PLANNING
COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES OF MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2007
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman called the meeting to order at
6:30 p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
Don Bergwall, Ken Kraus, Pat Soller, Pete
Griffin, John Cunningham. Alan Seymour,
Roger Yoder
OTHERS PRESENT:
Greg DeLong
ADMINISTRATION
COMMENTS: None
CITIZEN
COMMENTS: None
OLD BUSINESS:
Review Proposed language for Homeowner’s Associations (POA’s)
Mr. DeLong stated what he passed out tonight was the changes to the POA
language that were discussed at the last special meeting. This is a final draft which includes input
from the City Engineer and the City Law Director.
Mr. Seymour stated his thoughts are the general purpose is a little
wordy. Mr. Bergwall agreed.
Mr. Kraus stated he thinks it is a decent statement on how the City would
view a POA.
Mr. Seymour stated this is legislation and the first statement doesn’t
fit.
Mr. Bergwall stated from a matter of consistency, because it was in
another code, we say something similar in the beginning of the PUD chapter.
Mr. Seymour stated on the second sentence, how does
this preserve the architectural integrity. Mr. Cunningham stated a lot of POA’s have paint restrictions and other deed restrictions.
Mr. Bergwall stated in the first sentence, I don’t want this to be
confused and people to think that POA’s are only
associated with PUD’s. Mr. Cunningham
stated he doesn’t think it would be confusing to the general public.
Mr.
Yoder stated he would scratch everything every thing in the middle of “The POA
is” and “ intended to promote”.
Commission agreed.
Mr. Griffin stated he likes having the statement there because it gives focus on the fact that
the POA is important in the community.
Mr. Seymour asked where it was left at the last meeting. We are not requiring every development,
right? Mr. Bergwall stated it is
something that we will have to discuss further in the text. Mr. Cunningham stated how else are you going to take care of shared property.
Mr. Bergwall stated he stated out from if you are going to do a
development that will have common properties, then you would have a POA. It would be a shall. That part was taken out.
Mr. Seymour stated it is something that we ask when every development
comes before us.
Mr. Cunningham stated you are creating an association that has no
definition. If I come in and it says
this is what your POA has to be, and I say I don’t have a POA. Then I could skirt the laws entirely.
Mr. Kraus stated he doesn’t think that you can skirt them. Mr. Cunningham stated if you claim that you
don’t have one. It doesn’t say anywhere
that you have to have one.
Mr. Yoder stated he thinks it should be started as “The POA should
provide a collective voice on matters of common concern …”
Mr. Bergwall stated it needs to be kept in mind that the General Purpose
statement is still intact as it was written in the original draft.
Mr. Soller stated the City can only enforce the maintenance of common
properties. They can’t enforce anything
that the deed restrictions say are reducing property value or not preserving
the architectural value.
Mr. Kraus stated he doesn’t think there is anything wrong with the General
Purpose as stated. Being broad like it
is covers most of the sins. The comment
that was raised as to where in the code do we require POA’s. The more I think about it, I don’t think we
should require it but only encourage it.
I can live with the General Purpose as it is.
Mr.
Seymour stated in 1110.02, the last sentence of the first paragraph states
document should be submitted with the final plat. He stated he thinks they should be submitted
with the preliminary plat so it establishes the intent to have one.
Mr. Griffin stated in 1110.02 a. he thinks it should be reworded a little
and add to the end “that have common areas.”
Mr. DeLong asked the commission where they left 1110.01.
Discussion held to reword 1110.01.
1110.01 language will be, “Property Owner’s
Association represents the property owners of a planned community. It is intended to be the vehicle for the
community communication and for maintaining the common areas and services that
exist for the benefit of each member of the association.”
Mr. Bergwall stated as we get into the next section, 1110.02, the point
of confusion that I have is we begin with restricted open space then in b. we
talk about common areas including restricted open space. Then later we talk about all open space and
on the next page we talk about common properties and easements. We have a variety of things and have taken
out common and services in the opening paragraph, but the way this is worded,
restricted open space can be an easement on an individual lot. I don’t think our intent was to legislate
over that.
Mr. Seymour stated it sounds like there needs to be a definition.
Mr. DeLong stated the commission received a letter from Phil Roush
regarding adding easements to the language.
The commission agreed to it.
Mr. Kraus read Mr. Roush’s memo.
Mr. Bergwall stated what he takes Mr. Roush to mean is in Walker Meadow’s
for instance, they have a reserve area on each side of the entrance way. Along with the reserve area there are
easements along the right of way adjacent to the reserves. I wouldn’t think he would be talking about
the utility easements in everyone’s yards.
Discussion held regarding the interpretation of Mr. Roush’s memo.
Discussion held regarding defining items the POA should be responsible
for and how it’s worded.
Mr. Soller asked in 1110.02 what are the documents are they supposed to
submit. Mr. Cunningham stated it is in
the text and the documents have to support what is being asked for.
Mr. Seymour asked if everyone is okay with 1110.03. Commission stated yes.
Mr. Kraus stated in 1110.05 it should also reference1113.99.
NEW BUSINESS:
Review of potential
properties to rezone to GOV district
Mr. Kraus stated he has three properties in
mind for the GOV district. One is the
county property on SR 4 N., second is the county/city/school properties on both
sides of Amrine Mill Rd. and the third is the school
property on SR 4 S.
Mr. DeLong asked about the Reformatory
property. Mr. Kraus stated his question
on that would be do they still do farming.
Mr. DeLong stated Agricultural is permitted.
Mr. Seymour stated if we were asked why do we see a need or desire to create a GOV district, what is
the benefit in adding legislation.
Mr. Kraus stated the district is already
created.
Mr. Seymour stated he understands that, but
why.
Mr. Soller stated it is to prevent the sale of
government property to commercial developers with out it at least having to go
through a zoning process first.
Mr. DeLong stated the school on SR 4 S. and
county property on SR 4 N both currently have township zoning and we have
nothing to enforce. It needs to be
changed to City zoning.
Mr. Seymour asked about the City Hall
building. Mr. Kraus stated it is too
small.
Mr. Yoder stated it only requires 2 acres.
Review
Chapter 1137
Mr. DeLong stated he is not sure where they
want to start on this. Currently our code
is based off of the 1987 SIC codes. We
are currently in the process of converting them to the NACIS. He stated this will be a very tedious
process.
Mr. Kraus stated 1137.02 should be
deleted. There used to be a spreadsheet
that had all of the district regulations on it.
That spreadsheet no longer exists and I don’t know if it is even
possible to create one.
PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL
MEETING
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2007
PAGE 5
Discussion held regarding how to approach the
district regulations.
INDIVIDUAL
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS:
Kraus- None
Bergwall- None
Soller- None
Cunningham- None
Yoder- None
ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting adjourned