Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJPC February 25, 2025 MINUTES OF THE JEFFERSONVILLE PLAN COMMISSION February 25, 2025 Call to Order Board President Mike McCutcheon calls to order the Plan Commission meeting. It is Tuesday, February 25, 2025, it is 5:30 pm in the City Council Chambers, Jeffersonville City Hall, 500 Quartermaster Ct., Jeffersonville, Indiana. The meeting was held in person and streamed live on the City's website and City's Facebook page. Roll Call Board President Mike McCutcheon and board members Donna Reed, David Schmidt, and Steve Webb were present in the City Council Chambers. Members Duard Avery, Chris Bottorff, and Bill Burns were absent. Also present were Planning & Zoning Attorney Les Merkley, Planning and Zoning Director Chad Reischl and Secretary Shane Shaughnessy. (Secretary's Note: All plat maps, public letters, photos, etc. presented before the Plan Commission on this date can be found in the office of Planning & Zoning.) Approval of Minutes Approval of the minutes from January 28, 2025. Mr. Schmidt made a motion to approve the January 28, 2025 minutes, seconded by Ms. Reed. Roll Call vote. Motion passed 4-0. Approval of the Docket Motion to approve the agenda made by Ms. Reed, seconded by Mr. Webb. Roll call vote. Motion passed 4-0. Old Business None New Business PC-R-02 Resolution concerning the partial vacation of Veterans Parkway Development Plat Chad Reischl introduced the case stating that last year the Plan Commission approved a plat on Veterans Parkway and that last month the BZA approved a Special Exception to allow Bachman Automotive Group to operate an auto sales lot on the property. Bachman is asking to vacate three of the six parcels on the lot to facilitate the combination of those parcels. He also stated that this case does not require a public hearing. Ms. Reed made a motion to approve the request, seconded by Mr. Schmidt. Roll call vote. Motion passed 4-0. ZO-25-02 Text Amendment The Department of Planning and Zoning submitted a text amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance for recommendation to the City Council. The proposed amendments are for Article 8 as it relates to Gas Stations. The Docket Number is ZO-25-02. 1 Chad Reischl introduced the case stating that Planning staff is adding a minor change to the Automotive Use standards in Article 8 as it pertains to gas stations. A Plan Development district allows for more flexible uses and must be approved by City Council. The current location standards for gas stations apply to all zone districts, including PDs. This runs contrary to the idea of PDs which is to give final approval of all uses to City Council. This amendment would change the location standards to no longer apply to PDs with the caveat that only one gas station would be allowed per PD. Open Public Comment No comment Close Public Comment Ms. Reed said she had concerns that this would negate the locational standards for how close a gas station could be to a primary or secondary school and asked if that has been considered. Mr. Reischl said that hadn't been considered but said that Council could take that into account when approving a PD. Ms. Reed asked if there were any existing PDs that are close to schools that this might affect with Mr. Reischl answering that he was not aware of any. Mr. Schmidt made a motion for a favorable recommendation, seconded by Mr. Webb. Roll call vote. Motion passed 4-0. PC-25-05 Minor Plat Autumn Lewers filed a Minor Plat application for the property located at 1426 E. 9th Street. The application is for a 3-lot residential subdivision. The current zoning is R3 (Single Family Residential —Small Lot). The Docket Number is PC-25-05. Autumn and Tim Lewers introduced the case stating they were trying to develop an oversized lot to increase density in the neighborhood. Mr. Lewers stated that they were looking to allow access off of the alley to build a house. He said that they had previously come before the Board to try to get two lots along the alley but were denied and were now only proposing one lot along the alley. He said that this new plat would address some of the concerns of the Board from the previous application with regard to accessibility by creating a wide driveway and having lower density. He said he has seen some issues with accessibility on the alley with people parking in the alley and said that he plans to lower the embankment along the rear of the property to help alleviate these issues. He said that there is existing parking along the alley and another property whose main access is off of the alley. Mr. Reischl stated that the previous plat had come to the Plan Commission in July 2024 and had been denied. He stated that some of the issues that had been raised in the prior meeting were still pertenant including the narrowness of the alley and the one-way nature of the alley. He said that while there are some alleys in town that have houses on them, the Board would need to determine if the changes that had been made to this plat have addressed the previous concerns. Open Public Comment Kathleen Abbot of 1427 E. 9th Street stated that she lives directly across the street from the property. She said that putting four homes on this property was too much as was three lots. Even putting two homes would be detrimental to the street. She said that the alley had safety issues due to it being small, one-way, having blind turns, and parking from the Housing Authority. She said that she had concerns with getting emergency vehicles into the alley. She also said she has concerns about parking along 9' Street and is not in favor of this. 2 Close Public Comment Mr. Lewers said that he thinks that the creation of the lot and the slight widening of the alley would help to increase accessibility. Ms. Lewers said that this was actually two lots that had been combined and that they were splitting those two lots into three and that the depth of the lots would allow for a third lot. The existing house would remain while the garage would have a house attached to the rear of it so the current configuration of 9' Street would largely remain the same. They said that adding a rear lot could help reduce people walking across these deep lots and that it could help provide a buffer from 8'h Street's traffic. Mr. Webb asked about the parking on the alley which Mr. Lewers stated was mostly angled directly off the alley. Ms. Lewers said parking for the rear house would be on a double driveway and double garage. Mr. Webb also asked about pricing of the house which Mr. Lewers said would be high $200,000 to low $300,000. Ms. Lewers said that they were being built to sell, not rent. Mr. McCutcheon asked if this application was just to allow them to have a third lot on the alley and that they would still be able to subdivide the property in two if they were denied this application which Mr. Reischl affirmed. Ms. Reed said the was concerned about access for emergency vehicles and conflicts on the alley. Mr. McCutcheon said that he has concerns due to the narrowness of the alley to get a fire truck in to serve the alley facing house. Mr. Webb made a motion to deny the minor plat, seconded by Mr. Reed. Roll call vote. Motion passed 4-0. PC-25-06 Rezoning Denton Floyd Real Estate Group filed a Rezoning application for multiple properties located near the intersection of Highway 62 and Gottbrath Parkway also known as the Bridgepointe Commons Planned Development Section 1. The current zoning is PD (Planned Development); the proposed zoning is PD (Planned Development). The Docket Number is PC-25-06. Camille Hesen with Heritage Engineering and Eric Cornett with Denton Floyd introduced the application. Ms. Hesen stated they are requesting to make an amendment to the Bridgepoint Commons Planned Development. They are asking to update the permitted uses in Planning Area 1 and update the signage regulations for the development. She said that they were attempting to secure a signature tenant for this area which will help to kickstart development in this area and update the signage requirements to be more in line with the UDO and nearby commercial development areas. Mr. Reischl stated that the Bridgepointe PD had been started in 2017 and had seen a lag in development since then and that this change would help them secure a signature tenant and move development forward. Open Public Comment No comment Close Public Comment Mr. Webb stated this area has been vacant for a while and that this will help development in this area. 3 Ms. Reed asked about what sign standards were being changed. Ms. Hesen stated that they were asking for updates to signature signage and signage to the south of Gottbrath Parkway. Mr. Reischl stated that the current standards only allow for one signature sign which exists on the north side of Gottbrath Parkway which advertises those properties and are asking to be allowed to add another similar type sign to the south side. Mr. Schmidt made a motion for a favorable recommendation, seconded by Mr. Webb. Roll call vote. Motion passed 4-0. PC-25-07 Primary Plat Thieneman Group, LLC filed a Primary Plat application for the property located at 3417 Holmans Lane. The application is for a 10-lot single-family residential subdivision. The current zoning is R3 (Single Family Residential —Small Lot). The Docket Number is PC-25-07. The applicant was not in attendance at the meeting. John Kraft with the law firm Young, Lind, Endres, and Kraft said he works with the applicant Don Thieneman and said that he was out of town and asked on his behalf for this matter to be tabled until next month. Mr. Schmidt made a motion to table the matter to next month, seconded by Ms. Reed. Roll call vote. Motion passed 4-0. PC-25-08, -09-, -10, -11 Rezoning Hoosier Fairway Investments, LLC filed multiple Rezoning applications for portions of the property located at 1820 Charlestown Pike (Area 1-3). The current zoning is PR (Parks and Recreation); the proposed zoning is R1 (Single Family Residential — Large Lot). The Docket Numbers are PC- 25-08, -09, and -10. Hoosier Fairway Investments, LLC filed a Rezoning application for a portion of the property located at 1820 Charlestown Pike (Area 4). The current zoning is PR (Parks and Recreation); the proposed zoning is R2 (Single Family Residential— Medium Lot). The Docket Number is PC-25- 11. John Kraft with the law firm Young, Lind, Endres, and Kraft introduced the cases on the behalf of the applicant Matt Kirchgessner and Erik Merten of Paul Primavera. He stated that these cases would be considered four separate docket items but would be presented as one application. He stated the request was for rezoning four separate areas of Elk Run golf course, three requesting a zoning of R1 and one requesting a zoning of R2. He said that Hoosier Fairways, LLC when they purchased the property was to keep the property as a golf course. He said they were not thinking of developing the golf course into a residential subdivision if this was approved. He stated that in 1965 a restrictive covenant for Golfview was put on record, that there were subsequent amendments with the last being in 1970 which allowed for multi-family developments on certain lots, and that this covenant described building standards for the neighborhood. He said there was a neighborhood meeting held prior to this meeting that tried to address neighborhood concerns and tweaks were made to the plan to increase the size of the proposed lots because of those meetings. He stated the first request was for 0.85 acres to be rezoned to R1 to facilitate the development of homes called Area 1 which would have four lots which would be similarly sized to the surrounding lots. The City's Comprehensive Plan shows this site as being in the Western Jeffersonville Planning District which promotes infill development that is similar to neighboring parcels, structures, and setbacks. He stated the new homes would be built with brick with prices between $500,000 to $800,000 which he said would not negatively affect property values. The homes will be single family structures with restrictions 4 put in place regarding the property materials and size of the homes with a minimum of 2,000 square feet. He said that Area 1 would be located at the #6 and #8 tee boxes which would be moved with the help of a golf architect. In Area 2, the rezoning would be to R1, would be 2 acres, and have 9 lots. The #2 tee box would be moved and changed to a par 4 hole. The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as part of the West Jeffersonville Planning District which promotes creating distinct neighborhoods and infill development. In Area 3, the rezoning would be to R1, contains about 0.5 acres, and would have 1 lot. The #1 tee box would be relocated to facilitate this. In Area 4, the rezoning would be to R2, contain 1 acre, and have 6 lots. He said that all the rezonings meet the Comprehensive Plan and asks that the Board send a favorable recommendation to City Council. Mr. Merten stated that they had been working with the City's Engineer regarding drainage and that they may have to add a detention basis to mitigate the drainage on the properties. Mr. Kraft added that the subsequent plats for these locations will have to be approved by the City's Drainage Board. Mr. Reischl stated that its difficult to argue that the proposal conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan, however, consideration should be given to the current condition of the area in regard to size of lots in the area which appear to be average around 14,000 square feet whereas the majority of the lots in Areas 1 and 2 which are significantly smaller than this average. The code allows a 9,000 square foot minimum, but lots could be created that are larger than this standard to be consistent with the neighborhood they're in. Another issue to consider is preservation of property values which may be lost on properties that have their view of the golf course blocked by development. Mr. Kraft said that the lots in the R1 areas were initially proposed to be on average 10,117 square feet but after the neighborhood meeting, they were reworked to be 12,061 square feet on average. Initially 9 of the lots were at the 9,000 square feet minimum but now no lots are at the minimum square footage. Mr. McCutcheon stated that a number of letters had been submitted and forwarded to the Board members. Mr. Reischl asked the public to specify which of the four areas they were in support of or against when making their statements. Open Public Comment Bob Lanum of 1530 Golf Hill Drive stated that he was opposed to the Area 4 development because of traffic issues and concerns with how people will pull out of those lots onto Charlestown Pike. Alan Applegate stated he represents the Golf View Homeowners Association. He asked that the three minute rule be waived in the interest of the number of people present who live in the area. Mr. McCutcheon asked if he would be able to through his statement within 10 minutes which Mr. Applegate agreed to. Mr. Applegate stated that Planning District 6 of the Comprehensive Plan discourages inconsistent development and that infill development should be well-integrated so as not to change the character of the area and ensure that infill development should be similar in elements such as scale, form, and setbacks. He said that the Comprehensive Plan views the golf course as part of the parks system. He said that the Comprehensive Plan encourages development that enhances existing neighborhoods and support neighborhood leadership and that the number of people who came to the meeting shows that the neighborhood cares about this issue. He said the size and scale of the proposed lots would be inconsistent with what is existing. He said that if the lots are rezoned, the developers could come to the City with a plat that meets all minimum standards. The neighbors are against this because of flooding issues 5 and questioned the effectiveness of drainage systems if the water has no where to go. He said that flooding was a health and safety concern that should be considered. He said that a zoning commitment or conditioned approval would be necessary to ensure that what is being proposed is what would actually be built. He said that as drafted, these would be mini-subdivisions in a larger subdivision which would devalue the surrounding housing. He said that the new lots should have 100 foot widths, 30 foot setbacks, have at least 14,000 square feet, facades and sides should be made of brick or Hardie board, and no more than one house on any lot and said that these should be part of any zoning commitments that are adopted. He said that at least one of the tee boxes had been moved to prevent people from hitting golf balls into houses and questioned the safety of the proposed houses. He said that the Parks and Recreation zoning minimum lot size was 10,000 square feet and that flooding should be considered. Liliana Torres-Popp of 1606 Nole Drive stated the average lot size in area the 15,195 square feet. She presented the average sizes of the lots close to each of Areas 1-3 and said that the majority of the lots were smaller than what is around them and that the proposed lots were much smaller than what was in the initial restrictions. She said she was opposed to Areas 1, 2, and 3. Paul Frink or 2102 Augusta Drive said there were a number of issues on Augusta Drive- there are no sidewalks on Augusta Drive which he said would be an issue with greater density. There is a lot of speeding on Augusta Drive, the new houses would likely be owned by new families with children, and that people walk and jog in the street because there are no sidewalks. The fire department uses Augusta Drive to move from their station on Hamburg Pike. He presented pictures of golf course flooding as well as flooding on Augusta Drive. He said that building Area 2 would not improve the drainage issues on Augusta Drive. He is against Areas 1 and 2. Jeff Roach of 2306 Augusta Drive said he thought that when the golf course was developed, Area 3 was left to be not developed because it's a natural drain off of all water in the area. He presented photos of the property. He said that developing this would create more drainage issues which would damage property values and that it wasn't responsible development. He said there are no storm sewers in the area and that any water goes to Area 3. He said that water is collected at pipes and culverts and eventually drains to the golf course and developing it would cause more issues with flooding. He is opposed to the proposal. Monica Uhl of 2507 St. Andrews Road said she has concerns with flooding and responsible development. She said she hasn't seen any studies about how the additional hard surfaces will affect stormwater runoff which is an aspect of responsible growth. She asked that these studies be completed before any approvals. She asked that the Board ensures that development is responsible and ensures the integrity of the neighborhood and the golf course. She asked that the Board require the developer to submit a definite comprehensive plan in totality to protect existing and future homes. She is opposed to the proposal. Fred Bremer of 1508 Charlestown Pike said he lives next to Area 4 and is opposed to it. He said he is concerned with the density of the R2 zoning district. He is concerned with the drainage in the area as there is a creek that is almost always wet. The culvert that the creek drains to has been overtopped with water and has flooded the area where they want to build homes. He also said there is a 3-4 foot snapping turtle that lives there. He said that he considers infill to be building in an area that use to have housing, not building where there wasn't any housing. Teresa Treadway of 2104 Augusta Drive stated that Mr. Woehrle donated the land in 1966 to be developed as a golf course and preserve greenspace to enhance the quality of life for the area. The course has served as a landmark for six decades and is used by the Jeff High golf team. She said that they are not against all of the rezonings but are against defacing and diminishing 6 the golf course. The construction on Areas 1, 2, and 3 will obstruct views, affect property values, and resell potential. She said she had letters from appraisers and real estate agents that say the new construction would have a negative effect on values and that obstructing the view of the golf course would be detrimental to the market of the homes. She said that these new homes would be in the line of fire for golf balls and that the golf course had moved a tee box to cut down on the number of balls hitting homes. Augusta Street is used as a thoroughfare for drivers and emergency vehicles and that if cars are parked on either side of the street there would not be enough room to get a fire engine through which creates a safety hazard. She said that the new homes would be out of character with the 70 year old neighborhood and opposes the rezonings. Bobby Irvine of 4108 Augusta Drive asked what the City Council has to do with the rezoning. Mr. Merkley stated that it is state law that only City Council can rezone property and that the Plan Commission only makes a recommendation to Council. He said that the same people would likely be at the Council meeting because they are so dedicatedly opposed to the proposal. Close Public Comment Mr. Kraft stated they were only there for a zoning change, not the development of the property. He said that there were changes made after the neighborhood meeting and that what was said at this meeting are being taken under consideration. He said that when the current owners of the golf course, there was nothing in the purchase agreement and nothing in covenants or titles that require the golf course to remain a golf course. He said the applicants want it to remain a golf course. He said that one of the possible buyers of the golf course had wanted to develop it as a residential development. He said the owners want to keep it as a golf course and that getting a rezoning would allow them to keep it as one. He asked for a favorable recommendation or at least with a no recommendation. He said the developers have worked with the neighborhood to develop it in a manner that meets the UDO and that there would be no requests for variances with the development. Ms. Reed stated that while there may not be anything in the covenants that keep it from being residential, it is not zoned residential which does prevent it from being residential. She said that there was nothing presented tonight that would convince her that taking away views of the golf course wouldn't hurt property values and that conservation of property values and responsible and ethical growth are part of the criteria for consideration. She said that she believes the people who moved into the neighborhood believed that they would have a golf course view and that their property value is based on that view. Mr. Schmidt said that the parks and recreation issue was a sensitive issue. He understands that the new owners of the golf course want to get more revenue to keep it as a golf course but he thinks this plan is too much and that it jeopardizes the character of the area. The lot sizes are in question as are the golf course views. Mr. Webb said that while it looks good on paper, he doesn't think that this plan is feasible and that the area couldn't support more growth. Mr. McCutcheon asked if Mr. Craft understands that all four board members would need to vote in unison for this request. Mr. Craft requested two minutes to confer with his client after which he stated they were fine with the Board moving forward with a vote. For Area 1, Mr. Schmidt made a motion for an unfavorable recommendation, seconded by Ms. Reed. Roll call vote. Motion failed 3-1 with Mr. McCutcheon voting against. 7 Mr. McCutcheon made a motion to send no recommendation to City Council. There was no second. The motion failed. Mr. McCutcheon made a motion to reconsider the motion for an unfavorable recommendation in Area 1, seconded by Ms. Reed. Roll call vote. Motion passed 4-0. For Area 1, Ms. Reed made a motion for an unfavorable recommendation, seconded by Mr. Schmidt. Roll call vote. Motion passed 4-0. For Area 2, Mr. Schmidt made a motion for an unfavorable recommendation, seconded by Ms. Reed. Roll call vote. Motion passed 4-0. For Area 3, Ms. Reed made a motion for an unfavorable recommendation, seconded by Mr. Schmidt. Roll call vote. Motion passed 4-0. For Area 4, Mr. Schmidt made a motion for an unfavorable recommendation, seconded by Ms. Reed. Roll call vote. Motion passed 4-0. Administrative Review Update None Report from Director's and Staff None Adjournment There being no further business to come before the Plan Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:20 pm. HAIS-11\lAt Mike McCutcheon, Chair Shane Shaughnessy, Secr�ta rY 8