I. The meeting was called to order with the following members present: Dennis Koehn, Kelly Huffman, Bob McCoige, Jim Smith, Jay Rounds, Bill Bloss, and Lovina Rutt. Also present was City Planner Joe Hauflaire and Attorney James Kolbus.
II. Four-year Plan Commission appointment to BZA – Mr. Hauflaire said that Laura Coyne said at the very end of the last meeting that she would be the Plan Commission appointment to the Board of Zoning Appeals. He stated that he felt it would be appropriate to nominate her at this time and she will be at the first meeting next week, 7-0. Huffman/Rutt.
III. The minutes of 01-17-06 were unanimously approved, 7-0. Bloss/Rounds.
IV. The Zoning/Subdivision Ordinances were unanimously filed into Record, 7-0. Rounds/Rutt.
V. Postponements/Withdrawals – none
VI. Major Change - public hearing item (Tabled from January 17, 2006)
06-01MA Maple City Chapel requests approval of a major change to the previously approved site plan to reconfigure parking lot of the Maple City Chapel by moving the driving aisle currently adjacent to the front doors of the church. A new driving aisle connecting Menard’s plaza to the subject property is proposed lining up with Menard’s front wall. The reconfigured driving aisle will not change access to the streets. The subject property is generally located at 2015 Lincolnway East and zoned commercial B-3.
Staff Report and Discussion
Mr. Hauflaire said that Mr. Bender, who is instrumental in this getting this moved forward, has been on vacation and not been in good contact with Menards, which is critical and crucial. He requested the item to be tabled for another month and if no progress has been made at that time, he would request that it be dismissed.
Audience Comment – There was no one to speak to the petition.
The public hearing was closed.
Action
A motion was made and seconded, Rounds/Huffman, to table 06-01MA with staff recommendations until the March 21, 2006 meeting. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
VII. Minor Change – non-public hearing item
Elkhart Market Center PUD
Staff Report and Discussion
Mr. Hauflaire said this is in the Elkhart Market Center PUD. He said this is the Sam's Club and Wal-Mart shopping area on Elkhart Road. He said the request is to put an ATM in the parking lot and that historically we have looked at them as minor changes to the PUD. He stated that this has a small impact on the parking lot and it will be located west of retention area, a little bit north of Burger King. Mr. Hauflaire said there is adequate parking in the parking lot and the few spaces it takes us should be of little consequence. He said he would ask the Plan Commission to consider the item as a minor change and to approve it as such.
Mr. Koehn asked if there were any other questions of Mr. Hauflaire.
Petitioner Presentation
There was no petitioner to speak to the petition.
Mr. Koehn said to go ahead and move forward and asked if there was a reason not to consider it a minor change. He asked if there were any reservations or concerns.
Mr. Smith said he had a concern about the preferred option and how it will affect traffic and it would dump traffic out into oncoming traffic and that he thinks the alternative option would be greatly preferred.
Ms. Huffman said that she has been observing the way these ATM's work in the parking lot and says she thinks as a whole they run very smoothly. She said she did not have a preferred option as far as this specific case, but she doesn't see these as problematic. She said this one is so far out there, she doesn't think it will cause a problem.
Mr. Koehn said Mr. Smith is saying the alternative option looks like better traffic flow.
Mr. Smith said if you look at the preferred option, the lane which traffic exits in is one way, coming towards them. He said that it seems to him that you can sacrifice 2 more parking spaces to do the alternative option and didn't seem logical to dump into oncoming lane. He also asked if the turns were gradual enough.
Mr. Hauflaire said this was not drawn to scale and he imagined they worked the geometrics out.
Mr. McCoige said it is relatively tight, but they can take a couple of extra spaces but that he doesn't have a problem with it.
Mr. Koehn said it looks like the Plan Commission is leaning towards the alternative option.
Action
A motion was made and seconded, Smith/Bloss, to treat petition 06-01MI as a minor change and approve the alternative option. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
VIII. Secondary Plat Approval – non-public hearing item
North Meadow Estates
Staff Report
Mr. Hauflaire stated that this is secondary plat approval and final site plan approval was done last fall at the PUD stage and now the Plan Commission is getting to the platting and subdivision process. He said this will be Lot N in North Meadow Estates on the north side of Hackett Road and the west side of North Main Street. Mr. Hauflaire stated this property is zoned B-3 and is part of North Meadow Estates Planned Unit Development commercial development and the Plan Commission will have to follow the intricacies of the PUD. Mr. Hauflaire said as part of this PUD, there were some of relaxations of some setbacks that are located on the plat. Mr. Hauflaire stated that setbacks on Hackett for parking and building are normally 30', which have been relaxed to 25' for buildings and 20' for parking. He said parking has been relaxed on N. Main Street at 25' and buildings are set at 35' but that was something that was agreed upon in September. Mr. Hauflaire said the west property line setback has been relaxed from 25' to 20'. Mr. Hauflaire stated this is a subdivision and stays with Plan Commission. He said they are asking for secondary plat approval and he would ask Plan Commission to support that recommendation. He said they will be seeing sidewalks on the dedicated streets and there is new language from the engineering department which deals with storm water retention, which has become a big topic for us and all communities. This plat will be the first to have this new language on there and we just got it the other day and we ask this plat reflect that new language. Other than that, he would recommend that Plan Commission approve the request as it meets requirements of subdivision ordinance.
Mr. Koehn said just to review the procedures here, we had a look at this earlier and gave our approval and asked if the Plan Commission is just looking to see if they have lived up to their part of the agreement.
Mr. Hauflaire said Plan Commission deals with zoning and subdivision matters. He said that the zoning matter has been dealt with back in September of 2005 and now we are being asked to give secondary plat approval making sure it meets the requirements of the preliminary subdivision we approved and that was done a couple years ago. This has been developing over five years or so.
Mr. Koehn asked if this was their last opportunity to take a look at this.
Mr. Kolbus said it was and that the Plan Commission cannot impose new conditions at this time and like you said have they met everything required of them before.
Mr. Rounds said it was just a detail, but in point 1 in the approval conditions, it has been omitted as to who is responsible for the cost of the sidewalks.
Mr. McCoige said well it's at the expense of the developer.
Mr. Hauflaire asked where the word should be inserted
Mr. Rounds said between "the" and "to."
Mr. Hauflaire said he would change the condition to reflect that.
Petitioner Presentation
Barry Pharis, Brads-Ko Engineering & Surveying, Inc., 1009 S. 9th Street, stated he represents Carl Van Gilst, the owner of the property. Mr. Hauflaire has told you everything you need to know, other than there are some proposed buildings would be professional offices. Mr. Pharis said that 2 of the 4 have been spoken for so now is the time to move forward. It's right across Hackett from the brand new convenience store. There is no mylar for you to sign we are waiting for the engineering language to put on the plat. We just ask for your approval and that you sign the plat when we have that terminology from the engineering department and of course the
Mr. Smith said he presumed that Mr. Pharis could not build on the utility easement.
Mr. Pharis said that was correct and that you could not build on any easement
Mr. Smith asked if the building would be more to the west.
Mr. Hauflaire said there will be parking over that easement and just so Mr. Smith knows, that building on September 20th 2005, the buildings were shown with buildings on the west 1/3 and parking on the east 2/3 of that property.
Ms. Rutt asked if they knew where they would want to put the sign.
Mr. Hauflaire said the sign is spelled out in the PUD ordinance.
Ms. Rutt asked if that was approved before the new sign ordinance.
Mr. Hauflaire said that it was, but that it is only about 20 square feet or something.
Mr. Koehn said it's always good to clarify the sign issues. We don't want anything to slip by unattended.
Mr. Koehn asked if there were any other issues.
Action
A motion was made and seconded, Rounds/Bloss, to grant secondary plat for North Meadow Estates Lot N based on staff recommendations with the change noted in staff condition # 1 to state that the sidewalks along dedicated streets shall be built at the developer's expense. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
IX. Vacation – public hearing item
06-01V Goshen Hospital Association requests the vacation of a portion of Marilyn Avenue beginning approximately 217.85’ west of the west right of way line of S. Main Street, also west of the public north/south alley parallel and west of South Main Street.
Staff Report
Mr. Hauflaire stated that the depth of the alley is about 200' and it dead ends in the parking lot of Goshen General Hospital and we've been somewhat thinking that this should have been vacated and needs to be vacated since it goes nowhere. There are no utility easements that we're going to keep here. Usually we keep the utility easement, but we will vacate unless somebody can come up with a reason why we should. We've been in contact with the utilities like Verizon and NIPSCO and none of them have utilities in the way to be vacated and I would close with that other than to say we have asked when we vacate, the curb line needs to match that on either side so if there are any curbs to be reconstructed, they need to match on either side of the area to be vacated
Petitioner Presentation
Gordon Lord, 130 N. Main Street, said he is speaking on behalf of Goshen Hospital Association, better known as Goshen Health Systems and Andy Kristofel, Mark Podgorski are with him today. Mr. Lord stated that the hospital has used this portion of Marilyn Avenue as a part of their campus for a very long time. He stated that they used it to access their primary entry and also more currently to access their cancer treatment facility. Mr. Lord stated that thy have been debating this for a very long time, not whether to do it or not, but how to handle the Harley Schmucker property. He said they have been discussing this for many years and Mr. Hauflaire had been involved with it. Mr. Lord said that Marilyn Avenue had been revised to 2-way traffic and they can also use the north/south alley. He said the Harley Schmucker property is well served and the parking lot is accessible off the alley and he personally sent a letter to them to let them know what the hospital was thinking about doing and he thinks they are getting it right this time. Mr. Lord said it would be appropriate for the hospital to be responsible for that alley, and they will put landscaping around it and keep it looking nice. He said that Mr. Podgorski had a drawing, which shows the entry to the hospital and to access Harley Schmucker you can come in off High Park and you can come in off Main. He does not believe this is a controversial issue and he understand Plan Commission is in an advisory capacity and he will need to present this to City Council. Mr. Lord said he would be out of town and requests to be heard at the council meeting on the 21st so he doesn't have to educate someone else.
Mr. McCoige asked if the distance of 199.85' was surveyed.
Mr. Lord said it was taken from the tax maps.
Mr. McCoige said if you look at the drawing, there is a line that reads 164.25 and it looks like the same east/west line.
Mr. Lord said if there were any confusion, it would clearly be from the west line of the north/south alley.
Mr. Bloss asked if Mr. Lord had received any response from the Harleys or the Schmuckers.
Mr. Lord said that he did not, but that he did copy the Planning Office on the letter, which said to contact him with any concerns. He said that he did send it certifies, not to be legalistic, but to keep them in the loop. Mr. Lord said it was not required by statue, which says only adjacent property owners need certified letters.
Mr. Bloss said that if you don't hear from someone you have to assume they do not disagree.
Mr. McCoige said you don't have to assume, they have said they are very happy with it.
Mr. Koehn said this is a public hearing so there will be opportunity for comment.
Mr. Hauflaire we also sent them certified letters as well.
Mr. Koehn asked if there was anyone there to speak to the petition.
Audience Comment – there was no one to speak to the petition
The public hearing was closed.
Discussion and Action
A motion was made and seconded, Bloss/Rounds, to pass 06-01V to City Council for March 21, 2006 with a favorable recommendation. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
X. Rezoning & Preliminary Subdivision Approval – public hearing items
06-01R & 06-01SUB MA Investments requests the rezoning of property generally located on the south side of Regent Street, west of Dierdorff Road (CR 27), from agricultural A-1 to residential R-1 PUD (Planned Unit Development overlay) district. The applicant is also requesting preliminary subdivision approval of a 37-lot major, residential subdivision known as the Villas at Waterford Commons Second, A Planned Unit Development.
Staff Report
We know this to be the Villas of Waterford Commons Second. This is going to be on the north side of Regent Street and it mirrors the first section. Mr. Hauflaire said this is ingressing and egressing to Regent Street, just like the first section. He said there are 2 matters before the Plan Commission, a zoning change from agricultural A-1 and some residential R-2 to residential R-1 zoning district. Mr. Hauflaire said that with the first phase, Plan Commission was asked to make some relaxations of standards in the R-1 district and they have asked to do that here as well. Mr. Hauflaire said that the relaxations are for lot frontage; to relax from 66' to 50', relax the lot area from 8,000 square feet to 5,400 square feet in some cases, to relax the front yard setback from 25' to 20' and to relax the side yard setback from 8' to 5'. Mr. Hauflaire said the 5' side yard setback is measured from the foundation, just as it was in the Villas 1. He said the subdivision request is for a 37-lot residential subdivision, which stays here with the Plan Commission. Mr. Hauflaire stated the zoning matter would be passed to City Council and said he would ask for primary subdivision approval because it meets all the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. He said there were several conditions with both matters, and that he has went through the conditions as they relate to zoning. Mr. Hauflaire said the conditions that pertain to the subdivision are that there are sidewalks dedicated on all public streets, on both sides, the property be under an "In Lieu of Annexation Agreement" if they are not already, and that the new language relating to drainage be included on the plat.
Ms. Rutt asked if it was a 37-lot or 41- lot subdivision. She said that on page 2 there is a reference to 41-lot subdivision and she wanted to know which it was.
Mr. Hauflaire said it was a 37-lot subdivision.
Petitioner Presentation
Barry Pharis, 1009 S. 9th Street said his firm represents MA investments, the owner and developer of the property. Mr. Pharis said it is a 37-lot subdivision and Regent Street is the major thoroughfare running through. He said on the east, it connects with Dierdorff, to the west and adjacent to the property is the new school, to the south is farmland owned by the developer, and to the north is a replica of this. Mr. Pharis said the Villas of Waterford Commons First went to Plan Commission for preliminary subdivision approval and rezoning on June 30, 2003 so this development is about 3 years old and there are 26 homes already built and they are about sold out. He said these homes are villas, and that is why they are requesting the relaxation of setbacks. Mr. Pharis said these people are empty nesters who have 2 bedroom homes with 2 car garages, very little outside maintenance and narrower driveways to relieve shoveling and snowblowing, still allowing them to meet the on site parking requirements. Mr. Pharis said there were sidewalks in the first and there will be in this section as well. He said that today he is asking for 2 votes, the first for primary subdivision approval and the second as a recommendation to City Council for the rezoning matter. Mr. Pharis said he has no mylar and will bring that back to Plan Commission once the engineering department has the storm water drainage language developed.
Mr. Smith asked what the square footage of the homes was.
Mr. Pharis said 1,000-1,200 square feet.
Mr. Gehlke said plus a full basement.
Mr. Smith asked if they were identical to the Villas 1.
Mr. Pharis said they were.
Mr. McCoige asked if the sidewalks were in on Regent Street yet.
Mr. Pharis said he did not know and Regent Street only required sidewalk on one side of the street from the PUD ordinance and this is because it is a major thoroughfare.
Mr. McCoige said it shows both sides on this one.
Mr. Hauflaire said that would be for Newbury Circle and that Regent and Weymouth were only required to have sidewalk on 1 side.
Mr. Koehn said that in the larger setting, the Comprehensive Plan called for mixed use; residential, public buildings, commercial, and parks located to that people can get to them without traveling far. He asked if there were any plans for commercial development or parks in this part of the city.
Mr. Pharis said that within the entire Waterford Commons development, the property is zoned B-2, B-3, multi-family and whatever parks selected were proposed at the time it was done. He said that there are parks in other parts of Waterford Commons, and he thinks they are very large. Mr. Pharis said that within Waterford Commons, there’s a mobile home park, a retirement home, retirement center, assisted living center, and a school.
Mr. Koehn said that this seems to be well on the way of achieving the master plan of the city.
Mr. Pharis said this is a prototype of what master plan for the city wants.
Mr. McCoige asked if this was part of the original "In Lieu of Annexation Agreement" or was this amended.
Mr. Hauflaire said this is incorporated in the Waterford Commons PUD, which is about 450 acres by now. He said he was the only one here in 1989 when they first talked about this. He said that within the center of this 450-acre PUD there is about 20-25 acres of parks dedicated to the city, schools multi-family housing, and commercial development and this is on the east end of the development and that you have to look around a little bit but this is part of the plan.
Mr. Koehn said this sounds very promising.
Mr. McCoige said he was going to go back to his sidewalk questions. He said there isn't anything about the timing of the sidewalks and he would urge the developer to put them on Regent Street right up front; the quicker the better because the school is right there and there will be lots of people walking back and forth.
Mr. Pharis said he would talk to the developer about it.
Mr. Hauflaire said the Plan Commission may have some leverage with the ordinance and they will see when it required them to be implemented.
Mr. Smith said he had a question for Mr. Hauflaire and asked what the thought process was that led to relaxing the frontage from 66' to 50' and the lot size from 8,000 square feet to 5,400. Mr. Smith asked if there was a downside they should be thinking of.
Mr. Hauflaire said this has been a trend he has been seeing when you do a straight rezoning to R-1, it requires 66' of frontage and 8,000 square feet of lot area, but sometimes that may not be practical or the market the developer is trying to appeal to. He said that in certain instances it makes sense to relax the standards, and an example is on the north side of the development, it doesn't look crowded, but the houses are closer to the street. He said this is somewhat of a development in itself because there is not a lot of passers-through. Mr. Hauflaire said this isn't something that should happen throughout the city, but it makes sense here because of the way it is mixed. He said there are a planned section of larger homes, but a good mix in the area.
Mr. Smith asked if these were esthetically pleasing.
Mr. Hauflaire said he believes so and some Plan Commission members may have been through there and can speak about how the development looks.
Mr. Bloss said that he's been out there and been through the homes and it's nice, very well done.
Mr. Pharis said that they are pleased and that in less than 3 years, 29 homes constructed or under construction.
Mr. Koehn said another issue is that it is at a higher density in order to move people more efficiently.
Mr. Pharis said that with the new master plan moving into the county, they want residences to be close to use the services, and you will see more and more people coming in like this to ask for smaller lots. He said that people want to spend less time working on their yards and more time enjoying life. Mr. Pharis said this would not just be with empty nesters, but with young families too.
Mr. Koehn said this is a public hearing and asked if there was anyone to speak to the petition.
Audience Comment
Ned Kauffman, 1205 Berkey Avenue said it seems like this is the 11th hour and he does have some things he would like to present later but he wondered if this was the time to add things and play catch up. Mr. Kauffman said he didn't know when you could require certain things, but that he has a problem with the one-sided sidewalk.
Mr. Koehn said they would hear from Mr. Kauffman later on some larger issues.
Mr. Kauffman said that also, the landscaping at this point was looked at briefly and at this point is there any change of reinforcing what is coming with this landscape ordinance and street trees.
Mr. Koehn said that would be a matter of timing and since the issue is still at primary approval and this seems like the time to stipulate some requirements. He said if they would see this issue later in the agenda and asked if when they are talking about landscaping and they find principles they want to apply to this case, if it would be appropriate to postpone it for 20 minutes.
Ms. Huffman said that they are just at the very beginning and she's not sure it's fair to hold them up to those standards when they aren't even approved yet.
Mr. Hauflaire said as far as he can tell, the only provisions that would apply are street trees, the others have to do with parking lots in front of commercial buildings, side to side industrial to residential and they could ask for that to be a part of the requirements, but in general the ordinance says that every 40' a deciduous tree in the identified area in the front yard and if we want that to happen it can, asking them to follow the street tree requirements.
Mr. Bloss said he doesn’t know about that and if you get too many trees out there you won't have room for the houses and each area you have to look at separate, and on a small lot, if you put 2 or 3 trees in, they'll get too big and you'll have to take them out anyway.
Mr. Hauflaire said they are identified as street trees and that it is based on street frontage and for every 40' there should be a tree, and we aren't saying a bunch of trees.
Ms. Bloss said he didn't care and he was leaving at quarter till 6.
Mr. McCoige asked if they were saying about 1 per lot if you're looking at 40'.
Mr. Hauflaire said that's fine if you want to do 1 per lot.
Mr. Bloss said that instead of looking at this on paper, go out there and look at if before you make them plant a bunch of trees; it may look lousy.
Mr. Koehn said there certainly would be more discussion when the Plan Commission takes up the Landscape Ordinance and that the public hearing is still open and asked if there was anyone to speak.
Ms. Huffman asked if this is a new PUD.
Mr. Kolbus said that's what he has been asking Mr. Hauflaire.
Ms. Huffman said that if his thoughts are that this is the existing PUD, then this is not the time to talk about it.
Mr. Hauflaire said that is the questions and stated that this new portion and the PUD was established in 1981, but this is brand-new real estate.
Mr. Kolbus said if it's not in the legal description, it couldn't fall under the old ordinance.
Mr. Hauflaire said he doesn't think they can say definitively, but this is the place to talk about it and his thinking was that it is part of the Waterford Commons PUD and that it's connected in all respects.
Ms. Huffman said if they look at it that way, they will probably disagree that now is the time to add this in.
Mr. Hauflaire asked about the subdivision matter and if they can request the trees in that approval.
Ms. Huffman said she didn't want to hold this client up because the Plan Commission is just starting to talk about the Landscape Ordinance, and this will be a very long, drawn out ordeal to decide whether to require street trees or not.
Mr. McCoige asked if it is or is not in the original PUD and if the Plan Commission doesn't know that, he asked how they could act on it.
Mr. Bloss stated this was not part of the original PUD.
Mr. Hauflaire said that is correct.
Mr. Kolbus said the staff report stated this was part of the Waterford Commons PUD.
Mr. Hauflaire said his intent was to make it part of that original PUD and incorporate those provisions from that ordinance.
Mr. McCoige said that was just his intent, but that's not what it is if it's not in the original legal.
Mr. Kolbus said if it's not in the original legal, then it's a new rezoning and the Plan Commission can condition it.
Mr. Hauflaire asked what about the subdivision matter, regardless of whether it's in or out of the PUD, they still need new subdivision approval.
Mr. Koehn said this is a crucial discussion and they need to know what kind of discretion they have and that it is a technical legal question, to the Plan Commission looks to staff and their legal counsel to point them in the right direction. Mr. Koehn said basically the only thing they are asking for is street trees.
Mr. McCoige said he thinks it goes beyond that, because this is not in the PUD and he thinks they are asking for something else at this time.
Mr. Kolbus said they are asking for a new PUD, a new PUD ordinance.
Ms. Huffman said so basically their paperwork is not in order.
Mr. Kolbus said he didn't know and he didn't have a copy of the legal description with him.
Mr. Koehn asked if the Plan Commission had enough information to move ahead or if they should table it.
Mr. McCoige said he thinks it has to be tabled.
Mr. Koehn asked who had the original legal.
Mr. Bloss said Mr. Hauflaire should have it.
Mr. Hauflaire said this is not in the original legal description, no.
Mr. McCoige said he motioned to table the item.
Mr. Pharis asked why.
Mr. McCoige said the Plan Commission did not have enough information. Mr. McCoige said he did not want to hold it up either, but he didn't see how they could rule on it.
Mr. Koehn said the rules state there is no discussion after a motion that had not been seconded and asked for tabling and asked for a second.
Discussion and Action
A motion was made and seconded, McCoige/Bloss, to table items 06-01R and 06-01SUB. The motion passed with a role call vote 5-2 (Huffman, Rounds – no; Bloss, McCoige, Smith, Koehn, Rutt – yes).
Mr. Pharis asked if he could address the commission.
Mr. Koehn said he thinks they are done with this item.
Mr. Pharis said the public hearing was not closed.
Mr. Kolbus said they did not have to.
Mr. Pharis said that he just needed to know what to tell his client.
Mr. Koehn said he thinks he could discuss that outside the formal meeting with the staff.
XI. Replat and Major Change to the PUD – public hearing item
06-02SUB & 06-02MA Wightman Petrie for Geenen DeKock Properties, Inc. requests permission to amend the previously approved subdivision by eliminating the “Non-access Easement” along Midway Road (CR 26) and Ferndale Road (CR 15) in County Home Subdivision, to move the common lot line between Lots 2 and 3 in said subdivision, to amend zoning Ordinance Number 3816 to allow a lot coverage of greater than 15 % and a building size of greater than 12,000 square feet and to permit more than one primary building per lot and to amend said zoning ordinance to permit a building height of greater than 18’
Staff Report
Mr. Hauflaire said he would give a brief background and then turn it over to the petitioner and there are 2 matters they are being asked to look at: to amend the subdivision and to amend the non-access easement that was put around the entire perimeter of the property during the subdivision process. He said the part about moving the lot line between lots 2 and 3 is relatively minor and shouldn't be much discussion. Mr. Hauflaire said the non-access easement is requested to be removed, particularly for lot 4 and he would recommend not to delete it from the other lots, but to remove it from lot 4 only, which is at the corner of Ferndale Road (CR 15) and Midway Road (CR 26). Mr. Hauflaire said that was the subdivision matter and the zoning matter involves conditions placed on the PUD in 1998 which was Ordinance 381, which is identified in points 1-4 on page 2 of the staff report. He said they would like to permit lot coverage greater than 15%, buildings greater than 12,000 square feet in size, and to permit buildings at a height greater than 18'. Mr. Hauflaire said he had no objections to the issues related to the request, but he would suggest to follow the B-3 requirements, which permit lot coverage up to 50%, a building height of 25' and more that 1 primary building is permitted, provided there is enough frontage and lot area, meeting the B-3 requirements, which is 80' of frontage, 8,000 square feet lot area meets B-3 requirements, relaxing PUD requirements shouldn't be an issue.
Mr. Koehn asked what the primary uses are in the B-3 district.
Mr. Hauflaire stated that is the general commercial district, which has the greatest list of permitted uses from that section of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Hauflaire said you would find just about anything that can go in a commercial district.
Mr. Koehn asked if downtown was B-3.
Mr. Hauflaire said downtown was B-2, and that B-3 was the most permissive in the sense it allows more uses than the other commercial districts.
Mr. Koehn asked what the rationale was for the non-access easement.
Mr. Hauflaire said he believes the intent was to manage access to this commercial subdivision and to keep ingress and egress to County Home Road limited and this is a little confusing because the PUD site plan adopted in 1998 has some discrepancies from the subdivision, which shows 4 lots, but the zoning shows more lots. Mr. Hauflaire said there are some discrepancies between the zoning, PUD and subdivision, but he doesn't think those should hang the Plan Commission up too much.
Mr. Koehn asked Mr. Kolbus if he could foresee any legal issues with those discrepancies.
Mr. Kolbus said it was hard to say without seeing the documents and to see what comes out in the hearing.
Petitioner Presentation
Ken Jones, 4703 Chester Drive said he is here with the developers, Mr. Geenen & Mr. DeKock of Geenen DeKock, who are from Holland, Michigan and were the developers of the Kohl's and Target that are just behind this proposed development. Mr. Jones said that Jason Hanaway, who is the designer, is also there, along with Gordon Lord, the County's legal counsel. Mr. Jones said the history of the site goes back to 1998 with the Kohl's and Target development and these points were all minor changes in Ordinance 3816 and there was a comprehensive staff report issued at that time. Mr. Jones said there was no description of access on the original PUD on CR 26 and CR 15, but the Ordinance adopted restricted access to US 33, which was condition 10 and there was nothing about CR 15 and 26, and that the site plan showed access on CR 26 to the south and on CR 15. Mr. Jones said he didn't think the discrepancies with what's been approved versus what is being presented should be an issue. He said the issue regarding the non-access easement along CR 15 was brought up in discussions with Elkhart County and revisions to the platting process. Mr. Jones said this non-access easement went through the recording process but there is no, and never has been, a non-access easement on CR 26 & 15 and they are asking relief on conditions of the original ordinance, which was developed through negotiations with Jack Tuff, he was developing the land. Mr. Jones said the conditions regarding development, lot coverage, building height and primary structures, were conditions at the request of Geenen DeKock in order to make sure the development was visible from US 33 and the same people that requested the conditions are now requesting relief from them; therefore it makes sense to consider. He stated that the original staff report that they have stated that if these items were to return to the Plan Commission they would be heard as minor changes whenever they went back. Mr. Jones said he did not think that was too much of a stretch to approve. Mr. Jones stated that in the item in regards to the access point to CR 15, the site plan that's in the staff report has an access point on CR 26, and there is no non-access easement along CR 26. He said they do have a legal right to have an access point but they want to make sure it's safe and designed properly to Goshen's standards.
M
