July 8, 2010
The Ellettsville, Indiana Plan Commission met in
regular session on Thursday, July 8, 2010 in the Fire Department Training and
Conference Room located at 5080
West State Road 46. Dan Swafford called the meeting to order at
6:04 p.m. Phil Rogers led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Roll Call: Members present were: Dan Swafford,
Ron Wayt, Phillip Rogers, Clayton Sullivan and Sandra Hash. Don Calvert and Phillip Smith were
Griffin Director of Planning Services was also present.
Dan Swafford reminded everyone of the three minute
time limit for speakers before the Commission.
If additional time is needed by the speaker, he asks that the speaker
request further time.
Conflict of Interest Statement - None
Approval of the Minutes – June 10, 2010
Dan Swafford entertained a motion for approval
of the June 10, 2010 minutes. Ron Wayt so
moved. Clayton Sullivan seconded. Motion carried.
PUD Amendment Autumn Ridge – Sidewalks: Jason Walls petitioner Jason Walls, Developer
– refreshed everyone’s memory
regarding his presentation last month asking for a PUD amendment to the Autumn
Ridge subdivision sidewalks. He
explained the request was to place the sidewalks where the x’s are on the map
and turning down both sides of the stub road to the church property. Dan Swafford clarified that would delete the
rest of the existing sidewalks that were in the plat. Mr. Walls confirmed that. Dan Swafford asked if Connie
Griffin had any comment on this. She responded she did not; they were at a
tabled position at the last meeting. Dan
Swafford stated there was quite a bit of confusion at the last meeting and he
apologized for that. However, there was
a need to vote on this issue at this time as it is brought to them. Clayton Sullivan made a motion to grant the
petition for a PUD Amendment as requested and to send to Town Council with
recommendation. Phil Rogers
seconded. There were no Commissioner
comments. Dan Swafford asked for public
resident of Autumn Ridge – asked for
clarification on what Mr. Walls is asking for.
Dan Swafford stated it was to install sidewalks just where the x’s are
on the plan and removing all the other proposed sidewalks on the plan (there
would be sidewalks on the South side of Harvest Lane and on both sides of the
existing stub that will connect to the proposed road intersecting with State
Road 46. There will be no sidewalks on
September, October or Gathering
Schneider added the residents will now be responsible for snow removal on those
sidewalks, where, in the past, they have not had to because there were no
sidewalks. He also stated he understands
the two entrances and exits are due to the church going in and he doesn’t see
why they can’t have the two new entrances and exits off of SR 46. The traffic will be greatly increased in
their neighborhood. Ron Wayt stated he
feels they are going down a dangerous road by amending these plats. There is a possibility of many more
neighborhoods being expanded or built.
If we continue to take this and that out, why even have ordinances for
sidewalks or landscaping or other things.
If we do it for this neighborhood, we will have to do it for every
neighborhood. We need to be consistent
with every development brought into the community. Bill Schneider asked if the plat was
present. Dan Swafford stated it was
not. Mr. Schneider stated he looked at
the plat very carefully a couple of years ago.
He recalls seeing sidewalks around the residences. He does not recall seeing sidewalks on the
south side of Harvest Lane
on the plat. He said he doesn’t recall
when the ordinance was passed to require sidewalks, but they haven’t had
sidewalks for seven years. Why, all of a
sudden, is it a priority? Who in the
Plan Commission or the city would have approved the route for fiber optic to be
buried? None of the neighboring
additions have sidewalks either. Ron
Wayt commented they were in the County, not the Town of Ellettsville.
Mr. Schneider stated the Commission is going against the wishes of the
residents of the addition and they are holding up the completion of the
street. Dan Swafford informed Mr.
Schneider that he has stated several times and will clarify once again that
this issue with the PUD has nothing to do with the developer completing the
street. This is a completely different
issue. Therefore, if the developer is
holding this up waiting on an answer from this, he doesn’t know why. Ron Wayt added the Town Council should follow
through and they need to be consistent.
Havronek, Autumn Ridge resident – has
been a resident for four years. We are
asking for an exemption to this because the vast majority of the residents
don’t see the need. They don’t lead to
anywhere and we don’t see the need. It
is up to you to decide whether you will grant our request. Sandra Hash stated she is a sidewalk
advocate, but this poses a special situation.
The residents don’t want it and the slope of the land doesn’t
accommodate it. It’s already a finished
neighborhood. She doesn’t feel they are
necessarily setting a precedent because the residents came to us requesting the
change. Ron Wayt reiterated he did feel
it was setting a precedent.
Schneider, Autumn Ridge resident –
feels the residents shouldn’t be punished because the Town didn’t follow
through from the beginning. The
residents don’t want it and they should be grandfathered in.
resident of Autumn Ridge – stated he
understands Mr. Wayt’s comments regarding setting a precedent. However, many precedents are set and many are
broken. The fact you act one way today
and another way tomorrow is just a part of politics. It’s done every day, by every group in many
situations. He asked the Commission not
to require the sidewalks.
Roll Call vote:
Dan Swafford – yes; Ron Wayt – no; Phillip Rogers – yes; Clayton
Sullivan – yes; Sandra Hash – yes.
Motion carried 4-1. Dan Swafford
stated this would be sent to Town Council with Plan Commission recommendation.
Ordinance, Chapter 97, New Code
Griffin, Director of Planning – informed the Commissioners she received a comment
from Don Calvert and she would read it.
“Only 30% of all the shrubs are to be Evergreens. Evergreens give year-round privacy, color and
limit visibility - just a thought.” It
was something they had discussed amending from the original code. The suggestions discussed the last time have
been added into the code.
The table talked
about has been added in
triangle has been clarified
classifications have been clarified
No more than 30%
of all shrubs required shall be evergreen
New fences will
require a permit and an application
concrete block walls shall not be permitted with any new required yard unless
Page 21 and 22 at the site triangle is where they last
left off that had the most change. We
removed from “There are additional restrictions…” through the end of that
paragraph. The Sight Safety Triangle,
Height of Obstructions, and Figure 1 were added. We left off at page 22 with the Sight
Distance Diagram. She added she would
present from this point to the end of the document at the next meeting.
Dan Swafford stated that before proceeding to New
Business, he would like to say that Chapter 93 Leaf, Tree and Brush Removal
Code Introduction was removed from the Agenda.
It will be sent directly up to Town Council.
Chicago’s Pizza LED
Sign Request – Petitioner Craig Schwartz
Griffin, Director of Planning – explained Mr. Schwartz, owner of Chicago’s Pizza, is the first LED
petition. When we had the sign code
changes, we stipulated we wanted to have some type of input regarding these
signs until we felt comfortable with this code change. He has filled out all the elements of the
sign permit application. His sign will
be above nine feet so it meets the original code request. The sign is 64 square feet. He is allowed these dimensions.
Schwartz, Owner of Chicago’s
Pizza – informed the Commissioners it
would always have time and temperature on it.
It will have their specials, any community activities, and school
activities. The colors will be red,
green and yellow. It will move across
the screen. We plan on leaving it on 24/7. Sandra Hash asked if the brightness was
adjustable. The brightness can be
controlled. Sandra Hash asked to clarify
if the sign will be nine feet above the ground or nine feet above the
road. Mr. Schwartz stated he had the
same question. Connie
Griffin stated it could go as high as 26 feet according to code. She stated they just need to amend his
application to increase his request for height.
sign manufacturer – stated you do not
want to put it 20 feet in the air. If
people are driving along, they would have to look up to see the sign at 20 feet
and this could cause an accident. You
don’t want to go higher than 13 to 15 feet.
Dan Swafford entertained a motion to approve Chicago’s Pizza LED Sign
Request. Clayton Sullivan so moved. Ron Wayt seconded. Roll Call vote: Dan Swafford – yes; Ron Wayt – yes; Phillip
Rogers – yes; Clayton Sullivan – yes; Sandra Hash – yes. Motion carried 5-0.
Amendment – Russ Ryle Introduction
Russ Ryle, Reeves Road
resident – states he’s not sure if
this requires an amendment to code, or whether it is a policy decision. The PUD project defined is a negotiated
project between the Plan Commission and the developer. What he and his wife would like to do is see
there is sufficient financial incentive and guarantees in any PUD that the
general taxpaying public of the Town does not get stuck with the bill for
incomplete sidewalks, landscaping or other problems that might come up. Once you approve a project and it is built,
it’s a part of your town forever. When
you make modifications on the plan, you’re putting less than ideal developments
in your town that the town is going to have to financially support throughout
the future. This is why they are asking
the Town to make sure that after two years, if a developer does not complete
its required infrastructure, there’s a financial asset there the Town can go
against and see that infrastructure is completed so it doesn’t become a burden
to the taxpayer. Ron Wayt asked Connie Griffin what the process would be to do what
Mr. Ryle is asking. Connie Griffin said the process would be to review
our code, consider what Mr. Ryle has stated, and then for her to propose a new
code and do an introduction. Then, once
discussion has taken place, if a code change was desired, public notice would
have to be published. Ron Wayt
interjected it would be similar to landscaping and such and Connie Griffin responded it would be. A couple of other PUD codes should be
researched to make sure they came up with something similar. Ron Wayt added since he has been in the Town,
there have been two neighborhoods with problems related to this issue and the
Town will end up putting streets in Autumn Ridge when the Town cannot afford
it. He added he is all for this
amendment. It’s not fair to the taxpayer
to have to take over what a developer fails to finish. Dan Swafford stated its time they need to
make stricter guidelines here. Russ Ryle
commented developers need to know the rules.
Sandra Hash commented the Commissioners are not professionals and she
feels it would be wonderful to have guidelines that spelled out the
possibilities of what types of conditions can be negotiated. She feels there is definitely room for
improvement. Dan Swafford added there
needs to be time limits placed on these projects as well.
Nierzwicki, private citizen – felt
there was confusion on two items which were bleeding over into each other. His thought was there should be a build-out
time frame in code for subdivisions. The
other issue is to have things written down when developers come to you for
variances. There could be the amount of
green space and other issues you could put in there to negotiate.
Amend Driveway Standards Code 152.227(B)
– Ancillary parking areas are not required to be paved
Griffin, Director of Planning – stated this was mentioned by Rick Coppock. He felt if people were putting in additional
or access roads when they were putting in driveways they should be paved as
well. This is to introduce this topic
for discussion. Sandra Hash stated this
has been a long-standing issue discussed over many years. The Plan Commission in the past had stated
you couldn’t park in your yard and you couldn’t park on the street. They began allowing some gravel because
people couldn’t afford to pave that much.
She added she would love to see all paved driveways. Dan Swafford commented with the economy the
way it is now, there are people who are not going to be able to pave their
drives. He went on to suggest new
construction should be required to put in a driveway capable of parking two
cars. Sandra Hash agreed, but stated
this was brought up to deal more with existing drives. If anyone makes any change to an existing
driveway, they would then be required to bring it up to code and pave it. Sandra Hash suggested they take this issue
under advisement and have more discussion at a later date. Dan Swafford agreed.
Planning Department Updates
Smithville – Connie Griffin
stated they have been reviewing the development plans for the new warehouse
located at Chapel Hill Wilderness, LLC.
They are in discussion for a rezone.
It’s an agricultural zoning and we want to bring it up to a C-3
classification. They are only interested
in rezoning the section they are going to build the warehouse on. Some of the supervisors are meeting with Mrs.
McCarty tomorrow morning. They want to
go over some of the other requests. They
want to build in phases. There will be
some septic and water issues. We have
assured them we will try to move through this as quickly as possible. Ron Wayt asked if this was a temporary
Griffin stated it would not be, it would be a permanent
structure. It will be built in phases
and the public will not be coming back to that area. She suggested there may be some conditional
approval. Ron Wayt asked could the
conditional approval give them a time line in order to have the area
Griffin answered right now they have just been looking at
rezoning, but as the questions come up, there may be additional
clarifications. Dan Swafford asked if
they would have opportunities for input before these things come to pass. Connie Griffin
stated most definitely.
Grimes Annexation – Connie Griffin
stated the last time Mr. Grimes and Mr. Clark came in was on June 24. Mr. Clark did not have the invoice from the
landfill for removing the soiled waste.
She spoke with Mr. Grimes about that and he is going to get that for the
Planning Department. She also spoke with
him about the church needing a certificate of occupancy ensuring the church can
be in that location and the building code standards are met for that use. She does have a letter back from the Monroe
County Building Department, which is who we contract with to do our
inspections. Right now Mr. Grimes
property is still in the county and we have to keep in mind we do not have any jurisdiction
over them other than ensuring that building has a certificate of
occupancy. Once the landfill invoice and
certificate of occupancy are turned in, Mr. Grimes can be put on the agenda for
Code Enforcement – Connie Griffin
stated she is putting minimal effort into code enforcement right now due to so
many other responsibilities. She does
receive them and she tries to take care of the most urgent ones; particularly
the ones that are safety issues. She is
still working with Mr. Cascio. He still
has some time before it will have to be taken to the next level of
Privilege of the Floor – non-Agenda
Items - None noted.
Dan Swafford entertained a motion to adjourn. Phillip Rogers made the motion to
adjourn. Clayton Sullivan seconded. Dan Swafford adjourned the meeting at 7:15
p.m. The next meeting will be August 5,
2010 at 6:00 p.m.