October 4, 2012
The Ellettsville, Indiana Plan Commission met in regular
session on Thursday, October 4, 2012, in the Fire Department Training and
Conference Room located at
Roll Call: Members present were: Dan Swafford, President; Terry Baker, Vice President; Don Calvert, Phillip Rogers, Russ Ryle and Phillip Smith. Sandra Hash was absent. Connie Griffin, Director of Planning, Darla Brown, Town Attorney, and Rick Coppock, Bynum Fanyo and Associates, Town Engineer, were also present.
Approval of the Minutes – September 6, 2012
Dan Swafford entertained a motion for approval of the September 6, 2012 minutes. Phillip Smith so moved. Russ Ryle seconded. Motion carried.
Griffin, Director of Planning, introduced the Richland Senior Center Project (“
Dan Swafford asked if the Plan Commission has received everything that has been submitted to date. Connie Griffin replied she has given everything to them that she has received since delivery of the Plan Commission packets.
Connie Griffin continued with the introduction. The area is 0.9 acres. The Petitioner’s letter states they will comply with the following: Open space, street width, handicapped access, parking and setbacks, emergency vehicle access, landscaping, site drainage and storm water quality. There will be a landscape buffer between the new apartments and the adjacent properties. Some trees will need to be removed but they will replace them with large, healthy trees by a professional landscape company. All exterior lighting will be limited, directed downward and will be designed to minimize new lighting affecting residential neighbors. A trash dumpster area will be enclosed and screened pursuant to the site plan.
On September 25, 2012, a letter was provided to Miller Architects. In addition, Rick Coppock, Bynum Fanyo Associates, Town Engineer, has provided his findings. If approved the following would be required: Grading permit fees, parking lot permit and some street signs pursuant to §153.086. She has reviewed §152.129, the comprehensive plan and subdivision and zoning ordinances. The project is compatible with its surroundings. Stormwater management is adequate and has been reviewed by Rick Coppock. There is an adequate provision for green space in the landscaping. The is an adequate provision for buffering to significantly reduce the visual impact of similar developments. Adequate provisions for sidewalks and the possibility of public streets. All plans that have been submitted have been provided to the Plan Commission .
Coppock, Bynum Fanyo Associates, Town Engineer has reviewed the plans. Some of the grading shown on the Crider and
Knickerbocker properties will require a right of entry or easement before the
project is started. The configuration of
the roadway will have to be changed so it gets away from the Knickerbocker property. Stormwater detention meets the code. The Town Code has a local street being 24’ of
pavement with curbs and gutters on each side.
Their plans show 25’ of pavement including the curbs and gutters. Instead of having a 12’ lane for each traffic
lane they have a 10’ lane which doesn’t include the gutter area. The petitioner has proposed a roll type of
gutter. They could change their plan to
use a stand up or straight curb which is a 6” curb which would give them the
required 24’ of pavement for the portion in the public right-of-way on
asked if they will have a stub at the end on
Guerrettaz, Bledsoe Riggert and Guerrettaz, explained there are two parcels and one is
30’ long and the other is 10’ wide and
they’re part of
Rick Coppock continued presenting his findings. The petitioner has provided stormwater quality and detention on the south end of the site which outlets to an existing catch basin. Emergency vehicle access is through the existing driveway which goes out Matthews. Development plans are subject to the subdivision ordinance because they don’t have their own section. Mr. Swafford asked him to further explain right of entry. Mr. Coppock replied a little of the work will be on the Crider property. Before construction can start they would have to have a right of entry. Mr. Swafford asked if Mr. Crider has been notified of the construction. Mr. Guerrettaz advised he and Dennis Fisher met with Mr. Crider on September 11, 2012. A plat in 1924 shows 30’ and they’re putting in a 25’ wide back of curb improvement for the roadway so they’re pretty tight. They’ll be pulling the asphalt out, putting a curb in, putting in top soil and they’ll put a row of five or six trees on the east side. They advised Mr. Crider of the meeting date. Mr. Fisher offered Mr. Crider trees as a visual buffer. Mr. Swafford asked Darla Brown, Town Attorney, if they have to have the legal documentation in place before the next meeting. Ms. Brown replied it would be helpful but if they’re making the representation Mr. Crider says okay then that’s fine. Mr. Guerrettaz said Mr. Crider listened and didn’t seem to have a problem but he didn’t say it was okay. They’ve got to clean the asphalt up and that’s the amount of disturbance they’re doing on his property. They will make sure they have permission from Mr. Crider to get on his ground.
the parking plans which is up for discussion.
Parking would be in the set back.
They can’t get enough parking spaces without them having to back out
onto the public right-of-way portion of
Russ Ryle noted because the building jogs to the right, if it was changed to the left there would be more space to give to the left side of the building. Would that possibly get the parking spaces to where you could park a small car without backing into the street? Mr. Coppock replied it’s a matter of it being in the set back. If you jog it the other way you can pick up 10’ and then you get to issues with drainage in the back of the property. There are back out conditions throughout the whole site that have the same problem. Right now they’re dealing with people backing out into a public street and into the set back. Mr. Ryle stated when they made a site visit the issue was the sloping of running water specifically from the new construction site into the existing retention pond. The issue was where the overflow in the current pond drains out. Is he comfortable with the slopage in the current plan and that the water will actually flow into the pond? Has he determined where the overflow pipe exits? Mr. Coppock replied they’ve not determined where the overflow pipe exits. He’s looked around the job site and explained by showing the plans, the path of the drainage to a catch basin. There have never been any drainage complaints from the area of the site. Mr. Ryle asked if there needs to be a second overflow drain added and, if so, where would the water overflow to. Mr. Coppock replied if it overflows, it’s going to go down the edge of drive onto Matthews and then to the pipes on the south side and a drainage inlet on the north side.
further noted, the plan shows the drive that comes off of Matthews and hits the
south end of Brown is 8’ wide. Is that
correct? Mr. Coppock replied it is 8’ to
10’. Mr. Ryle commented that is not
code. Mr. Swafford said it is not a
public street. Mr. Ryle said if it’s
emergency access for a housing unit then it needs to be brought up to
code. He understands they’re going to
Don Calvert asked if there is a road that comes into the site from the existing housing. Mr. Coppock explained on the plans they’ll remove a building and extend the road. It will be a private road and its 20’ wide.
Russ Ryle asked if a private road is 20’ and a public road is 24’. Mr. Coppock replied a private road consists of the rest of the roads in their development. Mr. Ryle asked if they’re consistent with current code. Mr. Coppock responded the current code specifies public streets. Mr. Ryle asked if there’s a spec on a private street. Mr. Coppock answered not that he knows of. Mr. Swafford asked if the existing private streets are 20’ or 24’. Mr. Coppock answered they’re tied into the existing streets.
Miller, Miller Architects, noted that
Bernie Guerrettaz added they will have to talk to the Fire Chief about that intersection. He can’t speak informatively about it as this time. All he knows is coming around to the northeast and southeast corners of the building they have a radius that will hit his fire trucks. At this time, there is not a through access to get from the back side of the Crider and Knickerbacher properties. When this property goes in there will be. There will be a fire hydrant to the east that will give an insurance benefit to the homes.
Rick Coppock showed a map of the intersection in question. Mr. Ryle asked how wide both lanes of Matthews are. Mr. Coppock replied it’s 22’. Mr. Ryle commented he wants to make sure the turn is adequate for fire trucks. It is the tightest point of the entire transportation plan.
Bernie Guerrettaz showed on the plans where new pavement will merge with existing pavement. They will wedge, level and taper into existing pavement sections. Mr. Ryle asked what the cross section looks like structurally. Will it carry a 40 ton truck? Mr. Guerrettaz replied it probably won’t. But will it carry it once in 10 years or carry it every day? There may be snow plows that hit it. It may be that construction equipment tears it to pieces and it has to be fixed anyway. He appreciated Mr. Coppock’s approach in his letter. It’s exactly what a petitioner needs to get served by the public.
really feels the project needs the piece of constructed road at this time. If they’re going to use it as an emergency
entrance, the road needs developed now and up to specs. Then the Town takes it over and into their
inventory and they don’t have to worry about maintenance. It’s confusing to drive into that area
because of the two one-way streets. He
would like it to be another entrance or a fire truck and ambulance route. The residents can be better served when an
ambulance can get up there with no problems.
Mr. Guerrettaz remarked that is an off site improvement. Mr. Swafford stated it is still part of the
project. Mr. Guerrettaz said it is a
small track of ground. The ordinance
states when parcels total five acres you are required to have two points of
access. This is a separate one acre
parcel. Mr. Ryle stated it is a separate
one acre parcel but the complex is over five acres. Mr. Guerrettaz said he’s not arguing about
whether it’s a one or five acre project.
It’s for the board to decide. He
knows the board is very concerned about cut through traffic coming off of
Matthews and going through their development and the elderly people present on
a daily basis. The layout works. It provides a lot of benefit for the area,
the three neighbors and the other portion of the
Fisher, Vice President of Richland Senior Housing, explained they knew these
issues would come up and they had an idea the Plan Commission was going to want
a thru street. He has been on the board
for 17 years. As for the parking issue,
not everyone owns or drives a car. There
is one parking place for each apartment.
has worked for
The meeting was adjourned for a recess.
The meeting was called to order by Dan Swafford.
explained no one knew
Jacobs, President of Richland Senior Housing, doesn’t understand the hassle they’re having
to go through on this project. They’ve
spent $50,000 to $60,000 on engineering and related costs. The issue is a road that’s 150 feet
long. They own the private lane to
Hayes, Management Agent for Richland, advised each of their other properties are separate
corporations with completely separate deeds.
All of the 96 units are not one plat.
There are five different corporations.
The biggest concentration for one entity is 40 units. Operationally it is not one complex. Mr. Ryle commented functionally, from a
traffic standpoint, it is a conglomerate of 96 units. Mr. Hayes said to talk about traffic they
have 22 units at Maple Shades. Mr. Ryle asked if on the north side of
Connie Griffin advised she has submitted the information to Town Council for their review which is basically an introduction at their October 8, 2012, meeting. Then they will return to the Plan Commission in November for the second reading.
said there is a lot of discussion on
if they’ll maintain the snow plowing.
Mr. Hayes replied they will take care of the whole thing. The board is adamant they’re never going to
Bernie Guerrettaz advised normally the language in the ordinance states it is to provide the interconnectivity. There’s no interconnectivity to the south so they wouldn’t necessarily assume it would be there. Mr. Swafford said he is hearing maybe later there will be interconnectivity. If they’re not going to provide an ingress or egress than that part of the development needs to have sidewalks. Later on if they do develop the street, can they force the issue of a sidewalk on this little strip? Mr. Coppock replied in other instances where there has been limited right-of-way they’ve not required them to have sidewalks along the street. In areas where there’s hilly terrain they haven’t put sidewalks in. If there were sidewalks on the south end he’s uncertain where they would go. Mr. Guerrettaz asked if Mr. Swafford is concerned there’s going to be a strip there. Mr. Swafford said that’s correct. Mr. Guerrettaz suggested they make it a condition of approval if that strip ever goes through then that development would have to install a sidewalk on this side of the property and they’ll put a pedestrian easement on it, on the back of the curb. That way, it will solve the problem for the future and make the connection if they need to do so. Terry Baker commented that was more than fair.
explained when they started on this project in February 2012, everything was
great except they didn’t know about Brown driveway. Ms. Griffin suggested they get with Chief
Davis. They started out to come up from
Matthews then Chief Davis thought it would be better to come in from Allen so
they made the change and made the radius bigger. Other than the piece going down to Matthews
is everything else okay? Mr. Swafford
replied he’s concerned with ingress and egress.
It would be an easier way of going in and out for the residents. Mr. Ryle commented parking is a concern. Mr. Miller said when they first approached
the Planning Department, they were putting in one parking space per apartment
but Ms. Griffin requested three more spaces with one handicap space. They’ve been trying to figure out how to do a
landscape buffer and still be in public right-of-way. Mr. Swafford asked how many feet
Bernie Guerrettaz showed how the pavement will extend on the plans. New pavement will taper into existing pavement. They may need to do maintenance on the existing pavement after construction equipment has been up and down it. They’re putting their money into infrastructure and buildings.
Dan Swafford asked Darla Brown, Town Attorney, if they’re putting in so much into this area and allowing access for emergency vehicles is there anything in the ordinances or codes to prohibit this from happening as they’re proposing.
Darla Brown, Town Attorney, advised Section 153.052 requires the Plan Commission to review the development plan for adequate provisions for internal management of traffic and to also do an analysis of the capacity of adjacent streets to ensure they can safely and efficiently accommodate additional traffic. The issues they’re raising about the pavement are valid points for the Plan Commission to consider. There are also code sections about their responsibilities to look at traffic problems and issues. Mr. Swafford asked if they need any studies on the remainder of the street to assist with their decision.
they won’t make
explained when construction is done that is
if they’re planning on having vehicles park in the setback or is it people will
be backing out into the setback. Mr.
Miller replied they will be backing out.
Mr. Guerrettaz added there is no parking in the setback. Ms. Brown said in their response to Mr.
Coppock and Ms.
Connie Griffin explained the schedule for completing the process. This meeting is the first reading. They will go to Town Council on October 8, 2012, as an introduction to keep them aware of what the Plan Commission is meeting on. In November they return to the Plan Commission for the second reading. Anytime from now to November, questions can be fielded through her to the Petitioner. At the November meeting if they’re prepared and feel like they’re ready to make a motion to approve the project they would do so on that date. If they’re not satisfied and still have other questions, they can make a motion to table it and continue to the next month’s meeting. Mr. Ryle asked once that process is completed, will they need two or one Town Council meetings. Ms. Griffin replied it’s just an introduction so they couldn’t actually make any motions. Mr. Ryle asked at some point will the Plan Commission send this plan on with or without a recommendation. Ms. Griffin answered the Plan Commission either approves or denies a development. Mr. Ryle confirmed it does not go back to Town Council. Ms. Griffin replied that was correct. Ms. Brown noted the reason the ordinance was changed was because Town Council members wanted to be kept better informed of construction projects going on in the Town. Ms. Griffin said some of it had to do with subdivisions and when the Town Council signed off on them. The Town Council wasn’t aware of what the projects were.
Terry Baker commented seniors don’t have two cars per dwelling which is what they would normally require. Are there any plans for putting signage “for residents only” at the parking places to keep visitors from taking up those parking spaces. Mr. Hayes replied they assign parking for the residents. If Phase 3 doesn’t end up having as much congested parking and the ground is contiguous they could always put in some type of a walk going back into overflow parking. They’ll keep it in mind because they want to make sure that everybody gets in to see their family. Mr. Baker confirmed it will be assigned parking and his only concern is that the resident will have a place to park. Mr. Hayes answered it will, for each resident.
earlier in the meeting he wasn’t trying to cause problems. Their dollars are so tight. The cost of trying to run
Rick Coppock presented an illustration to clarify how to get 24’ of pavement. He sketched two 12’ lanes with a 6” standing curb. Whenever there is a 6” standing curb, and wherever you have a driveway, they’re going to have to know that ahead of time to prep that section of curb and actually make a cut at that location. What they propose is 25’ with a 2’ roll curb on each side where you can drive over it at any point. It’s more common when you do a subdivision because you don’t know where driveways are going to be all the time.
Bernie Guerrettaz stated Carson Hayes said it well, there are some issues here. Once they get approval they’re going to be getting construction permits and Rule 5 which they’ll start within the next week. Mr. Swafford said the only thing he could see happening is if they have to make a variance for something and whether or not the Plan Commission could make that variance or if it has to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals. That’s something the Town Attorney will be looking in to. Mr. Guerrettaz commented the Plan Commission has been able to look at waivers when they’re materially not messing up what the ordinance says.
Terry Baker made a motion to adjourn. Don Calvert seconded. Dan Swafford adjourned the meeting at 8:23 p.m.