Plan Commission

PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES April 24, 2007 MEMBERS PRESENT: RANGE LINE ROAD ON THE WEST SIDE AND THE 2800 THROUGH 3200 BLOCKS OF Jesse Wilkerson, President EAST 53RD STREET ON THE NORTH SIDE. Joe Newman, Member Paul O’Neill, Member Mr. Stires asked for Petition #11-07 to be Bob Schuler, Member continued until the May meeting. Michael Spyers, Member William Warmke, Member Mr. Warmke moved to continue Petition #11-07 Michelle Weatherspoon, Member until the May meeting. Mr. Spyers seconded. Gene Yates, Member Motion passed; 7 yes, 0 no. MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle arrived after Petition #11-07 was continued, making eight (8) members present. John Suko, Vice President PETITION #9-07 (ORDINANCE #17-07) OTHERS PRESENT: SUBMITTED BY JAMES D. HOSIER FOR A ZONE MAP CHANGE FROM B-6 TO B-1 Michael Widing, Municipal Development Director LOCATED AT 4447 SCATTERFIELD ROAD. Tim Stires, Assistant Development Director Robin Allman, Zoning Administrator Mr. Stires asked for Petitions #9-07 and #12-07 to Janay Smith, Plan Commission Secretary be heard at the same time, but voted on Bill Kreegar, Attorney separately. Mr. Stires explained these properties are located in the 4000 block of Scatterfield Road, ROLL CALL AND DECLARATION OF each has a residence on the property, are zoned B- QUORUM 6 and contain less than an acre. The two properties are bounded on the north by B-6 zoning, Mr. Wilkerson called the meeting to order at 4:31 to the south by B-6 zoning, to the east by B-4 p.m. Ms. Smith took roll call and declared a zoning and to the west by the R-2 zone class. The quorum with seven (7) members in attendance. petitioners are seeking to rezone from B-6 to B-1 to attract a developer for potential businesses. Mr. Warmke performed the invocation and the There have been several like rezonings along the Pledge of Allegiance was recited. Scatterfield corridor in the past few years. The petitioners do not have any potential buyers or no MINUTES plans for the properties at this time. The proposed rezonings are not in conflict with the City’s The March 27, 2007 minutes were approved as Comprehensive Plan and any developments would presented. Motion passed unanimously; 7 yes, 0 require approval from the Indiana Department of no. Transportation for any driveway cuts onto the properties. Staff notes, if the rezonings are COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORT OF approved, the petitioners will be required to file a COMMITTEES covenant for landscape buffering, lighting, fencing, cross access and a prohibition on any placement of None billboards on these property. Staff notes, it is the responsibility of the petitioners to demonstrate the BUSINESS character of these properties have changed and the highest and best use of the land is to rezone to the PETITION #11-07 (ORDINANCE #20-07) B-1 zone class. Staff is recommending approval of SUBMITTED BY CITY OF ANDERSON the two rezonings from B-6 to B-1, because the two PARKS BOARD, ELDA CORP AND VIRGIL properties have never developed commercially COOK FOR A ZONE MAP CHANGE FROM R- under the B-6 zone class and because they abut or 2, I-3 AND B-5 TO B-3 AND B-4 LOCATED IN adjoin property already zoned B-1. If approved, THE 3000 THROUGH 3200 BLOCKS OF EAST both petitioners will be required to file a covenant 38TH STREET ON THE SOUTH SIDE, THE for landscape buffering, lighting, fencing, cross 3800 THROUGH 4900 BLOCKS OF SOUTH access and a prohibition on any placement of 1 billboards on these property. SCATTERFIELD ROAD. James Hosier, 6509 South 50 West, Pendleton, Steve and Sylvia Ashby, 4435 South Scatterfield Indiana, explained he owns the property located at Road, explained they have no intentions of 4447 South Scatterfield Road. Mr. Hoosier starting a business. They would like to sell the explained he feels the rezoning will be more property because of all the businesses developing desirable for a developer and he has no plans at around them and felt the B-1 zone class was more this time for a business on the property. Mr. attractive to a developer Hoosier explained if he did put a business on the property, it would be a small business for his son, Mr. Schuler asked the petitioner if he had any but he would rather sell the property. problems with the covenant? Mr. Schuler asked the petitioner if he had any Mr. Ashby explained he does not have a problem problems with the covenant? with the covenant. Mr. Hosier explained he does not have a problem Mr. Wilkerson asked if there will be more of the with the covenant. like rezonings coming in front of the Plan Commission in the future and if so, is there Mr. Schuler moved to approve Petition #9-07 something we can do to bring them in here to get it because the proposed rezoning would be done? conserving the property values throughout the neighboring districts, because it permits the Mr. Stires explained there probably would be more development of the property in keeping with and he will talk it over with the director to do an recent development in the area; the proposed overlay of some sort of the B-1 where there is rezoning would be considered responsible existing B-6. development and growth, because it will permit a broader scope of development possibilities than Mr. Schuler moved to approve Petition #12-07 currently exist; the proposed rezoning would be because the proposed rezoning would be the most desirable use for the land, because the conserving the property values throughout the property is located in an emerging developing neighboring districts, because it permits the economic plan and this revision will permit development of the property in keeping with conformance to current development in the area; recent development in the area; the proposed the proposed rezoning would affect the current rezoning would be considered responsible conditions and the character of the existing development and growth, because it will permit a structures in the area and the surrounding broader scope of development possibilities that districts, because it makes the property more current exist; the proposed rezoning would be the desirable to business development and will most desirable use for the land, because the continue the elimination of residential properties property is located in an emerging developing along that part of Scatterfield Road; the proposed economic plan and this revision will permit rezoning is not in conflict with the comprehensive conformance to current development in the area; plan; the proposed rezoning does establish a the proposed rezoning would affect the current desirable precedent in the area; public utilities are conditions and the character of the existing available to support the proposed rezoning. Also, structures in the area and the surrounding the petitioners will be required to file a covenant districts, because it makes the property more for landscape buffering, lighting, fencing, cross desirable to business development and will access and a prohibition on any placement of continue the elimination of residential properties billboards on these property. Mr. Spyers seconded. along that part of Scatterfield Road; the proposed Motion passed; 8 yes, 0 no. rezoning is not in conflict with the comprehensive plan; the proposed rezoning does establish a PETITION #12-07 (ORDINANCE #21-07) desirable precedent in the area; public utilities are SUBMITTED BY STEPHEN AND SYLVIA available to support the proposed rezoning. Also, ASHBY FOR A ZONE MAP CHANGE FROM the petitioners will be required to file a covenant B-6 TO B-1 LOCATED AT 4435 for landscape buffering, lighting, fencing, cross 2 access and a prohibition on any placement of through #4 as they front State Road 32. A 15 ft. billboards on these property. Mr. Newman gas easement is noted along the east side of Lots seconded. Motion passed; 8 yes, 0 no. #13 and #14 and a 75 ft. landscape easement along the three lots to be developed on the east side of Mr. Widing explained the Department of the plat. There is a 65 ft. utility easement noted Municipal Development would pursue the along the property lines between Lots #9 and #16. properties that are B-6 to see if they will consider There is a sizeable ingress / egress easement of rezoning their properties to the B-1 zone class with 118 ft. shown running north and south between the covenants attached. Lots #9 and #12. Lots #14, #15 and #16 are noted as common areas on the proposed primary plat. PETITION #10-07 Lot #15 is shown as a large drainage easement SUBMITTED BY STEVE DARLINGTON AND along the south side. The Plat Review Committee ANDERSON BOARD OF AVIATION reviewed the proposed plat, and all suggestions COMMISSIONERS FOR A PRIMARY PLAT have since been completed. Staff is recommending FOR A SUBDIVISION TO BE KNOWN AS approval of the primary plat for the Airport AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK PHASE 2A Industrial Park Phase 2A. The plat does meet the LOCATED IN THE 800 TO 1100 BLOCKS OF requirements of the Subdivision Control STATE ROAD 32 ON THE SOUTH SIDE. Ordinance. If approved, this plat should not be forwarded to any other governmental unit. Mr. Stires explained this property is located in the 800 through 1100 blocks of State Road 32, consists John Zant, 8450 Westfield Blvd, Indianapolis, of 51.89 acres, is zoned I-1 and is vacant ground. asked if there were any questions. This property is bounded on the north by State Road 32, to the east by single-family homes, to the Mr. Yates asked if there were any FAA west by a cemetery and the Anderson Municipal requirements or regulations that have been Airport, while to the south is an airport runway. submitted? All utilities are available to the site. The petitioners are seeking approval to subdivide the Mr. Zant explained the larger easements were acreage into a 16-lot subdivision to be known as discussed and the plat reflects the FAA Airport Industrial Park Phase 2A. The plat shows requirements. Mr. Zant explained there are the 16-lots will range in size from 1.19 acres to 8.5 covenants that will be required at the secondary acres. The plat shows lots #1 through #8 will have plat stage. building setback lines ranging from 10 ft. to 30 ft. to 50 ft. to 100 ft. depending on what road they are Mr. Schuler asked if the cemetery is involved in facing. Lots #9 through #13 will have building this plat? setback lines ranging from 10 ft. to 30 ft. to 65 ft or 75 ft. to 100 ft. as they front Spacetek Drive and Mr. Zant explained it is not included in the plat. the proposed ingress / egress taxi-ways off the runways. The plat does show an Airport Building Mr. Schuler asked if this plat is on any part of Restriction line running east to west through the county property? center of proposed Lot #13. The plat shows several utility and drainage easements throughout. A 20 Mr. Zant explained this plat is a joint application ft. to 23 ft. to 25 ft. drainage, utility and with the county and the city. communication easement is noted around the perimeter of the plat. There is a 20 ft. sanitary Mr. Schuler asked if there is a release signed by sewer easement, a 10 ft. cable television easement, the county, for this primary plat? a 10 ft. Indiana Bell easement and a 13 ft. electrical easement noted along the north side of Mr. Stires explained he spoke with Mr. Darlington Lots #1 through #5 as they front State Road 32. A and he has the release in his possession, but he is 5 ft. non-access easement is noted along Lots #1 not here to present it. through #5 along State Road 32 and along Lots #13 and #14 on the east side. A 30 ft. drainage Mr. Schuler asked Mr. Kreegar does the Plan easement is noted on the north side of Lots #1 Commission need to see the release before voting 3 on the plat? Wayne Products and part to the Anderson Airport. Mr. Schuler asked under State Code, has the Mr. Kreegar explained the Commission could vote Mayor approved the name of the streets? on this plat and after the meeting it can be determined if the street was vacated. If the street Mr. Widing explained the Mayor approves was not vacated it could be put into the approval of renaming of streets. the secondary plat. Mr. Kreegar explained the city does not have any Mr. Warmke moved to approve Petition #10-07 for jurisdiction to make a decision on property owned the primary plat for the subdivision to be known by the county. As long as there is a release the as Airport Industrial Park Phase 2A. This plat City can approve this plat. should not be forwarded to any other governmental unit. Ms. Weatherspoon seconded. Mr. Newman asked if the airport traded off any Motion passed; 8 yes, 0 no. part of this plat to Chesterfield? MISCELLANEOUS Mr. Schuler explained he recalls swapping of land for Chesterfield to have the right-of-way for their DEFINITIONS (ORDINANCE #23-07) fire trucks. o JUNK AND SALVAGE YARD o AUTOMOBILE STORAGE / IMPOUND Mr. Spyers explained this is a primary plat and FACILITY they will need to come back for approval for a o FILL secondary plat. After a brief discussion, it was suggested, to Kenneth Gask, Wayne Products, 505 Speedway reword the second to the last line of the ordinance Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana explained East 10th for fill to say, Fills cannot be placed on unstable Street behind Wayne Products is used by the soils as determined by the City Engineer, nor in people of Chesterfield. Mr. Gask asked how would floodways or wetlands. East 10th Street affect the traffic on Spacetek Drive as traffic tries to get to Industrial Drive? Mr. Spyers moved to approve Ordinance #23-07 for Mr. Gask is concerned about the right of way. the revision of Junk and Salvage Yard, Automobile Storage / Impound Facility, and Fill and to forward Mr. Spyers asked where are the people going? to City Council for their approval. Ms Weatherspoon seconded. Motion passed; 8 yes, 0 Mr. Gask explained to Chesterfield. East 10th no. Street cuts into Industrial Drive, which goes to Chesterfield. Mr. Gask explained his question, is CITY COUNCIL UPDATES the right of way going to be abandoned? The Plan Commission had four items in front of Mr. Schuler asked if Mr. Gask wants East 10th the City Council at the March Council meeting. Street cut off. The third and final readings were approved for the rezoning of 2.78 acres from R-2 to B-1 located at Mr. Gask explained he does not want people to cut 2712 West 16th Street submitted by Jack across the lots and if East 10th Street is abandoned Hanchrow and Buchalter Real Estate Co., LLC that is what they will do. and the rezoning of .39 of an acre from B-6 to B-1 located at 4441 South Scatterfield Road submitted Mr. Zant explained there are no plans at this time by Stanley Boyd. The first and second readings to abandon East 10th Street. were approved for the rezoning of .15 of an acre from R-4 to B-1 located at 2811 Main Street Mr. Spyers explained the street might have submitted by Sue and Michael Tellman. The final already been vacated. item approved by the City Council was an ordinance to vacate a public way submitted by Mr. Gask explained the street was vacated part to Anderson University. 4 ADJOURNMENT A motion was made for adjournment and seconded. Meeting adjourned a 5:29 p.m. ATTEST: ______________________________ Jesse Wilkerson, President ______________________________ Janay Smith, Commission Secretary 5