Plan Commission

PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES February 26, 2008 regarding the update of the MEMBERS PRESENT: comprehensive plan starting in 2003. The plan sets the goals and policy mainly Deborah Nelson, Pro Temp President regarding the land use within the City. Greg Spencer, Member Comprehensive plans are required by Darin Foltz, Member State Statue. Mark Lamey, Member Willie Rayford, Member Mrs. Turner stated that she is concerned Eugene Yates, Member that the standards in the proposal and the signs that have recently been submitted MEMBERS ABSENT: are not consistent with the goals and vision expressed in the comprehensive Jesse Wilkerson, President plan. She understands the desire to Joseph Newman, Member celebrate the two new industries that have Michael Spyers, Member recently made Anderson their home, but similar operations have established OTHERS PRESENT: themselves in communities in a much less flashy fashion. She stated its important to Michael Widing, Development Director look at compatibility between the new and Tim Stires, Assistant Director existing with always a goal to enhance Amber Lewis, Board Secretary and make better. Anderson’s interstate Stephanie George, Zoning Administrator; interchanges are their front doors and and present the best opportunity to make an William Kreegar, Assistant City Attorney image statement. ROLL CALL AND DECLARATION OF Mrs. Turner presented a power point A QUORUM: presentation going over the zoning ordinance and subdivision control Mrs. Nelson called the meeting to order at ordinance update. 4:35 p.m. Ms. Lewis took roll call and declared a quorum with five (5) members PETITION #6-08 in attendance. SUBMITTED BY ANDERSON REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Mr. Lamey arrived after roll call at 4:40 AND ANDERSON BOARD OF WORKS p.m. to make six (6) members present. FOR A SECONDARY PLAT FOR EAST 41ST STREET (ACTUAL Mr. Rayford performed the invocation and STREET) LOCATED IN THE 4100 the Pledge of Allegiance was recited. BLOCK OF SOUTH RANGELINE ROAD ON THE WEST SIDE MINUTES Mr. Stires stated this is for a secondary The January 22, 2008 minutes were plat located in the 4100 block of South approved. Motion passed unanimously; 6 Rangeline Road. The required legal ad yes, 0 no. was not published in a timely fashion; therefore, this petition needs to be BUSINESS: continued. RATIO ARCHITGECTS – LAND USE Mr. Lamey made a motion to continue ORDINANCES UPDATE Petition #6-08 to the next scheduled meeting. Mr. Foltz seconded the motion. Jackie Turner, Ratio Architects, stated Motion passed unanimously, 6 yes, 0 no she has been working on the update of the zoning ordinance for about 6 to 8 months. PETITON #25-07 She stated they worked with the City 1  PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES February 26, 2008 SUBMITTED BY THE MADISON Mr. Stires stated the reason why the PARK CHURCH OF GOD FOR A petition was continued last month was SECONDARY PLAT FOR A because none of the current property SUBDIVISION TO BE KNOWN AS owners inside the subdivision received THE MADISON PARK, SECTION ONE proper certified mail notice. LOCATED AT 6607 PROVIDENCE DRIVE (CONTINUED 9-25-07, 10-23- Mr. Stires stated this has been corrected 07, 12-11-07, 1-22-08) and notices have been sent out as required. He stated the petition is ready Mr. Stires stated Petition #25-07 is for further discussion if needed. submitted by Madison Park Church of God for a secondary plat for a subdivision to be Mr. Stires stated the staff is known as Madison Park, Section One recommending approval of the proposed located at 6607 Providence Drive. He primary plat and amended primary plat stated they found out late this morning for Lake Clearwater. He stated the that the maintenance bonds that are petition meets the majority of the required for this final plat are still not requirements of the Subdivision Control ready; therefore, the petition needs to be Ordinance. If approved, the proposed continued until next month. amended primary plat does not need to be forwarded on to any other governmental Mr. Foltz made a motion to continue unit. Petition #25-07 until the next meeting. Mr. Rayford seconded the motion. Motion Steve Services, Rayl Engineering, stated passed unanimously, 6 yes, 0 no the representative for Marina I, L.P. is caught in traffic on his way to the meeting PETITION #5-08 and asked for the petition to be continued SUBMITTED BY THE MARINA I, L.P. to later in the meeting. AND IRVING MATERIALS, INC. FOR AN AMENDED PRIMARY PLAT FOR Mrs. Nelson stated the petition would be LAKE CLEARWATER IN THE 2100 continued to later in the meeting to allow THROUGH 2200 BLOCKS OF for the arrival of the representative for COUNTY ROAD 360 NORTH (FREE Marina I, L.P. ROAD) ON THE SOUTH SIDE (CONTINUED 1-22-08) PETITION #7-08 SUBMITTED BY MCLOCHLIN Mr. Stires stated Petition #5-08 submitted ENTERPRISES, INC. FOR A by Marina I, L.P. and Irving Materials, PRIMARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS Inc. is seeking primary plat approval for MCLOCHLIN ADDITION LOCATED Lake Clearwater consisting of 97 AT 915 AND 925 SOUTH buildable residential lots. He stated the SCATTERFIELD ROAD (FORMER proposed primary plat was discussed at BURGER KING AND KING GYROS length at last month’s meeting. RESTAURANTS) Mr. Stires stated in summary, the Mr. Stires stated the petition is submitted petitioner did make approximately a by McLochlin Enterprises, Inc. and are dozen changes. He stated mainly the asking for primary plat approval for a two revisions are on the east and southeast lot commercial subdivision to be known as sides of the proposed plat. He stated we McLochlin Addition. The proposed plat is went through the revisions last month and located on the northwest corner of East the purpose for the changes is for 10th Street and Scatterfield Road. He functionality; make the subdivision safer, stated the property contains 1.5 acres, and and more accessible. is zoned B-2. The proposed primary plat 2  PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES February 26, 2008 shows the two lots range in size from .66 SUBMITTED BY JAMES L. of an acre to .69 of an acre. STOTTLEMYER, PATCHWORK PARTNERS, INC., STOTTLEMYER Mr. Stires stated each lot shows a 30 ft. EXCAVATING, INC., MARTIN TABOR building setback line along South AND RIDGE ROAD CROSSING, LLC Scatterfield Road as required under the B- FOR A ZONE MAP CHANGE FROM R- 2 zone class. He stated along 10th Street is 2 TO B-3 LOCATED 350 FT. NORTH a 20 ft. building setback line. The entire OF THE 1300 THROUGH 1400 plat does show a required minimum 15 ft. BLOCKS OF WEST 53RD STREET ON drainage, utility and communication THE NORTH SIDE AND DIRECTLY easement around the perimeter of both WEST OF SLOAN’S MADISON lots. He stated there is a recorded 30 ft. HEIGHTS ADDITION. wide ingress/egress easement noted along the west side of both lots extending PETITION #9-08 further north to East 9th Street. The plat SUBMITTED BY JAMES L. shows a dedication of 40 ft. of half right-of- STOTTLEMYER, PATCHWORK way along the north side of East 10th PARTNERS, INC., STOTTLEMYER Street or on the south side of Lot #2. EXCAVATING, INC., MARTIN TABOR AND RIDGE ROAD CROSSING, LLC Mr. Stires stated the proposed plat was FOR A ZONE MAP CHANGE FROM R- reviewed by the Plat Review Committee 2 TO I-1 LOCATED 880 FT. EAST OF on February 7, 2008. Minor revisions THE 4900 TO 5200 BLOCKS OF were suggested and were completed by the RIDGE ROAD ON THE EAST SIDE petitioner. AND DIRECTLY WEST OF MADISON COURT ADDITION. Mr. Stires stated the staff is recommending approval of the primary Mr. Stires stated with the Commission’s plat for the McLochlin Addition, because it permission, he would like to combine does meet the requirements of the Petition #8-08 and #9-08. He stated these Subdivision Control Ordinance. If two pieces of properties abut each other, approved, the primary plat should not be are contiguous to each other, and forwarded to any other governmental unit. intertwine each other. He stated to save on time; he would like to discuss both Steve Servies, Rayl Surveying & petitions, but they will require separate Engineering, stated this is an unplatted motions. land with two restaurants on it. He stated they are platting the lots off, one for King Mr. Stires stated petitions #8 and #9 both Gyros and the former Burger King for the have been submitted by James L. other lot. Stottlemyer, Patchwork Partner’s, Inc., Mrs. Nelson asked regarding the former Stottlemyer Excavating, Inc., Martin Burger King lot if Mr. Services knew what Tabor and Ridge Road Crossing. They are was going to be located there. Mr. Servies seeking two distinctive zone map changes stated it will be a Taco Bell. consisting of an R-2 class to a B-3 class and an R-2 class to an I-1 class. These Mr. Yates made a motion to approve properties are located in the 1400 through Petition #7-08 for the primary plat for a 1600 blocks of West 53rd Street and also subdivision to be known as McLochlin the 4900 through 5200 blocks of Ridge Addition. This plat is not be forwarded to Road. any other governmental unit. Mr. Spencer seconded the motion. Motion passed Mr. Stires stated R-2 is a residential zone unanimously, 6 yes and 0 no class and allows for single family homes only. The petitioners want to split this PETITION #8-08 rezoning in two. The lower southeast 3  PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES February 26, 2008 corner is the R-2 to B-3 and consists of Mr. Stires stated the staff would urge the 7.347 acres. This property abuts a B-3 Commission members to remain focus on a zoning which fronts West 53rd Street. He couple of points. First, the members stated the petitioners want to continue the would need to ask yourselves how the zoning of B-3 and wrap it northward. proposed rezoning would fit into the The new developers believe the existing neighborhoods as far as what the commercial/retail development will zonings are for the neighboring properties. continue along the front and then north. Lastly, the R-2 zoning which is being rezoned has never developed residentially. Mr. Stires stated once we get to the next petition, after these rezoning, then this Mr. Stires stated both of the proposed will come full circle, because the rezonings are in conflict with the City’s petitioners are laying out a new plat for Comprehensive Plan. He stated this area this piece of property showing where the of R-2 has been designated as medium streets will be placed and how they density residential. Staff would reiterate propose to split this piece of property up we do have a new comprehensive plan and into a commercial development and it is a blueprint or guide for future industrial development. development, but is always subject to change as potential development occurs. Mr. Stires stated the petitioners are requesting a zone map change from an R-2 Mr. Stires stated the staff would class to an I-1 Light Industrial. He stated emphasize it is the responsibility of the the area consists of 10.034 acres. The I-1 petitioner to demonstrate the character of zone class allows for most existing the property in question has changed and industrial developments and provides for the highest and best use of this land is to their expansions. All of the I-1 uses must rezone this property from R-2 to B-3 and I- be confined to a building, and residences 1. are also allowed in an I-1 zone class. He stated the areas being rezoned have been Mr. Stires stated the staff is targeted for retail/commercial or light recommending approval of both proposed industrial development by the developers zone map changes based on the following. in this petition. He stated the proposed R-2 to B-3 rezoning abuts or is contiguous to existing Mr. Stires reiterated the proposed B-3 B-3 property. He would note the B-3, if zone class abuts or is contiguous to the B- approved, would require BZA special 3 and it is only natural they would want to exception approval. If there is any zone the property to B-3. development on the new B-3 zoning, that would require public notice to the Mr. Stires also reiterated the proposed I-1 neighbors to the east, notifying them of a zone class is contiguous to the I-1 and I-2 meeting as to when retail/commercial zoned properties. He stated I-1 allows for development might occur should this retail/commercial and B-3 allows for rezoning go through. Also, the proposed retail/commercial, so this all blends R-2 to I-1 rezoning does abut existing I-1 together. and also B-3 zoning which is compatible with the I-1 zone class. He stated he Mr. Stires stated the staff would note would re-emphasize the current R-2 zoned there are various existing businesses in property has never developed the general area of the rezoning. He residentially. stated there is Lee’s Theatrical Productions, Good’s Candy and Southside Richard Donnelly, 1615 Broadway, stated Automotive. the land was zoned R-2 back when it was annexed into the City in 1964. He stated nothing has been developed on that piece 4  PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES February 26, 2008 of ground residential, all the way from Mr. Kreegar stated to the Commission 53rd Street to Ridge Road. that they need to use the findings of fact as an outline and they would need to state Mr. Donnelly stated Mr. Stottlemyer the specific finding of fact for each purchased the property over a decade ago particular paragraph. and operated his excavation business out of there and slowly tried to develop the Mr. Kreegar stated as an example, in property. He stated what is not shown on paragraph one the proposed rezoning the map is the R-2 area to the north is “would be.” He stated if you are going to known as the Ridge Road Junkyard. Then approve then you would use the words the property across Ridge Road to the “would be.” northwest is the old landfill known as the Stottlemyer Landfill. He stated this is a Mr. Kreegar stated in paragraph two, the real detriment to residential development, proposed rezoning would be considered but this piece of property has been responsible for development and growth underutilized and that there has been no and then you would base your decision on need to change the zone classification what Mr. Stires has presented and what because it has been farmed until recently. Mr. Donnelly has presented in writing out your findings of fact. Mr. Donnelly stated Mr. Stottlemyer tried in the 90’s to put a compost facility on this Mr. Kreegar stated in paragraph three if piece of ground and was denied. Mr. you approve the proposed rezoning you Stottlemyer slowly began to develop the would state it would be the most desirable property with Lee’s Theatre and McIntyre use for the land and you can talk about Concrete. the fact that there has been no residential development since 1964 as an example. Mr. Donnelly stated the subdivisions to the east were built. The southern-most Mr. Kreegar stated in paragraph four was completed, but the northern one was again the rezoning would not affect the never completed. He stated people have current conditions and character of the tried to develop them, but have not existing structures based upon the succeeded because there is no demand for following findings of fact. residential lots even with ones that are in an existing residential subdivision. He Mr. Kreegar stated he hopes this gives the stated his clients have one potential members some guidance and at some business that will probably relocate to this point in the near future, we will sit down piece of property, but before they can do and go through these in detail, but these this, they need to rezone this either are requirements under Indiana State business or industrial. statute that we follow if there are people here that were opposed to this or wanted Mr. Donnelly stated the B-3 is the most to take this to court, they would actually protective commercial/industrial zone look at your findings of fact to see if they classification, because under the current were sufficient enough to support your ordinance it requires anything that conclusion in this case to approve the develops there go before the BZA for a rezoning. development site review. Mrs. Nelson asked Mr. Kreegar if they Mrs. Nelson asked Mr. Kreegar to guide would have to have an A and B for each? the new members on how to use their Mr. Kreegar stated no, that is just an findings of fact sheets, since they have not outline for them. been trained yet. Mr. Yates asked Mr. Stires, under number one, conserving value is because it’s 5  PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES February 26, 2008 contiguous residential development close within that comprehensive plan. The by, am I reading this correctly? Mr. proposed rezoning does establish a Widing asked Mr. Yates to clarify his desirable precedence in the area and question. public utilities are available to support the rezoning. Mr. Lamey seconded the Mr. Yates stated it says the proposed motion. Motion passed unanimously, 6 rezoning would be considering the yes and 0 no property values throughout the neighboring district, because of the Mr. Spencer made a motion to approve following finding of facts, and I think you Petition #9-08 based on the following said one of the reasons was because it’s findings of fact. The proposed rezoning next to or there was an existing…. Mr. would be conserving the property values Widing stated because the B-3 is throughout the neighboring districts contiguous to existing B-3. because the current R-2 areas are contiguous to B-3 zoning and also Mr. Yates asked what about the contiguous to I-1 zoning. The proposed residential area? Mr. Kreegar stated you rezoning would be considered responsible would have to make a determination that development and growth because the does not drive the property value down current R-2 property has never been based upon the rezoning. That is basically developed. The proposed rezoning would what that one speaks to. He stated you be the most desirable use for the land have no evidence before you based on the because there has been no demand for fact that this is going to become a B-3 residential development in this area since zoning that would in any way be harmful 1964. The proposed rezoning would not or affect the property values of the affect the current conditions and character neighboring district. of the existing structures in the area and surrounding districts because it is Mr. Spencer made a motion to approve surrounded by commercial properties, an Petition #8-08 due to the following finding old landfill, and an undeveloped of fact based upon the proposed zoning residential property. The proposed would be conserving the property values rezoning is not compatible with the throughout the neighboring districts comprehensive plan, however, the because the R-2 zone now is contiguous to comprehensive plan is under current current B-3 zoning and also contiguous to review and will be updated and this will I-1 and B-3 zoning. The proposed then fall within the updated rezoning would be considered responsible comprehensive plan. The proposed development and growth because the R-2 rezoning does establish a desirable property has never developed in this precedence in the area, public utilities are location. The proposed rezoning would be available to support the proposed the most desirable use for the land rezoning. Mr. Foltz seconded the motion. because there is no demand for residential Motion passed unanimously, 6 yes and 0 development in this area since 1964. The no proposed rezoning would not affect the current conditions and character of the PETITION #10-08 existing structures in the area and the SUBMITTED BY JAMES L. surrounding districts, because it is STOTTLEMYER, PATCHWORK surrounded by commercial properties and PARTNERS, INC., STOTTLEMYER is surrounded by a landfill and EXCAVATING, INC., MARTIN TABOR undeveloped residential property. The AND RIDGE ROAD CROSSING, LLC proposed rezoning is not compatible with FOR AN AMENDED PRIMARY PLAT the comprehensive plan, however the FOR RIDGE ROAD CROSSING comprehensive plan is under review and LOCATED IN THE 1300 THROUGH will be updated and this will then fall 1600 BLOCKS OF WEST 53RD STREET 6  PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES February 26, 2008 ON THE NORTH SIDE AND THE 4900 from 45 ft. to 20 ft. to allow possibly two THROUGH 5200 BLOCKS OF RIDGE uses to go on these north/south lots. ROAD ON THE EAST SIDE. Mr. Stires stated the I-1 zoning has a Mr. Stires stated Petition #10-08 is being minimum front yard setback of 30 ft. All submitted by James Stottlemyer and the lots to the north will have a 30 ft. Martin Tabor. The property is located in building setback lines, likewise, the I-2 the 1300 through 1600 blocks of West 53rd zoning class which consists of Tetrasolv Street on the north side and the 4900 and McIntire Concrete has a 30 ft. through 5200 blocks of Ridge Road on the setback. east side. The property does consist of 56.085 acres and they are seeking Mr. Stires stated the required drainage, approval for an amended primary plat for utility, and communication easements Ridge Road Crossing. around the perimeter of these lots are anywhere from 15 ft. to 20 ft. to 25 ft. in Mr. Stires stated the property was width. There is a 25 ft. drainage originally platted in August 2001 and at easement along the north side of Lot #22 that time it was platted into 87 lots. He located on the west side of Ridge Road. stated their original plan was to build An irregular shaped drainage easement is duplexes, but they never took off. noted across the northwest corner of Lot #23. There is a 100 ft. wide I & M Electric Mr. Stires stated it has mixed zonings. At Company easement slicing right through the present, it consists of B-3, I-1, I-2 and the heart of this plat. This is for the high R-2 with the rezoning that happened tension overhead lines. Mr. Stires stated today, it drops off the R-2 and now goes to nothing could be built under these lines, City Council. The property now consists but the way they configured the lots those of B-3, I-1 and I-2. areas could be used for parking with the buildings fronting the roadway. Mr. Stires stated the new proposed layout consists of 23 lots. The size of the lots will Mr. Stires stated there is a 25 ft. sewer range from .997 of an acre to 5.23 acres. easement which starts on West 53rd Street All utilities are available to the site. and hugs along the 100 ft. I & M Electric Company easement. This is for existing Mr. Stires stated the plat shows the facilities that are underground sewers. zoning in the front to be B-3. B-3 zoning does have a required minimum front Mr. Stires stated the plat does show Ridge setback of 45 ft. The lots along Ridge Road has a 45 ft. half right-of-way Road and West 53rd Street would be dedication. He stated West 53rd Street has required to have that front setback. He a 50 ft. half right-of-way dedication on the stated if the proposed rezoning goes north side of West 53rd Street. He stated through for the property extending to the Leroy Boulevard, which is the access into north where the L shape is, that 45 ft. the property that currently exist, which setback will continue along the east edge then takes you to the west to Lee’s of the propose amended primary plat. Theatre has an 80 ft. right-of-way dedication. The following streets, Everett Mr. Stires stated Lots #2 and #3 are Street, Lilburn Lane, Abraham Drive, and calling for a front building setback lines of Stottlemyer Way each have a 50 ft. right- only 20 ft. The reason is there is a of-way. stubbed in road that accesses off of West 53rd Street to go to Lee’s Theatre and to Mr. Stires stated they conducted a Plat make the buildable area on these two lots Review Committee meeting on February a little larger they will be asking for a 7, 2008. He stated various revisions were variance from the building setback line 7  PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES February 26, 2008 suggested and those revisions have been seconded the motion. Motion passed completed. unanimously, 6 yes and 0 no. Mr. Stires stated staff is recommending PETITION #5-08 approval of this proposed amended SUBMITTED BY THE MARINA I L.P. primary plat for Ridge Road Crossing as it AND IRVING MATERIALS, INC. FOR meets the requirements of the Subdivision AN AMENDED PRIMARY PLAT FOR Control Ordinance. If approved, the LAKE CLEARWATER IN THE 2100 primary plat should not be forwarded on THROUGH 2200 BLOCKS OF to any other governmental unit. COUNTY ROAD 360 NORTH (FREE ROAD) ON THE SOUTH SIDE Steve Servies, Rayl Surveying and (CONTINUED 1-22-08). Engineering, stated he wanted to make clear that Lots #1, #2, #3, #4 and #5 have Mr. Servies stated a representative from already been final platted. He stated they the Marina I, L.P. is now present to worked extensively with their clients to answer any questions the board may have try to come up with a lot size they think is of him. He stated one thing he wanted to a good fit for commercial uses. He stated add was Mr. and Mrs. Walukonis had most of the utilities are in place or shared some pictures with him of the available at the site. water standing in the entrance that they had taken back in 2004. He stated he Mr. Spencer asked when do you think provided a copy of those to Mr. Stires and there might be some businesses moving Mr. Spyers. He stated he had a discussion into these lots? Mr. Servies stated the with Mr. Spyers and they feel when the question should be directed to Marty or surface gets put on Section One, that will Scott. He stated he is sure they are going levitate quite a bit of that problem and to actively market these as soon as they they are going to work with his office to are approved. make sure everything gets taken care of that can be taken care of. Mr. Spencer asked if there were any commitments at this time? Mr. Servies Mr. Services stated from the construction stated Lot #1 has Lee’s Theatre and Lot plans on Section Two, Mr. Spyers asked #4 has the Tetrasolv facility under him to provide him copies of what they construction. were planning to do with the water that comes from the Walukonis property onto Mr. Spencer stated the majority of the lots the Lake Clearwater site. He stated they are going to be new. Mr. Servies stated are planning on putting in a large that is true. drainage structure at that low point location to pick up the water that comes Tim Lezosee, owner of Lowcost Mobility, from their property. He stated he has stated Lot #7 is where he plans on moving provided Mr. Spyers with copies of the his current business that is on East Ames preliminary construction plans and he will Street. He stated hopefully in the spring be keeping an eye on that to make sure they will be able to break ground, and by that gets done. January of next year be moved into that facility. He stated the building will be Mr. Foltz stated a concern of Mr. about a 20,000 sq. ft. building. Walukonis was a stop sign. Mr. Walukonis stated a stop sign has been Mr. Yates made a motion to approve installed since the last meeting. Mr. Petition #10-08 for an amended primary Services stated that was probably through plat known as Ridge Road Crossing. This action of the City Engineer. primary plat is not to be forwarded to any other governmental unit. Mr. Lamey 8  PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES February 26, 2008 Mr. Walukonis stated his major concern is Byers on February 10, 2006 about his the size of the current drain due to the concerns regarding the common parking drainage from other people’s properties area in the Lakes at Killbuck Addition run off to this drain, so when they install because of his children. He stated he told another 100 ft. of roadway, he is concerned him there were better places to build the it will not be able to handle all the runoff. boat docks. Mr. Goehring stated Mr. Mr. Servies stated currently the road sets Byers told him that was farther away, but approximately an inch lower and when the he would discuss that with Mr. Bussell. surface coat is installed, then it will direct Since that time in two years, the only the water down to the boxes. response the Mr. Goehring had received was the boat docks and steps were Mr. Yates asked if they had disturbed the installed and he has never heard anything natural drainage? Mr. Servies stated no else. because the natural drainage is onto their site and they are picking it up. Rob Bussell, Marina I Limited Partnership, stated this is actually an Jack Atkins, 3310 Waterway Boulevard, issue with the homeowner’s association asked when we put this extra water in the and the developer of Lakes at Killbuck lake, I’ve been told there is going to be an which they were not involved. overflow line going out of the lake. Mr. Servies stated yes. Mrs. Nelson asked who was the developer? Mr. Bussell stated it would be IMI because John Goehring, 3244 Lakefront Lane, they were the developers of Lakes at stated since the last meeting when he Killbuck. raised his concerns, he has had no response from Marina I, L.P. He stated Mrs. Nelson asked if a representative of earlier it was said that the homeowner’s IMI was present? Mr. Bussell stated no, association proposed the boat docks and but on behalf of them, he stated there are parking that he is concerned about four lots that are on the Lakes at Killbuck because of his children. He stated he has side that are adjacent to a channel that a letter from the homeowner’s association fronts the Lake Clearwater Subdivision attorney, Mr. Shine, dated back on that they are developing. He stated there January 2006. The letter states on behalf was some concern from the Killbuck of the association, the association has not Homeowner’s Association as to the authorized the common parking area or ingress/egress of boats in that canal in the boat docks at the north end of Lakefront event that both sides get developed with Lane. homes that are built and subsequently then boat docks on either shore. Mr. Goehring stated he realizes this has nothing to do with the current petition, Mr. Bussell stated clearly there would not but he wanted to let the Commission be enough room for two docks in the members know what he has been dealing adjacent banks to be installed and have with. boats pass through the channel to access Lake Killbuck. This was brought to our Mr. Yates stated he feels this is important attention by one of the Killbuck because Mr. Newman brought up about homeowner’s. We proposed the design and who owns what property at the last installation of four boat docks off that meeting and it is included in the minutes channel that would not impede future use of the last meeting. He would like to know of that channel to be where they are the answer to that question? located at presently. That was all approved by Lake Killbuck Homeowner’s Mr. Goehring stated the last contact he Association and was forwarded to them for had with Marina I, he talked with Gordon approval before any work was done. 9  PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES February 26, 2008 improvement location permit can be Mr. Goehring stated the only thing he issued, Mr. Spyers has to approve the would point out is that the letter dated drainage. January 12, 2006 states the exact opposite of what Mr. Bussell said. Mr. Spencer made a motion to approve Petition #5-08 for an amended primary Mrs. Nelson asked if there are minutes plat for Lake Clearwater Subdivision. from the homeowner’s association showing This amended primary plat should not be approval? Mr. Goehring stated he forwarded to any other governmental unit. requested the minutes and received them Mr. Yates seconded the motion. Motion from Mr. Shine and they make no passed unanimously, 6 yes and 0 no. reference to this proposal or approval. MISCELLANEOUS: Mr. Bussell stated that letter may have been the initial correspondence that took Mrs. Nelson stated when she was on place, but since then there have been Commission before, they had discussed three or four letters which have gone back rezoning a whole street at a time so and forth. There is an approved letter citizen’s would not have to do it from Killbuck Homeowner’s Association individually. She asked has this approving those improvements. happened or are they waiting for the Ratio report? Mr. Widing stated they are doing Mr. Goehring stated the only thing he has overlay districts for design standards, but ever been told was that the developers no that has not happened. wanted to make sure the docks conformed with the homeowner’s association rules. Mr. Widing stated under State statute as The association said they looked at the property is annexed into the City limits design of the docks and did approve the that is agricultural and we keep it design, because it followed their rules. As agricultural, then that remains at a lower far as the parking area, they had nothing tax rate. He stated we need an to do with it. agricultural zone class so citizens can enjoy the lower tax rate until a developer Mr. Spencer asked Mr. Goehring with the proposes a development and then at that petition that is before the Commission, time, we rezone the property to a more will this affect your concern and if so, how intensive use. There has been a will it? Mr. Goehring stated it does not, recommendation both during the but he wanted to express to the comprehensive meeting and from the Commission what his dealings have been steering committee for this zone class. with the developers. Mr. Widing stated we are here to talk Mr. Lamey asked if we approve this about some sign uses. He sent two sign tonight, with the concern about the water, proposals for the Commission’s review, but and if Mr. Spyers does not approve the actually he has three sign proposals. He drainage, what legal recourse do we have? stated he is going to ask for the members Mr. Widing stated the board is approving to consider a moratoriam on billboards. a plat not the water and he does not issue Mr. Widing stated Mr. Kreegar will be any improvement location permits or preparing the moratoriam for the next building permits until the drainage has meeting for approval. He stated until the been approved and this comes from Mr. zoning ordinance which includes the sign Spyers’ office. ordinance is updated, he would like to withhold issuing any billboard permits. Mr. Lamey asked if Mr. Spyers has to He stated he has had some inquiries approve the drainage before it comes to regarding digital signs. Currently, we do you? Mr. Widing stated before an not have any design standards. The 10  PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES February 26, 2008 Department of Transportation (INDOT) ordinances evolved from that. She stated regulations currently state digital one of the goals is to promote pleasing new billboards can change four to ten seconds, development in Anderson while which is not considered flashing, and can encouraging economic development. Also, consist of a certain amount of public she stated the gateways are the front information. Mr. Widing stated he feels doors into Anderson, being the interstate some research should be conducted follow entrances, designs should address the type by adoption construction and design of signage, identity, wayfinding, and standards. destination signage should coordinate the development along with the corridor. Mr. Widing stated Sarah Debartolo and Chuck Jacques from Sign Spec, and Rick Mrs. Turner stated she wanted to give Moore a representative for Hoosier Park them some information to think about as regarding their interstate sign is present the members review the sign proposals along with his consultant, Dick Donnelly. before them. She stated as the Mr. Widing stated the administration has Commission is reviewing the sign asked for an ordinance proposal for casino ordinances, she would like for them to signage to be presented to the consider image, identity, scale and terms Commission. He stated he submitted to of how this will be proposed. Whether or the members the ordinance proposal and a not you would draft a special ordinance copy of the submitted sign for Hoosier that accommodates this sign or types of Park. He stated the proposed placement signs, then what it can do is leave of the interstate sign is to be near Exit 26 something on the books that opens it up by the hotel. for other potential sign development in the future for something else that might be an Mr. Widing stated they have indicated to incredible destination. the sign company that the lights cannot flash, no moving or chasing lights. He Mrs. Nelson stated she does not stated they have asked the consultants for understand this because we have turned some recommendations. down Cracker Barrel and Bob Evans in the past for wanting to put signs there. Mr. Donnelly stated it is his understanding that this is not ready and Mrs. Turner stated she would leave them they are not asking for approval at this to discuss that, but sometimes you can do time. He stated this is more of a concept that by crafting a new sign ordinance or of what Hoosier Park is wanting. He you can just bring it forward. The stated Hoosier Park considered several proposed sign may not be in compliance locations for the placement of the with your sign ordinance, but you go interstate sign and they have chosen Exit through the variance process and issue a 26. The interstate sign is going to be their variance for a one time instance. “destination sign.” Mr. Spencer asked Mrs. Turner when she Mrs. Nelson asked for the dimensions of states image and identity, is it her feeling the signage? Mr. Widing stated the sign is that signs of this nature will portray the 65 ft. tall. image and identity of the community and not just the businesses they are trying to Mrs. Nelson asked how wide is the base? promote? Mrs. Turner stated no, but you Mr. Donnelly stated 20 ft. wide. cannot just look at it one sign at a time. It’s really looking at all the things. One Jackie Turner, Ratio Architects, stated thing that might be interesting is if you she wanted to mention a few things take the strip of development that you regarding signage from the have along I-69 and put on a map and Comprehensive Plan because the plan review with a dot each location of 11  PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES February 26, 2008 billboards that are currently existing and Mr. Donnelly stated Mr. Widing and maybe any billboards that are to be himself have a philosophical disagreement proposed then you might be able to look at on how to handle the casino signage. He how this sign and the next proposed sign stated he feels the best way to handle the fits in with the terms of image and signage is by variances. Mr. Donnelly identity the City is looking for. stated he feels Hoosier Park because of it’s unique situation, both with the amount of Mr. Widing stated the legislation has been traffic it generates and what it is, it’s crafted for this to be just for the casino. exclusive license by the State of Indiana He stated if we were to entertain a and there are only two facilities like it in variance then other businesses, for the State, they can justify the unique example Cracker Barrel, could say the situation that a variance requires under casino was given approval for a variance; Indiana State law. therefore, they want a variance for a sign like that one. Mr. Widing stated the other aspect of why he is requesting a continuance is what will Mr. Widing stated under Mr. Kreegar’s be a required part of the ordinance is that advice and other legal advice, we pursued Hoosier Park will be required to request a seeking to create legislation that was Special Exception from the Board of specifically aimed at just creating a sign Zoning Appeals and what is needed is a ordinance for Hoosier Park and which only Figure 9 Requirements Standards. The applied to Hoosier Park. staff has not created these requirements yet. Mr. Spencer asked Mr. Widing if he is concerned the Board of Zoning Appeals Mrs. Nelson stated she feels, this will take can make decisions that can set awhile to review as a body, as to what precedence which you are trying to head they want this whole development to end off with this sign ordinance, is that up looking like. correct? Mr. Widing stated if we don’t have this ordinance and Hoosier Park Mr. Widing stated he is asking the were to come in; they could apply and seek members to review the ordinance for the a variance. next 30 days then it will go on to City Council and they will have 60 days to Mr. Spencer stated Hoosier Park has been review the ordinance. here for many years, have they gone to the Board of Zoning Appeals for things of this Mr. Spencer asked Mr. Widing if at the nature? Mr. Widing stated no, but they next meeting is he asking the members to could go to the Board of Zoning Appeals either approve or not approve the for a variance. ordinance, but either way it will go to the City Council for a final decision, so we are Mr. Spencer stated the Board of Zoning just a recommendation body? Mr. Widing Appeals won’t necessarily pass the stated that is correct. variance. Mr. Widing stated they could. He stated he asked Hoosier Park to let Mr. Spencer stated even if the members do him work with the Plan Commission first. not feel comfortable at the next meeting in making a decision, then the Commission Mr. Spencer asked Mr. Donnelly if he can continue the ordinance then? Mr. would be at the meeting for just this if he Widing stated if then the Commission did not have previous business on the does not approve the ordinance, then agenda? Mr. Donnelly stated yes he Hoosier Park can file for a variance. would be there for just this. Mr. Spencer asked can the Commission force the ordinance to be tabled for some 12  PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES February 26, 2008 period of time and head them off from Board of Zoning Appeals’ action? Mr. Widing stated no. Mr. Kreegar stated they still have the right to file and the concern is if they do it as a variance, then the variance will set precedent. Mr. Kreegar stated the best way to handle this situation is by an ordinance. Mr. Donnelly stated at the next meeting if the Commission does not like one or more of the provisions, then they can amend the ordinance. Mr. Kreegar stated the Commission could amend it, send it on to Council with no recommendations at all, or can send it on with a negative recommendation. Mr. Widing stated at Exit 22, there is an existing ordinance that allows for four interstate signs that are a 100 ft. tall. Skyline Chili got one of the permits for their sign that is 65 ft. tall. Mr. Widing stated after doing a lot of research, manufacturers are now looking for icons. He stated he is trying to find a way to support economic development along the interstate where they can have identification icon type signage. Mr. Widing stated the legislation would need to include the requirement of Board of Zoning Appeals approval. ADJOURMENT Mrs. Nelson adjourned the meeting at 7:06 p.m. BY: _____________________________ Deborah Nelson, Pro Temp President ATTEST: ____________________________________ Amber Lewis, Board Secretary 13