Plan Commission

PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 23, 2006 MEMBERS PRESENT: FOR A ZONE MAP CHANGE FROM B-6 TO B-1 Bob Schuler, President, LOCATED AT 223 EAST 53 R D STREET. Kevin Guion, Member Paul O=Neill, Member Mr. Stires asked for Petition #22-06 to be withdrawn. Joe Newman, Member The petition has exceeded the150 days for a rezoning to Michael Spyers, Member be heard after the date of filing. W illiam Warmke, Member Michelle Weatherspoon, Member Mr. Newman moved to withdraw Petition #22-06. Mr. Spyers seconded. Motion passed; 7 yes, 0 no. MEMBERS ABSENT: Jesse Wilkerson, Vice President PETITION #28-06 (ORDINANCE #34-06) SUBMITTED John Suko, Member BY MICHAEL A. OLIVER AND JIM COFFEY JR. FOR A ZONE MAP CHANGE FROM R-2 TO B-4 LOCATED OTHERS PRESENT: AT 3606, 3612, 3614, 3616, 3618 AND 3624 SOUTH Michael W iding, Municipal Development Director SCATTERFIELD ROAD. Tim Stires, Assistant Development Director Dave Wilbur, Senior Zoning Administrator Mr. Stires explained this property is located in the 3600 Janay Smith, Plan Commission Secretary block of South Scatterfield Road, contains 2.559 acres, is Bill Kreegar, Attorney zoned R-2 and is occupied by four residential structures. The petitioners are seeking to rezone the property from ROLL CALL AND DECLARATION OF A QUORUM R-2 to B-4. R-2 allows for single family homes, while the Mr. Schuler called the meeting to order at 4:34 p.m. B-4 zone class allows for most local business uses. The Ms. Smith took roll call and declared a quorum with B-4 district does require a special exception approval by seven (7) members in attendance. the Board of Zoning Appeals. This property does abut other business zonings. To the north and east are zoned Mr. Guion performed the invocation and the Pledge R-2, to the south is zoned B-4, to the west is R-2 and of Allegiance was recited. further to the north are also zoned R-2. The petitioner has indicated to staff their future development plans are MINUTES to construct and operate a car wash facility called The April 25, 2006 minutes were approved as Rainforest Incorporated. Staff would note the proposed presented. Motion passed unanimously; 7 yes, 0 no. rezoning could result in additional traffic congestion unless the developer provides adequate stacking of cars COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORT OF on the property. This is the third attempt to locate a COMMITTEES commercial development on the east side of Scatterfield None and 38 th Street. The first and second developments were Office Depot and Walgreen’s. The petitioner has filed for BUSINESS a written variance from the 5 acre minimum requirement in a B-4 zone class; the petitioner has 2.5 acres Mr. Widing introduced Amy Rhodes as the secretary available. The petitioner’s argument is his 2.5 acres for Board of Zoning Appeals. Amy will take over the adjoins 9.5 acres, which he feels he is a part of. The duties of Janay Smith who has transferred to City’s new Comprehensive Plan does classify this Community Development / Long Term Planning. Ms. property as Community Commercial and is not in conflict Smith will remain Plan Commission Secretary. with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Staff would note it is the responsibility of the petitioner to demonstrate the Mr. Schuler asked for Petition #31-06 to be moved character of the property has changed and the highest under Petition #28-06 because they deal with and best use of the land would be to rezone to B-4. Staff rezonings in the same area. is recommending approval of the rezoning, because the property does adjoin or abut property currently zone B-4 Mr. Guion moved for Petition #31-06 to be heard and the petitioner is proposing to bring this property into after Petition #28-06. Mr. Warmke seconded. compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Motion passed; 7 yes, 0 no. Jim Coffey, Jr. 24022 St. Rd. 37 N, Noblesville. PETITION #22-06 (ORDINANCE #19-06) SUBMITTED BY DANE AND ANGELA AHLEFELD Mr. Spyers asked if the east end of the property is part of Office Depot property? 1  proposed rezoning would be the most desirable use for Mr. Stires explained it originally was apart of the B-4 the land, because it is part of the business corridor; the rezoning, but it was left out because the Plan proposed rezoning would not affect the current Commission didn’t feel that anything could be conditions and the character of the existing structures in developed on the property. Mr. Stires explained he the area and the surrounding districts, because the didn’t know if it was Office Depot’s property. property beside it has been rezoned to B-4; the proposed rezoning is compatible with the comprehensive plan; the Mr. Coffey explained it is the developer’s property. proposed rezoning does establish a desirable precedent in the area; public utilities are available to support the Mr. Warmke explained if this is going to be a car proposed rezoning. Ms. Weatherspoon seconded. wash and there is a concern of stacking, does the Motion passed; 7 yes, 0 no petitioner have space for stacking and is the intention to stack cars? PETITION #31-06 (ORDINANCE #42-06) SUBMITTED BY ANDERSON CITY PLAN COMMISSION FOR A Mr. Coffey explained they do have the space and ZONE MAP CHANGE FROM R-2 TO B-4 LOCATED AT their intentions are to stack cars. 2124, 2125, 2127 AND 2128 EAST 37 T H STREET, 2120, 2128, 2132 AND 2136 EAST 38 T H STREET AND 3603, Mr. Schuler explained the property that was pointed 3605, 3609, 3615, 3705, 3709 AND 3717 SOUTH out is part of underdeveloped adjacent property. SCATTERFIELD ROAD. Mr. Widing explained the 5 acres in question has two Mr. Schuler explained this petition is a proactive look of different zone classes. Mr. Widing explained he the Plan Commission and Municipal Development staff anticipates the 5 acres will become a retention pond. because there have been several property owners The property is not landlocked. asking for a zoning change in this area, but have been denied because it would be considered a spot zoning. Viola Skaggs 2317 East 35 th Street explained she is not against the petition, but has a few questions. Mr. Stires explained these properties are located in the Ms. Skaggs asked how this would affect her property 3600 through the 3700 blocks of South Scatterfield and do the surrounding property owners have to file Road, the 2100 block of East 37 th Street and the 2100 for a rezoning? block of East 38 th Street. These properties contain 9.6 acres and are zoned R-2. In March, the Planning Mr. Schuler explained to Ms. Skaggs the property in Department instructed staff to begin the process of question is now zoned the same as her property. rezoning of these properties for a business zone class. Mr. Schuler explained the petitioner is requesting to The rezoning request is from R-2 to B-4. The R-2 allows rezone to a classification that will allow them to put a for single family homes only and the B-4 is designed to business on the property. This gives them no right to meet the needs for retail shopping facilities in planned access Ms. Skaggs property, nor does it require her shopping center. A special exception approval by the to rezone her property. Mr. Schuler explained he Board of Zoning Appeal is required. Staff notes this is does not know how it would affect Ms. Skaggs’ the second attempt to rezone property for future property. commercial development. The first rezoning attempt was a successful venture with the construction of the Lowe’s Ms. Skaggs explained she thought maybe she would store. These proposed rezonings are due to inquiries by have to rezone her property to sell it. various property owners along Scatterfield Road, East 37 th Street and East 38 th Street. The main problems from Mr. Schuler explained if a developer would want to the property owners is they cannot enjoy their residential buy her property for business, they would be the properties as the have in the past, because of the ones who would have to petition for the rezoning. increased traffic and noise, which has affected their quality of life. This property is surrounded on two sides Mr. Widing explained to Ms. Skaggs, before any by business zonings; B-4 to the north, to the east is the development would occur, a special exception would pending rezoning for the car wash. To the south is B-1, have to be heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals. further south are recent rezonings of B-1, to the west is R-2 and southeast is still R-2. Staff notes by rezoning Mr. Warmke moved to approve Petition #28-06 this property to B-4 it will allow the property to comply because the proposed rezoning would be conserving with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. This property is the property values throughout the neighboring designated as Community Commercial. Staff urges Plan districts, because the property abuts other Commission members to consider future impact and commercial property zoned B-4; the proposed future ramifications of this rezoning to the surrounding rezoning would be considered responsible residential properties. Commission members should ask development and growth, because it is consistent if this rezoning is the highest and best use of this land. with the City’s Comprehensive Plan in the area; the The rezoning could contribute to future traffic questions. 2 This proposed rezoning does abut other business because it would be consistent with the City’s zonings. Staff notes it is the responsibility of the Comprehensive Plan in this area; the proposed rezoning petitioner to demonstrate the character of this would be the most desirable use for the land, because it property has changed and the highest and best use is part of the business corridor in that part of the City; the of this land is to rezone to B-4. Staff is proposed rezoning would affect the current conditions recommending the following; approval of the and the character of the existing structures in the area rezoning from R-2 to B-4 because the property does and the surrounding districts, because property to the adjoin or abut B-4 or B-1 on three sides. This north is B-4 and the property across the street is zoned rezoning will bring the property into alignment with B-4; the proposed rezoning is compatible with the the City’s Comprehensive Plan. comprehensive plan; the proposed rezoning does establish a desirable precedent in the area; public utilities Susan Fraiser Brooks 2107 East 37 th Street are available to support the proposed rezoning. Mr. explained the problem she has with the rezoning is Spyers seconded. Motion passed; 6 yes, 1 no there are vacant businesses along Scatterfield Road and does not see why they need to rezone other PETITION #29-06 SUBMITTED BY ANDERSON residential properties to businesses when we don’t CORPORATION FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, have vacant property filled now. Ms. Brooks CYNTHIA J. BENNETT, LAW RENCE E. AND JOAN C. explained she likes living on the dead end street and DOSZTAN, WALTER M. BAGOT, ERNEST N. AND likes the quiet that she has on her property. Ms. JANET HITE, ERIC Q. HITE AND RICHARD C. MORT Brooks explained she did not choose to live on FOR A PRIMARY PLAT FOR A SUBDIVISION TO BE Scatterfield Road or she would have bought on KNOW N AS THE FLAGSHIP W EST, SECOND Scatterfield Road. Ms. Brooks explained she does CONTINUATION LOCATED IN THE 3500 THROUGH not want more businesses there because of traffic. 4600 BLOCKS OF WEST 73 R D STREET ON THE Ms. Brooks explained she is not in favor of the SOUTH SIDE. rezoning and does not feel the rezoning should be business, because of all the vacant business Mr. Widing explained this property was recently annexed buildings. Ms. Brooks feels her property owner in to the City of Anderson and went through the process rights are being taken from her. of zoning the property to I-3. The petitioner is back in front of the Plan Commission to plat this property for Charles Miller 3717 Scatterfield Road explained he is future growth. in favor of the rezoning, because of the noise and traffic along this area. Mr. Miller feels it will be an Mr. Stires explained this property is located in the 3500 asset to rezone the property to business. to 4600 blocks of West 73 rd Street, contains 306.1 acres, is zoned I-3 and is vacant farm ground. All utilities are Mr. Widing explained the rezoning is in response to available to the site including: electricity, gas, water, the City’s new Comprehensive Plan. Ratio storm and sanitary sewers. The proposed five lots will Architects, the Comprehensive Plan consultant cited range in size from 8.375 acres to 183.376 acres. Staff in their professional judgment, as they looked at notes Lot #5, containing 30.264 acres, has been major thoroughfares, the highest and best use of this designated as a wetland area and is not a buildable lot. area would be Community Business. Staff worked Lot #1 is the largest lot consisting of 183.376 and is with the owners of these particular parcels and they targeted for possible future development. The primary are in favor of the rezoning because it makes sense. plat shows Lots #1, #2 and #3 with a front building This does not mean there is a developer waiting to setback line of 45 ft. as they front West 73 rd Street, develop this property, it does mean future Layton Road and a future roadway running north and development. south between Lots #2 and #3. The plat shows a 15 ft. drainage, utility and communication easement around Charles Sanquenetti 2132 East 38 th Street owns two the perimeter of the entire proposed plat. The plat also properties in the area that can no longer be sold as shows a 50 ft. ingress / egress easement along the west residential, because no one is interested in buying a edge of Lot #3. There are two 16 ft. ingress / egress, house and raising a family that close to Scatterfield drainage, utility and communication easement on each Road. Mr. Sanquenetti is in favor of the rezoning to side of the property line between Lot #1, and Lots #2 and business, because he feels he will have a better #5. The plat shows an 8.5 ft. drainage, utility and chance of selling his property. communication easement on the east and west sides of the 16.5 ft. wide ingress / egress, drainage, utility and Mr. Warmke moved to approve Petition #31-06 communication easements. The plat shows a 25 ft. utility because the proposed rezoning would be conserving easement along the west edge of the 8.5 ft. easement. the property values throughout the neighboring There is a 50 ft. by 50 ft. lift station easement noted districts, because the properties abut or adjoins along the northeast corner of Lot #1. The plat shows a business zonings; the proposed rezoning would be 200 ft. by 200 ft. electrical substation easement shown considered responsible development and growth, along the east property line of Lot #1 just south of the 3 railroad spur. The primary plat also has an area replat shows the lots ranging in size from 1.6 acres to designated as Block “A” which is designated as a 8.37 acres. The northern most lot will be known as railroad spur right-of-way with varying widths. The Outlot D-1 with a 30 ft. front building setback line as it plat also shows a 30 ft. by 30 ft. gas regulator fronts East 53 rd Street, and a 100 ft. building setback line easement in the southeast corner of Lot #1. There as it fronts the cross access easement to the east. are two regulated drain easements shown on Lot #1. There are various easements throughout the lot. There A 150 ft. Huntzinger Regulated Drain is shown in the is a large storm water detention easement at the south northwest corner of Lot #1. The Rosa Frey end of Outlot D-2. The replat shows a 15 ft. dedication of Regulated Drain is noted in the southeast quadrant right-of-way totaling .121 of an acre along the north edge of Lot #1. The primary plat also indicates a right-of- of Outlot D-1 for future expansion or widening of 53 rd way dedication for public use varying from Street. The plat shows a 5 ft. wide concrete sidewalk 20 ft. to 60 ft. wide along the south side of West 73 rd infrastructure on the north end of Outlot D-1. There is an Street or the north sides of Lots #1 and #2 to prevent engineer’s estimate on file totaling $3528 for the any driveway cuts. The Plat Review Committee sidewalk installation. There is a draft of the letter of reviewed this plat in May 2006 and all suggested credit on file totaling $4410, which is 125 percent of the revisions have since been completed. Staff is engineer’s estimate. Staff is recommending approval of recommending approval of the primary plat for The the proposed replat, because it does meet the Flagship West, 2 n d Continuation, because it does requirements of the Subdivision Control Ordinance and meet the requirements of the Subdivision Control the replat does create two commercial lots for future Ordinance. If approved this plat should not be development. If approved, this replat should be forwarded to any other governmental unit. forwarded to the Board of Public W orks for the acceptance of the replat, covenants, easements and the Robert Himes, 5252 South 400 West explained his letter of credit. concern is the drainage. Mr. Himes feels the drainage is poor and any development will make it Dick Donnelly 816 West 8 th Street. worse. Mr. Schuler asked what is the clearance between the lot Mr. Schuler explained there would be adequate the Furrows building? drainage provided with any development that would take place. Mr. Donnelly explained there is a 15 ft. clearance between the building and lot line and another 15 ft. Mr. Widing explained drainage will be a critical setback for the car lot with a total of 30 ft. Mr. Donnelly component with any development and adequate explained Butler is working on a site plan to bring a drainage plans will be have to be approved by the dealership to this location and they will need a 30 ft. City Engineer on this property. setback from the existing building. Mr. Ricker is in the process of taking ownership of the property at the time of Mr. Stires explained the zoning of this property is I-3 possession he will file for a special exception for a new and will require a special exception by the Board of car service facility. Zoning Appeals before any development can occur. Mr. Schuler explained when he looks at the drawing it Mr. Guion moved to approve Petition #29-06 and this shows Outlot E as part of the secondary plat for plat should not be forwarded to any other approval. governmental unit. Ms. Weatherspoon seconded. Motion passed; 7 yes, 0 no. Mr. Servies explained Outlot E is the Pizza Hut. PETITION #30-06 SUBMITTED BY JAY RICKER Mr. Donnelly explained the other Outlots are only shown AND CAPEX, LLC FOR A REPLAT FOR A because they have to be on the drawings to reference SUBDIVISION TO BE KNOW N AS MIDSTATE joining properties. Mr. Donnelly explained this is just a DEVELOPMENT, SECTION TW O AT 1813 EAST simple land split which meets the requirements of the 53 R D STREET. Ordinances. Mr. Stires explained this property is located in the Mr. Servies explained most of the property is fully 1800 block of East 53 rd Street, contains 10.02 acres, developed with existing easements. was recently rezoned from B-4 to I-1 and is the site of the former Furrow’s store. The northern quarter of Mr. Schuler explained he is uncomfortable with the this property received final plat approval July 12, closeness of the front of the building to the property line. 1983. The remaining property was not part of the original plat. The proposed replat is to divide the Mr. Widing explained the intention of the developer is not original acreage into a two-lot subdivision to be to utilize the front of the property but will utilize the east known as Midstate Development, Section Two. The side. The main entrance to the building is to the east 4 side of the building. Mr. Widing presented a Sign Ordinance Amendment for review by the Commission. Mr. Donnelly explained they do meet the setbacks and fire codes. Mr. Widing presented an update to the Commission on the Consulting Services quotes for their review. Mr. Widing explained they are trying to balance the needs of both parties with the lot to the front being a City Council Updates car sales lot. The Plan Commission had several items in front of the Mr. Donnelly explained there is a 15 ft. wide right of City Council at the April Council meeting. The third and way along 53 rd Street for future widening and a bond final reading was approved for the rezoning of 3.93 acres for sidewalks. from B-3 to B-2 located at 1335 West 53 rd Street submitted by Timothy Lusher and Carolyn Duteman, the Mr. Widing explained there would be more green rezoning of .583 of an acre from R-2 to B-6 located at space. 3831 South Scatterfield Road and the rezoning of 9.61 acres from B-4 to I-1 located at 1813 East 53 rd Street Mr. Schuler explained he feels there is a lot going submitted by Capex, LLC. The rezoning of .482 of an into the property. acre from I-3 to B-6 located at 1719 East 53 rd Street submitted by Mary L. Reasoner was continued. The first Mr. Guion explained he feels they are forcing too reading for the rezoning of .33 of an acre from R-2 to I-1 much into the area and doesn’t like it. located at 2912 Rhus Street submitted by Randy Reeves was denied and first and second readings for the Mr. Widening explained Nissan does not need a rezoning of .574 of an acre from B-6 to B-1 located at large lot and this lot meets their needs for their 3905 South Scatterfield Road submitted by Clyde Denny market. was approved. . Mr. Donnelly explained the property in front of MISCELLANEOUS Furrow’s is prime usable space. This plat does meet the setbacks and the requirements and by state law ADJOURNMENT it is difficult to find a legal reason to deny this plat. A motion was made for adjournment and seconded. Mr. Guion explained he has recognized Mr. Ricker Meeting adjourned at 6:04 p.m. has put his neck on the line developing businesses in this town. Mr. Guion explained this is just not the ideal scenario for this property. BY: Mr. Donnelly explained the Commission is here to Robert Schuler, President vote on the replat. All issues have been covered to legally split this land. Also, this replat is in compliance with the Subdivision Control Ordinance. ATTEST: Mr. Kreegar explained Mr. Donnelly is correct and Janay Smith, Commission Secretary this Board is not here to vote on the car lot. If the outlot does comply with the Subdivision Control Ordinance there is no legitimate reason or findings of fact to disapprove. It is up to the Board of Zoning Appeals to determine whether the lot is too small for a car lot. Mr. Warmke moved to approve the replat of Outlot D in Midstate Development, Section Two and to forward it to the Board of Public W orks for the acceptance of the replat, covenants, easements and performance bond. Mr. Spyers seconded. Motion passed; 6 yes, 0 no and 1 abstention. MISCELLANEOUS 5