be a lot of pavement, but we are going to have quite a bit of greenspace as well. Ms. Little asked if there would be a lot of trees that would need to come down. Mr. Slager stated there is a ten acre parcel that would need to be cleared out. President Kennedy asked what the current ten acres were zoned. Mr. Slager stated C-1 or C-2.
President Kennedy asked if the current property would be included in the PUD and how that would affect the existing buildings that may not meet those PUD standards. Mr. Decker stated if the Plan Commission finds that the existing buildings do not meet those standards, then it would have to consider if it is waived or if they impose requirements on the developer to meet those standards. Mr. Slager stated we would assume the current structures would be grandfathered in. The current development does not meet the current zoning standards. President Kennedy asked why include the existing development. Mr. Slager stated we are trying to create a comprehensive master plan for ourselves as we grow, but it could just involve the north two parcels. Kevin Hunt, Attorney, stated part of the master plan will include architectural standards and we will more than likely do some work to the back and would like to set those standards ahead of time. President Kennedy asked the need for a PUD. Mr. Slager stated it does not fit neatly in to any of the “C” uses. There is an existing development that was there before some of the Zoning Ordinance was created so we feel the PUD is the easiest way to clean the whole site up.
President Kennedy stated there will be residential to the north and asked if there would be extra buffering. Mr. Slager stated we have a minimum fifty foot buffer along our north line. The units are set about another fifty foot off of the property line so there will be plenty of space between. This distribution center has the potential to expand to the north and east further, but we would still set the minimum as fifty feet from the residential zone. President Kennedy asked if the PUD would also propose exceptions to the amount of buildings on the property. Mr. Slager stated we would have to and we can start discussing what buildings can come down. President Kennedy stated with this being in the TIF District, we would like to see no businesses that do not pay property taxes. Mr. Hunt stated we have discussed that.
President Kennedy asked if the Board could get a heads up in regards to proposed signage. He also asked if they were going to direct people to the light off of the property. Mr. Slager stated the intention would be to get the truck traffic to the light. Mr. Birlson stated he would like to see all traffic funneled to the light. Mr. Slager stated some of that may be dictated by the State as far as how many entrances and exits we can have. Ms. Little asked if the entrance was pushed to the south, would Schilling move Kohling’s entrance to the south as well. Mr. Schilling stated not necessarily. We will have to work with the school because they would benefit from the light as well.
President Kennedy stated any variance needed would be nice to see up front along with signage and setbacks. He also asked if they should be looking in to connectivity to the north commercial areas. Mr. Slager stated they looked in to that and will note it. President Kennedy noted that they would like to see ten feet wide parking spaces. Mr. Slager agreed since they get a lot of trucks. President Kennedy asked if there was separation between the existing ten acres like a fence. Mr. Slager stated that will be gone. We will also have a substantial detention pond in the back that will definitely cover all of the new areas. Mr. Vlasic asked if any of the ten acres with tree coverage could be kept. Mr. Slager stated in order to level the area, because the grades are everywhere, there would be no way to save the trees unfortunately. We will be planning new trees on site to hopefully help with that.
| John Kennedy | Bob Birlson |
| Plan Commission President | Plan Commission Vice-President |
Absent: Nancy Wohland and John Kennedy, President
Mr. Birlson noted there has been a Public Hearing added to the agenda and asked for a motion from the Commission.
Mr. Gill made a motion to add Bramblewood Unit 3 Lot 158 Rear-Yard Easement Reduction to be added to Public Hearings as the item was inadvertently omitted from the agenda, but was discussed at the last Study Session; Ms. Little seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote:
Mr. Birlson Aye
Ms. Cardona Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Mr. Vlasic Aye
Mr. Kuiper referenced the engineering letter from Kenn Kraus stating all sanitary, water, and fire protection were satisfactory and meets town requirements for the preliminary plat. He explained the sewers and water mains will be public once installed, tested, and accepted.
Mr. Kuiper referenced the last Study Session where police and fire letters were discussed. He stated he received those letters after the Study Session. The Fire Department letter addresses four main issues: access and egress, multiple entrances would help, street name of Park Avenue, and water supply issues. The Police Department letter addresses: ingress/egress, too many units, entrance/exit by roundabout, and Park Avenue name is confusing. Mr. Kuiper stated street name has been changed from Park Avenue to Pine Avenue to avoid confusion for both police and fire. The roundabout was originally designed to accommodate the 242 units and including the commercial property to the east. He stated Park Place’s entrance across the street is directly on the roundabout and First Responders frequent without issue due to the age and health concerns of some of the residents.
Mr. Kuiper drew attention to the illustration passed out to note that the entire perimeter of the two lots is accessible to fire or emergency vehicles – excluding lot 993, but including the Suncrest property to the southeast of 1421. Suncrest has committed to keeping that area open for their parking lot.
Mr. Kuiper stated there are 12 fire hydrants on numerous water mains within 300 feet of the two lots. The pink dots on the proposed plan show the approximate location of the fire hydrants. The two lots have the pump house located less than 300 feet to the northwest as the main water supply. The water tower is also located there.
Mr. Kuiper stated multiple points of access are highlighted in orange to alleviate fire and police concerns.
Attorney Kuiper noted if all the current town vehicles including trucks, pumpers, everything connected to the lines, they would not able to out pump how much water is in the lines.
Mr. Kuiper acknowledged the Commissioners were not involved in the R-4 PUD zoning of the property originally, but pursuant to IC 36-7-4-707 the platting process requires approval if the Subdivision Control Ordinances are met.
Ms. Cardona asked if there is an electronic version of what was passed out. Mr. Mendoza replied it was received this morning then emailed to Commissioners around 10 am. The police and fire letters were emailed prior to last month’s Study Session.
Mr. Birlson stated he is concerned with the density and the letters of concern from the Police and Fire Chief. Mr. Kuiper stated there will be roads and/or parking lots on the Suncrest property.
Mr. Vlasic asked what would prevent non-emergency vehicles from driving over those surfaces.
Ms. Cardona questioned if police and fire have had a sufficient amount of time to review these current plans. Mr. Kuiper replied that almost of all of the fire and police concerns were there previously and the police and fire departments may not have had the detail or understanding of them.
Ms. Cardona referenced one of the police concerns of ingress/egress with one way in and one way out. Mr. Kuiper stated 1420 have two ingress and egress points and 1421 has one physical access with impervious surfaces surrounding that emergency services can utilize.
Ms. Little inquired if the police department’s recommendation to cut some units to include a road around the property was considered. Mr. Kuiper stated that is not common, and there is not currently one in town.
Mr. Birlson asked if the residents will have access to drive on the paved areas around the property. Mr. Kuiper replied the residents would still use the main drives. The impervious surfaces are for emergency vehicles only.
Ms. Little stated there were concerns for a trap and bottleneck situation. Mr. Kuiper stated that situation would have presented with the other side of the street. Ms. Little stated most of the residents on the other side rarely leave the property since it is an assisted living. Mr. Kuiper stated the roundabout and roads were designed for the two lots with the 242 units and also the undeveloped property to the east.
Mr. Birlson expressed concern regarding ingress/egress if there were a catastrophic event. Mr. Kuiper replied there are hard surfaces around the property that residents and emergency vehicles could drive over in case of an emergency.
Mr. Birlson opened the floor for Public Hearing.
Jim Gallagher, 10684 Juniper Lane - Mr. Gallagher voiced concern regarding the density of the units and proximity to each other with no separation. He questioned the age group that the property will attract. Across the street cannot be compared since it is a retirement community and does not create traffic. There will be traffic from the Christian school down the street. The area is currently gridlocked due to people using the area as a shortcut for Sterling Gate and The Gates of St. John. The design shows the garages in the back. The fire engine would have a hard time getting into the development. The roundabout in the front creates a gridlock situation now.
Having no one else to speak, Mr. Birlson closed the public hearing.
Mr. Kuiper stated the buildings will be built to fire code so they will have a minimum of an R-2 fire rating in-between them plus the shingles which provide more of a break than houses with a 10-foot separation. All the requirements of the State Fire Marshal and The Department of Homeland Security will be met.
Mr. Birlson brought the matter back to the Board.
Mr. Gill asked Mr. Kuiper since he stated the plans would all be approved through the state, would it be considered a commercial structure and obtain a design release. Mr. Kuiper responded that they would since a commercial design release would be required of anything with more than four units connected.
Mr. Vlasic made a motion to deny The Gates of St. John proposed primary/preliminary plat amended for Lots 1420 and 1421; Ms. Little seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote:
Ms. Cardona Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Mr. Vlasic Aye
Mr. Birlson Aye
Attorney Kuiper stated pursuant to IC 36-7-4-707, written findings including specifically why it was denied are required and requested the findings sent to him.
Attorney Vis stated The Post-Tribune ran the legal notice past the date requested by them which caused one of the two required newspapers to be posted after the 10-day requirement.
Mr. Birlson asked Attorney Decker for guidance regarding this matter. Mr. Decker stated the publication requirements were not met and the process must be started again with posting the legal notice in two newspapers with a minimum of 10 days. He recommended the item be deferred to the January meeting.
Ms. Cardona made a motion to defer St. John Commons to the next month’s meeting; Ms. Little seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote:
Mr. Birlson Aye
Ms. Cardona Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Mr. Vlasic Aye
Mr. Vis asked if the public would be able to speak at this time and if they would need to start the process over again. Attorney Decker advised St. John Commons will need to start the process again and that the public may speak during public comment which is the last item before adjournment.
Mr. Gill made a motion to grant curb and sidewalk waivers due to the topography and the neighboring properties not having sidewalks or curbs. Ms. Little seconded the motion.
Ms. Cardona Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Mr. Vlasic Aye
Mr. Birlson Aye
Mr. Gill made a motion approve primary plat for a one-lot subdivision for Avondale Estates. Ms. Little seconded the motion.
Ms. Cardona Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Mr. Vlasic Aye
Mr. Birlson Aye
Mr. Gill questioned if there is an application and whether the review fee was paid since it was not in the packet. Mr. Mendoza stated the application was received, but the review fee of $1500.00 has not been collected. Mr. Huizinga assured the Commissioners all fees would be paid, and he would receive all contingent approvals.
Ms. Cardona made a motion to approve the easement reduction with contingencies to obtain all utility approvals, obtain the Lake County Drainage Board approval, and pay the fees associated with the Plan Commission application; Ms. Little seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by roll-call vote:
Ms. Cardona Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Mr. Vlasic Aye
Mr. Birlson Aye
Mr. Gill made a motion to send a favorable recommendation to the Town Council; Ms. Cardona seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously roll-call vote.
Ms. Cardona Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Mr. Vlasic Aye
Mr. Birlson Aye
Ms. Cardona Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Mr. Vlasic Aye
Mr. Birlson Aye
Ms. Cardona Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Mr. Vlasic Aye
Mr. Birlson Aye
Ms. Cardona Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Mr. Vlasic Aye
Mr. Birlson Aye
Ms. Cardona Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Mr. Vlasic Aye
Mr. Birlson Aye
Ms. Cardona Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Mr. Vlasic Aye
Mr. Birlson Aye
Ms. Cardona Aye
Mr. Gill Aye
Ms. Little Aye
Mr. Vlasic Aye
Mr. Birlson Aye
Ms. Little made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Gill seconded.
Mr. Birlson adjourned the meeting at 8:23 p.m.
| John Kennedy | Donna Little |
| Plan Commission President | Plan Commission Secretary |
Commissioners present: Bob Birlson, Vice-President; Yolanda Cardona, Jon Gill, Nancy Wohland and John Kennedy, President.
Also present: Adam Decker, Board Attorney; Kenn Kraus, Town Engineer; Bryan Blazak, Town Council Liaison; Chris Salatas, Town Manager; and Sergio Mendoza, Building and Planning Administrator.
Secretary Donna Little, Jason Vlasic were not in attendance. A quorum was attained.
Nathan Vis, Vis Law, reiterated that the conversations that were had after the last meeting were productive and a lot of questions from the residents were answered. He stated that he had questions from residents regarding the proposed pond in the Commons as well as lighting issues for the property and that plans were shared with them to give answers and show the proposal. Mr. Vis stated one concern he had was in regards to the mixed-use buildings, understanding that was new to this area. He stated that he also serves as the President to the Redevelopment Commission in Cedar Lake, and that they are getting more and more interest from developers wondering what the appetite is to do projects like this in that area.
Mr. Georgiou stated since the last meeting a few months ago, we have addressed the size of the parking spaces, and we also found out that we have more room to play with in regards to encroaching on the high tension line easement, which will work better with the service roads on the commercial side.
President Kennedy asked the square footage of the signage. Mr. Georgiou stated he did know that the monument sign exceeded the height listed in the Ordinance, but needed clarification on the retail signs regarding how many are allowed and sizes. President Kennedy stated he interprets the sizes as the actual face of the signs, not the monument itself. The face of your sign is one hundred and seventy-nine square feet, but our Ordinance is only around fifty. Mr. Georgiou stated he would ask the question if the PUD could be approved subject to modification negotiations, or if once we go in to detail engineering and primary plat, those items could be negotiated. President Kennedy stated he did not know the details of the Ordinance well enough to know if that could be negotiated at a later date. Mr. Georgiou stated the issue that is unclear is if this is considered a twenty acre zoned PUD lot, or if there are separate areas since there is residential and commercial. We show the areas as segregated in to different HOA and POA agreements. Mr. Mendoza stated the sign package that was submitted would be considered part of the PUD rezone. Typically when you get a PUD you include a sign package that identifies what is permitted by Ordinance of the PUD. Then when you revisit for creating these lots of record and how they are recorded and parceled out by PIN numbers that will tell the amount of lots that you have. With what is being proposed through the rezone, the legal descriptions that are identified are the permitted uses within those legal descriptions of that PUD. The residential, live/work and retail have been segregated and identified via the PUD legal description areas. Mr. Georgiou stated that would be interpreted as three zoning lots, but even with that the monument signs exceed the Ordinance size and they were aware of that. Mr. Mendoza stated we can prepare the sign package over the next few weeks and decide what signs comply with the Ordinance and which signs exceed and why. Mr. Georgiou stated there is a summary on the retail, as far as the mounted signs, but the monument signs are not in conformance. President Kennedy stated he loves the project, but just needs to make sure that we are in compliance with the Ordinances. He then asked if there was pedestrian access on the north side of the building. Mr. Georgiou stated there is a private access on the north side of the villas that connects to the retail area, but it is considered emergency access. President Kennedy asked if the Dark Sky Ordinance was being followed. Mr. Mendoza stated he was not familiar if there is one in the Lighting Ordinance. Mr. Georgiou stated he did not think St. John had that. Mr. Kraus stated there is an Ordinance based on Dark Sky that does need to be followed.
Richard Christakes, Walnut Creek North LLC, stated there are roughly five acres there currently. We are proposing subdividing down to create this lot at about 2.5 acres. Usage will not be changed. President Kennedy stated the five acres is Lot 8, 9, and 10 together. You are looking to put Lots 8 and 9 together to create the 2.5 acres, and then leave Lots 10 and 10A. Mr. Christakes stated that was correct. President Kennedy stated minimum Commercial lots have to be two acres. Now you potentially have Lots 10 and 10A trying to split 2.5 acres. You will potentially have to come back to the BZA for a lot variance. Mr. Mendoza stated in a C-2 zone the minimum lot size is 32,000 SQ. FT., which he will be within. Attorney Decker asked if this parcel was in the US 41 Overlay District. Mr. Mendoza stated it is. Attorney Decker stated in reading the Ordinance, he believed a minimum area for development is two acres. Mr. Christakes stated a variance would be needed to split the remaining lot, then. Mr. Mendoza stated it would be for the north half of Lot 9 since that would be less than two acres. Discussion followed regarding the timing of the recording of the original lots versus how the Ordinance lays out exceptions to the US 41 Overlay District. Mr. Mendoza found that the recording of the original Lots 8, 9, and 10 was done in 1999. President Kennedy stated the Board will do its due diligence in finding out the correlating dates and will get back to Mr. Christakes.
Jared Lecas, Gander Builders, stated his client, Barbara Tayler, has the ultimate goal of resubdividing the two lots in to one larger lot to create an estate-like property with the home being located in the middle of the two lots. Mr. Lecas stated he had preliminary drawings of the home to hand out to the Board for reference, as well as an inspiration photo of what they are trying to accomplish. Mr. Lecas went over the details of the proposed build with the Board. President Kennedy stated typically if Mr. Kraus does not come back with anything and no waivers are requested, we can do the primary and secondary plat approval in the same night.
Mr. Kraus stated in order to figure out the development fee, the construction costs will be needed. Since this was done under the old rules, the fee will be based on 2% of their construction costs.
President Kennedy asked if there was any connectivity to the undeveloped area to the south. Mr. Kuiper stated there is a stub road there, as requested. President Kennedy asked if he was correct in saying that Units 24, 25, 27, and 28 were annexed in to the Town in 2019. Mr. Kuiper stated that was correct. Mr. Kraus asked if it was annexed in as R-2 PUD. Mr. Kuiper stated that was correct. This was part of the settlement agreement with the Town. We dropped about seventy lots to increase the width of the lots, and this will also be part of The Gates of St. John East HOA, not the original Gates of St. John. Mr. Kraus stated he looked at the engineering plans before the lawsuit, but the plans would need to be resubmitted since there has been such a big change. Mr. Kuiper stated that would be no problem. The only thing that changed are the stubs for the water and sewer.
Mr. Birlson asked if the NIPSCO parcel was for overhead power lines. Mr. Kuiper stated that was correct. President Kennedy asked about the new setback easement. Mr. Kuiper stated that does not apply to this parcel. Per the settlement agreement, the rules that were in effect prior to that new setback easement govern this property only. There is no impact zone. Mr. Kraus asked what the lot widths were. Mr. Kuiper stated they are sixty feet. Ms. Wohland stated there are some lots that are less than that. Mr. Kuiper stated if the lot is on a cul-de-sac, it has to be sixty feet at the building line. Ms. Wohland pointed out the lots in Unit 27 & 28 that were not meeting the sixty foot requirement. Mr. Kuiper stated that could be because the road to the north of that is the dividing line so anything underneath that is part of the original annexed property. Mr. Birlson stated in Unit 27 & 28 there are extremely long lots that extend in to the drainage and landscaping easement. Mr. Kraus stated in today’s Ordinance, that would not be allowed, but it was under the old Ordinance. President Kennedy asked if there was any cross connectivity east/west across the NIPSCO parcel between Units 27 & 28 and 24 & 25. Mr. Kuiper stated not between 27 & 28. Between 24 & 25 there is not, but there is just to the north in 26. That was part of the master layout that was initially presented. Discussion followed regarding previous discussions on connectivity between the Units and further subdivisions.
Ms. Wohland asked to verify the lot width issue and see if a lot can be taken to disperse between the remaining lots to make the sixty feet. President Kennedy stated they would verify the lot sizes. Discussion followed regarding the details of the settlement agreement that was made in April of 2021 that includes these Units.
Town Manager Chris Salatas stated we have encountered an issue with a specific type of business that more than likely was not around at the time the Zoning Ordinance was created. Attorney Decker has drafted an Ordinance to add in to the definitions vape products and to clarify tobacco products because we would like to be able to regulate this type of business. President Kennedy stated we are just adding vape in to the tobacco definitions in order to cover this type of activity. Attorney Decker stated currently the Zoning Ordinance defines tobacco shops as “an enclosed establishment principally engaged in selling tobacco goods or merchandise to the public for personal or household consumption”. The definition of tobacco shop requires that it have tobacco sales as more than 50% of its total sales. Currently, any vaping products would not fit within that description since vaping pens and liquid involve no tobacco. Rather than adding vaping to the Zoning Ordinance with a similar definition, it required that we eliminate the reference as an establishment being “principally engaged” because arguably a tobacco and vape shop could drive 48% of its sales from tobacco and 48% of its sales from vape products and not meet the definition of either. The drafted Ordinance identifies and defines a vape shop to be “an enclosed establishment engaged in the display, sale, distribution, marketing, furnishing, or offering of vaping products, provided however, that any retail establishment, automobile service center, or similar retail use that only sells vaping products as an ancillary sale shall not qualify”. The ordinance is intended to be directed to establishments that are primarily engaged in the sale of vaping products and paraphernalia. These products can be sold at gas stations, drug stores, and grocery stores, which is why a tobacco shop and vape shop needed to be defined. We are also adding the definition of an ancillary sale, which is defined as “a sale made by a retail establishment that uses no more than 2% of its gross floor area or 100 SQ. FT., whichever is less, for the display, sale, distribution, delivery, offering, furnishing, or marketing of tobacco or vaping products.
We are adding a number of definitions to the Zoning Ordinance here. There are definitions for tobacco products, tobacco, tobacco paraphernalia, and vaping products that would all be included in the Zoning Ordinance in order to provide some means of regulating the location of tobacco and vape shop within the Town. Currently, tobacco shops are defined and that type of use is permitted in certain zoning districts under the current Zoning Ordinance, specifically C-1, C-2, C-3, Industrial, and the Route 231 Overlay District. They are not allowed in the US 41 Overly District and Town Center Overlay District without a Special Exception. He stated he did not understand why the use was allowed in the 231 Overly District, but not the 41 Overlay District. The Town Council will ultimately have to decide if they want to change that requirement.
Ms. Wohland stated she would not like to allow it in the Route 231 Overlay District. Attorney Decker stated in order to make that happen, it would require reference of that in this Ordinance for the Town Council to consider once a recommendation is made at the next Plan Commission meeting. He stated he would revise the Ordinance to include that change before the next regular meeting. Discussion followed regarding the procedure of the approval of the Ordinance.
| John Kennedy | Robert Birlson |
| Plan Commission President | Plan Commission Vice-President |
