Marathon meeting results in tabling of PUD proposal

With February about to morph into March and the City Plan Commission meeting passing the four-hour, 15-minute mark, a decision to table a Planned Unit Development (PUD) project for Greencastle’s northeast side put an end to the marathon session Monday night.

After nearly three hours of discussion on it alone, Glenview North Planned Unit Development -- an Aspire Building Group project proposed for 21.08 acres of vacant land between Fawnview Drive and Albin Pond Road -- was tabled. That will give city officials a chance to consider all the information presented, to work with the developers to answer affected residents’ questions and possibly initiate a traffic study.

“We owe it to the community and we owe it to the developer to check things out,” Mayor Bill Dory said addressing an audience of 67 that required extra chairs to be brought to the Council chambers from all corners of City Hall.

The subdivision request had been previously tabled by the Greencastle Board Zoning Appeals (BZA) at its November meeting and then withdrawn before returning Monday night as a planned unit development (PUD).

A PUD is a community of homes that could look like single-family residences, townhomes or condos, and can include both residential and commercial units, but on paper, they’re most similar to condos.

The new layout calls for 29 single and 15 two-family structures as proposed by developer David Drake and builder James Carrell, both of Heritage Lake. The new proposal calls for 16 individual lots on the north end for single-family dwellings, while the southern portion will include 15 paired patio homes (duplex) and 13 single-family dwellings.

While it was already after 11 p.m. when the mayor made the motion to table, builder Carrell kept the dialogue alive, stressing that he cares about the community, noting that he and Drake have already invested $55,000 of their own money “just to get to this point.”

Carrell said the developers see “a huge need” for housing for those 55 and older with nothing available locally, as well as the availability for developing custom homes.

He also warned that he’s been approached by another developer who would like to purchase the land and put 40 homes of 1,600 square feet on the site as rentals.

“Talk about hurting property values,” Carrell said, stressing that the property would not work as SD1 (single-family residential).

Danville attorney Amy Comer Elliott introduced the project for the petitioners, stressing that it is a multi-step, probably six-month process. Monday night’s session was meant to be discussion of a concept plan. A PUD, she said, should be considered to address the unique needs of the property.

“This is 21 acres that’s been kind of left over because of the development all around it,” Elliott said, calling it “in-fill” development. “We’re trying to preserve those natural features, which is why it’s a PUD.”

The single-family homes would be in the $300,000-$600,000 range. No spec homes will be built, they will all be custom homes.

Carrell said the houses would range from 2,000 square feet to 2,800 square feet. “That’s the market right now,” he said.

Gary Bowser, whose Toddson Drive home backs up to the property, was the first to speak in opposition of the proposal, saying it should not be allowed as a PUD because it already qualifies as SD1.

“We shouldn’t even be here talking about this right now,” Bowser said. “A PUD can’t be used if something else applies.”

He added that the Plan Commission wasn’t just viewing a concept plan Monday night. “If you approve a PUD tonight, it’s done,” he reasoned.

City Planner Scott Zimmerman said he felt PUD “was the way to go to meet development standards within the area.”

Nothing that 81 letters were sent out to landowners within 250 feet of the property, Bowser said “it should be the city’s job to make sure what the developer is going to do is not going to hurt us.”

Bowser, a retired Indiana Department of Transportation engineer, said he is “really concerned about several of these intersections,” adding that the city shouldn’t make a decision until it has an engineering report and traffic study at least.

“You can’t compromise the safety, health and welfare of the public,” Bowser added.

Next up was Brian Ramey, 920 Evensview Drive, who said he was “not anti-development; we’re pro-perfect development.”

He, too, said the whole idea of a PUD wasn’t appropriate but was “being applied because it’s a more expedient way” rather than going through the zoning process.

Joe Zeiner, who resides at 411 Fawnview Lane, said his 4,000-square-foot home is 60 feet from the property line, while the planned home in the subdivision behind him would only be 10 feet from that line.

“We’ve got an ordinance been in place for 20 years, those of us who live here expect you to enforce it. We shouldn’t have to redraw the wheel,” Zeiner said.

Dennis Weatherford, who resides at 706 Toddson Drive, said density, setback, buffering and screening need to be addressed in the PUD because the PUD will replace development standards.

When the previous condos in the area were developed, Weatherford and two other homeowners bought property to help create their own buffers.

“You can have compromise and make it work,” he said, adding that there is indeed a need for upper-end housing for professionals. “The property needs to be developed. It’s a piece of prime real estate and we need to do it right.”

Local attorney John Zeiner suggested that the commission send the development back to the Tech Review Committee “and let developers put it together with some of things we’ve heard tonight.”

In her closing remarks, attorney Elliott called the development site “an extremely unusual piece of property.”

“It’s an odd, Frankenstein, 21-acre piece that constrained,” she said. “It can’t be underwater or nobody will ever develop it.”

The matter is scheduled to be considered again at 7 p.m. on Monday, March 28 at City Hall.

While the PUD proposal was the main event, two other items were considered by the Plan Commission:

-- Tim and Kim Shinn, who have done an estimated 40 home renovations, received permission for a minor subdivision of a 1.26-acre site at 904 E. Washington St. into three lots, including two for future development, with a waiver to allow a reduction in lot depth and lot width on one lot and reduction of lot width on another. One lot and an existing home face Washington Street, while a third lot faces Hammond Drive.

-- Chuck W. and Lori A. Pingleton saw their request tabled. They want to rezone 3.36 acres bordered by North College Avenue to the west, the railroad to the north, the city garage to the south and intersected by Barnaby Mill Road on the city’s North Side. The Pingletons, represented by local attorney Scott Bieniek, asked to rezone the site from Single-Family Dwelling (SD1) to Light Industrial (L1) to accommodate use of the property to process lumber from old barns, preparing some for wholesale or used on site to create handcrafted custom furniture.

In other business, the commission re-elected a slate of officers with Doug Wokoun as president, Eric Wolfe as vice president and Zimmerman as secretary. Wokoun was also appointed as the Plan Commission’s two-mile fringe representative to the Greencastle Board of Zoning Appeals, succeeding Wayne Lewis, whose term has expired.

On hand for the lengthy meeting were Mayor Dory, Wokoun, Wolfe, Donnie Watson, Matt Welker, Emily Knuth, Mark Hammer, J.D. Miller and Jeff Mahan. Tim Trigg was absent and a vacancy exists on the panel.