Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

Ask me Thursday sometime. I don't think it'll be a problem. They won't make me file a sentence.

Yeah, and they're so nice. Make sure he's not working.

Over the fence. While we're drinking our coffee. Josh?

Oh, yeah.

I don't think so. I don't think I would. Yeah. I was telling all of us we can meet later. Like if we need more reasoning.

I think they'll probably just do whatever they want.

We had friends that had one back there and they sold it.

And it sold overnight. I was shocked.

Now we're good?

We are good.

Okay. Let's go ahead and bring the July 28, 2026 plan commission meeting to order. Micah, can we have a roll call and declaration of quorum, please?

Mr. Grubbs? Here. Mrs. Culp? Here. Mr. Beeman?

Here.

Mrs. Goree? Mr. Turner? Here. Mrs. Williams?

Present.

Mr. House? Present. Mr. Ikes? Present. Mr. Spencer?

Here.

Warren is present.

Okay, let's stand for a quick invocation. Pledge of Allegiance. Dear Heavenly Father, please give this commission the wisdom to make decisions that are good and healthy for our great city, Anderson, great state, Indiana, greatest country in the world, United States of America. Let's please remember that we do have men and women fighting and dying for our causes and freedoms throughout the world. Let's keep them in our heart. Amen.

Amen.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay.

We do have minutes from April and May. If we've had a chance to review those, we can approve the minutes.

Mr. President, I make a motion to approve the minutes for April 28th and May 26th of 2026. Second.

We have a motion and a second to approve April and May of 2026 minutes. All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Okay, the minutes are approved. We'll move on to business. Mr. Stiers.

Thank you. Slight reshuffling of the agenda. We do have one petition we would like to have continued again. Petition 626 submitted by Nadege Timotas for a zone map change from R2 to R3 residential. It is located at 1425 Dewey Street. It has been continued the last two months. I think even last month they mentioned they may want... a 60-day continuance, so that would be the reason for this month's continuance. So they are asking to remain in continuance until the next meeting.

6-26? 6-26, yes. The second one on the agenda. So should we just table or should we continue it, Senator Lannan?

I think you should continue to the next meeting. Because what we've been doing, it seems like after three meetings, nothing happens. We look at possibly dismissing it.

Okay. Mr. President, I move to continue 6-26 to the next meeting.

I'll second.

We have a motion and a second to continue Petition 6-26 until the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. All in favor of this continue is signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? That continuance is approved. Mr. Stiers.

Back to the top of the agenda, Petition 5-26 submitted by PR Properties. This is for a replat of Lot 20, which you see on the wall outlined in black. This is lot 201, I said lot 20, lot 201 in Evelyn Edition, located on the southwest corner of West 3rd and Locust Streets. This petition has been continued for the last three months for various reasons by the petitioner. The petitioner and their attorney are here and ready for this petition to be heard. Actual site is the southwest corner of West 3rd and Locust Streets. Consists of .148 of an acre. It is zoned R3 residential. That permits single family homes or duplexes. There are individual houses located on both ends of this lot 201. One at the north, one at the south. Staff notes the building commissioner has condemned the existing house on the rear or the south end due to its deteriorated condition and placed this house on the pending demolition list. Here's some photos. This is the front house on the north end. Front house on the north end from the side. Rear house to the south. Same house to the south. Roof of the house to the south. Okay. As you can see, it's in pretty poor condition. All utilities are available to this site. The petitioner is before the plan commission tonight through their local engineer, Steve Servies. They are requesting to split or subdivide lot 201 into two separate lots, placing each house on separate lots. City ordinance as written only allows one residential structure per platted lot. The petitioner wants to create two separate individual lots, which would afford the petitioner the opportunity to come into compliance with the ordinance. The petitioner has filed the proper replat documents to subdivide the single lot into the two lots. The petitioner is proposing to create new lots 201A and 201B. The replat shows five foot, let me get the replat on there first. The petitioner is proposing to create new lots 201A, 201B. The replat does show a 5-foot drainage utility and communication easement around the interior of both lots. A combined 10-foot drainage utility and communication easement straddles the lot line, separating the two lots. The average front setback for the homes in the block is determined from the alignment of the houses in the block. Minimum square footage of lots is not being met at this time. Staff would emphasize when platting acreage, there are minimum required lot square footages depending on the zoning of the property. The submitted replat indicates both proposed replatted lots are well below or under the minimum square footage requirement of 6,000 square feet. Lot 201A and 201B are anywhere from 2,000 to 3,500 square feet under the minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. petitioner has filed a variance request from the minimum lot size requirement for the proposed replat of these lots. Reasons for the submitted replat is to appease mortgage lenders who will no longer make loans on single lots with two houses on them. Staff-wise, we are recommending denial of this proposed two-lot replat, creating lots 201A, 201B, due to the following reasons. The existing small house has been inspected, again to the south end of the property. It has been condemned and has been placed on the city demolition list. The existing small house is considered lawful non-conforming because it exceeds the city regulation of one house per lot. The dilapidated small house should be torn down and removed. The replat being proposed is seeking to create two lots which fall well below the 6,000 square foot minimum lot size requirement. The two lots are 2,000 to 3,500 square feet below the minimum lot size requirement. Approval should result in an undesirable precedent. And there are no other pre-existing residential lots in the surrounding nearby neighborhood that measures anywhere close to the lot size in this proposed replat. Staff notes the legal ad was published way back on April the 18th. No certified notices are required when doing a replat. You do have a findings of fact sheet that I paper clipped to your staff report. It was composed by the commission attorney for a recommendation for denial. Petitioners are here represented by both their engineer, Steve Servies, and their attorney, Jonathan Cook.

Can you state your name for the record, please?

Yeah, my name is Jonathan Cook. I'm the attorney for PR Properties. I think Tim did a very good job of kind of explaining the kind of situation we have here. We do have two single-family residences on one lot. Evidently, that was a little more common back when these were created back in 1905 or something like that. Obviously, they preexist the current ordinance. That's why they're legal nonconforming residences. I do dispute one of the staff comments that there are no other similarly sized residential lots. If you look in the lower right hand corner, there are four right there. You see many of these throughout the neighborhood. I have a whole litany of examples if you want me to go through them. I'll just name a few addresses. So those four would be 318 Locust, 320 Locust, 1128 West Fourth Street. 1124 West 4th Street, but you can go on, you can go look at 322 South Madison Avenue, 324 Madison Avenue. I'll give you a couple of rough square footage of all those. 322 South Madison is 3,500 square feet. 324 Madison Avenue, 3,500 square feet. Both of these are residential properties with a single family on them.

Mr. Cook, are all of those that you're mentioning, are they lawfully nonconforming as well?

I believe so. It looks like this entire area was created back in the 1905, 1920 range.

I don't dispute that you're correct in that, but I guess it is that they're not asking for a replot.

Well, because they've already been split. So all their lots started out like this one, so a large rectangle, and they were basically created into two separate squares, essentially. Did they come before this board to do that? I don't know when they did that. I don't have any of that information, so I can't answer that question for you.

Go ahead. I'm sorry.

Yeah, that's fine. I'd rather answer your question, so I'm glad you interjected. So the the two main issues are first, we get the 6000 square foot ordinance requirement. That's why we're asking for the variance. We're saying, look, this is not a precedent because the precedent's already been set. We have a ton of these in the neighborhood. So we don't want to get bogged down with, oh, we got to apply this 6,000 square foot issue. I don't think that's the main issue, though, because obviously we've allowed that elsewhere. I think the major issue is that there's a condemnation issue. So we do have a property that is in serious need of repairs. I can't remember who actually went out there to look at this, but whoever did go out there, they obviously found some issues with it. My client believes that it can be repaired. He's had investors that are interested, obviously running into this major issue. Lenders will not lend money on this to investors to fix the property up if it has two single-family homes on it. They don't do that anymore. They used to. They don't do it now. I do think that one of the things that this body can do is you can grant or table things or put parameters on your approval. And you can say, look, We will grant this replat and variance approval, but you have to do certain things. And one of those can be you've got to fix the property up to the building code standards and all that. I think that would be appropriate under these circumstances. Again, it's kind of the chicken or the egg. We have a building that needs repair. I know that the city uses their demolition list to cause people to do repairs. The owner is definitely motivated to do this at this point. The other chicken or the egg thing is if you guys grant this variance, then you create two parcels, and then they don't fix the southern home that needs repairs. Then we've got an issue with potential tax sale because then we have a lot that is going to be empty or sold or whatever. And now what do we do with that? So if you don't grant the variance, then now we've got a parcel that is going to be sold. Does it belong to this other parcel or not? All those issues. So I do think that what we're asking, and I understand the staff's concerns, and I agree with some of those looking at the houses in the area. We definitely want to try to save houses if we can. Obviously, the petitioner let this one get in disrepair. That's his fault. But he is wanting to repair it. I think we should give him some time. That's what we're asking for today, to repair it. He's trying to do that with investors, obviously to get the investors money to be able to mortgage the property. Then I have a question.

If it's already condemned, then why would you not just pull this petition and just address that situation before you come to us?

Yeah, and again, I was brought in very late on this. To be quite honest, when I asked him about that, he said I didn't know it was condemned.

I mean, that seems to be the resolution to me. Why are we even hearing this? Yeah. you have to address the condemnation issue.

Well, I think, again, the chicken or the egg, right? So in order to get the money to fix the property up, investors have to be able to get a mortgage on the property. They won't loan on a property that has two.

How long has he owned this property?

I want to say it's 20-plus years.

So 20 years ago, this would not have been an issue, and the house wouldn't have been there like this.

Uh, they were, it was in this situation, but it wasn't condemned 20 years ago. It was not condemned two years or 20 years ago. You're right. Um, it was, it was, you know, occupied at that time.

So it seems to me it's not chicken or the egg it's cart before the horse. That's what it seems to me. Okay.

Yes. Mr. Cook. I mean, when'd you say this was, this was laid out in this neighborhood? 1905, 1910?

That's when these houses were built. I don't know when it was laid out, but I assume somewhere around there.

Is this white structure in that? I don't see the building commissioner. Is that white structure not a garage that was on this property when the house was built? It sometime has been illegally converted into a residence. I mean, I don't think there's... It's exactly what it is. But I don't think there's any evidence of that. That would fit. I mean, having served as... For 16 years, this is exactly what I saw in that area as what was put there. And then they get converted unlawfully to residence. And then we try and deal with them at a later time. The other question that you're not addressing is if this commission decided we were gonna do that and then, I'm not sure who owns this, I think I do. The building codes to remodel that, He would never adhere to it. He's not going to get fire separations and everything else because it's too close to each other.

Well, if that were the case, then all of these other houses would have the same problems. All of these other houses aren't condemned. Okay.

But they're a total different scenario. Once it's condemned, then they have to meet the building code.

So you're telling me that houses that are currently standing and having people in them do not have to meet building codes?

No, the building code, the general administrative rules for the state of Indiana dictates which ones have to meet. You're an attorney. I think you know that.

I certainly understand that.

Once the House gets condemned, then it has to be brought up to today's court.

That is very true. I understand that. I submit to you that this is far enough away that that's not a problem.

The problem of your idea of, like, we can put parameters around it is that you talk about the chicken before the egg, but once we approve it, it's approved. Certainly, yes. And so there's nothing, it's not like we can, like, go, well, we'll approve it for a short period of time, and then if you don't do it, we'll pull your approval. Is that correct? Yes. Once it's approved, it's approved.

No, I think I've certainly had, and maybe not in front of this board here, but definitely in the county and other counties, they've approved things with parameters on them.

Yeah, we've done that, but I don't know. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong. Yes. I see your hand.

Yes, Senator Lanning.

The problem my voice has is what do you do if he doesn't comply with it?

Right. Can we pull that?

Right.

That's what I'm asking. I believe so.

Other boards have done that for sure.

We've not done that. Okay. I mean, I'd have to see some authority on that.

And my thinking would be it would be conditional, obviously. So you're not actually approving it until the conditions are met.

I've seen, you know, precedents as well. You can cite them in for some sort of an ordinance violation or something like that. Right. Once, at least in terms of this board, once it makes its determination to untie that is, I don't know if there was authority for the zoning code.

Maybe what my ask would be today then is to table this and see if I can't, to Mr. Spencer's suggestion, get the condemnation issue at least a solution.

That seems reasonable to me. I mean... Mr. President, I'm ready to make a motion. I'd like to make a motion to deny petition 5-26 and adopt the findings of the facts attached thereto.

I'm willing to give time.

I'll second it. I don't think they should do it, but you can vote on it.

We have a motion and a second to deny. Petition 5-26.

Mr. Grubbs? Yes. Mrs. Culp?

I don't... Because I'm willing to give him time to prove that. So I don't know, like, right now I would say no, but also I don't mind giving... So I don't know what kind of... Can I abstain? I don't know what to do here.

If you don't agree with the motion, just vote no on it.

Right, but I also, right, I understand, but I also don't want to. He doesn't approve it. Okay.

Will this go to council anyways? No. No.

This is the jurisdiction of this body.

Yeah, and it would go to the Board of Works would have to sign it.

Right. I do have a question, if I may. If this is denied, as presented so far, the motion is, is this something that could be brought again in front of the Board? And how long before he can do that?

I'd have to look at the ordinance, Jonathan. I can't remember what it is. I was thinking there is a lapse. There is a period of time where it was barred.

I thought it was one year.

I think that might be right.

I think it's a year. That would give you time a year to get it in progress. It's not two years. It's not two years or something like that. Then I vote for an agreement with... Am I voting yes to go along with David? Deny. Okay. I also want to deny. Yes. Sorry, I'm not trying to make this complicated, but this is... Can I ask one more quick question?

Yes, sir. Mid-vote. Why is the one lot, why is it divided like this? Because the lot B is really small, even considering how small the other one is.

Yeah, and this is the other issue. So we have... Two houses. One house is being sold on contract, and that's what area is being sold to that person. Okay. And that's kind of where the fence line is, I believe, if I remember correctly. Okay.

Thank you. I mean, nobody's supposed to be asking questions. Just point of order. I understand.

I'm going to ask one other question.

Are the utilities separate on these two houses?

I could not tell you that.

So we need to research that. I have not researched that, no.

You're going to have so much information for us in a year.

It's going to be amazing.

Just to revisit, a yes vote is a vote to deny.

That's correct. I think there's yes, three yes votes now.

Mr. Turner? Yes. Mrs. Williams?

Yes. Yes, and thank you, Jennifer, for all those questions because I would have asked them to. Thank you.

Yes. Mr. House. Yes. Mr. Eichs. Yes. Mr. Spencer.

Yes. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Good.

Mr. Stiers.

Moving on to our final item on our agenda tonight. Petition 826. Submitted by Redwood USA LLC. Greg Thurman with Redwood and also GRZ Land LLC. This is for a primary plat for a single lot plat for a 160 unit apartment complex to be called Redwood Apartments Neighborhood Subdivision. It's the area with the X, big, large farm field, 40 acres, zoned R, trying to remember my notes, R4, which does permit single-family homes, duplexes, or multi-family housing apartments. They have plans to build 160 apartment units. Complete with one, two, and three bedroom units with attached garages, rather upscale type development. You will have private streets without curbs, mainly for safety and security reasons. We'll have sidewalks on one side of the private streets and also a large detention pond kind of to the southwest side of the property. This complex does adjoin the north side of the Madison Lakes Apartments. A lot of us know that as formerly the Autumn Ridge Apartments. The former Dolphin Club recreational site adjoins the west side of the proposed apartment complex site. Redeemer Baptist Church is directly north across Lindbergh Road. All utilities are available to the site, including a 12-inch water line service, 8-inch and 21-inch sanitary sewers, and a 2-inch force main, plus storm sewers and gas. The actual submitted primary plat does show the following. These are all base information. It does show the following. Proposed lot one does contain 26.52 acres. This is a proposed $35 million apartment complex will be built over a span of seven to eight years. Monthly rents will range from $1,600 to $2,600 a month. Proposed block A, which is to the west, It's on the southwest kind of quadrant. It does contain 11.31 acres. It will not be built on at this time due to some high water issues and possibly some drainage concerns, but those could change in the years to come. The proposed drawing you see on the screen shows the following features. The apartment complex will contain an interior road system with seven private streets, all starting with the word red, if you can believe that. They went out of their way to dredge all those up, too. We'll have attached sidewalks on the streets, but no curb kind of setting the sidewalk off, so it will all be a flat surface. The sidewalk will be colored differently. Concrete will be dyed, setting the sidewalks off. But it's mainly, like I said, for safety reasons. People don't have to worry about tripping over a curb if they're handicapped or in a walker or in a wheelchair. It makes for better mobility for people inside this complex. The required right-of-way dedications are shown along the south side of Lindbergh Road and the west side of Rangeland Road. There is a required 30-foot front building setback line along the interior of the north and east boundaries. The south and west boundaries show a 20-foot side yard setback line. A 66-foot access drainage utility and sanitary sewer easement coinciding with the interior private streets is shown. There is a 20-foot drainage utility and sanitary easement is noted inside the interior boundary on the north and east sides of the primary plat. There is a 20-foot sanitary sewer easement shown on the north side of the primary plat between Red Blaze Lane and Red Wagon Lane. A 20-foot drainage easement is noted along the west side along the south property line. An irregular-shaped 154-foot wide drainage easement and detention basement is shown in the center of the primary plant. There is a recorded 30-foot wide right-of-way grant extending eastward. Let me pull that up. I think I passed it up already. There it is. This will help service the stormwater drainage, taking it from the site through airport property down to White River. has filed a waiver request on the curbing that I explained earlier. Curbing is required according to our subdivision control ordinance. They are asking for a variance mainly due to design and safety reasons. Sidewalks, as I said, will be built without curbing along one side of the private streets. Sidewalks have also been designated along the south side of Lindbergh Road and on the west side of Rangeland Road. Plot review met on July 15th. Minor revisions were made and completed. Comp plan does show this as low-density residential, which means single-family homes. They are proposing apartments, so it would be in conflict with the comprehensive plan. The Plan Commission should approve this primary plat for the Redwood Apartments Neighborhood Subdivision with the following motion. I move to approve petition 826 for the primary plat for a subdivision to be known as the Redwood Apartments Neighborhood Subdivision. This primary plat is not to be forwarded on to any other governmental units. Legal ad was published as required on August 18th. Certified letters went out August 14th. We had two spokespersons here, Josh Krivelar, He is the engineer for the project, and Greg Thurman, who is with the Redwood organization. Fellows, if you can come up, introduce yourselves.

My name's Greg Thurman with Redwood USA, Vice President of Acquisitions, and I have with me Josh Kreibler with American Structure Point. They have been our engineer in the Indiana market for over 12, 13 years now.

Cribler with a C?

Yeah, it's on the plat, but it's, yeah, with a C. I can't see that. C-R-I-B-E. Okay. It's kind of an odd last name.

Not really. Do you have anything to add to Mr. Steyer's presentation?

Not really. I would just emphasize that the waivers are typically what we... propose when we do a PUD project?

I have one question on that, and I don't want to put you on the spot because I'm sure this is an oversight. But in Tim's presentation, he specifically said Mr. Thurman has a goal of attracting young professionals. Then in your letter asking for the waiver, you specifically say that most of your tenants are Empty nesters who need mobility support. So how can it be both?

Oh, it is both. Both are true. We typically don't get the growing families. We get the college kids. We get the shift workers, the doctors, the pilots, the folks that aren't going to be interested in maintaining a home. letting it go like the last petition.

There's no dock workers around here.

Well, Ball State probably has a couple. But anyway, so yeah, 50% of our market is empty nesters, 50 and over. We covered this in many of the meetings previously. But we are finding, because of the cost of down payments and new home construction being what I would consider a move up or luxury home back in the day. We're finding young professionals that will seek our product and minimize their exterior maintenance issues. So, yeah, both are true. Okay. We're proud of that.

I just thought and found out. And I know you're not doing this, but I hate it when people just put in there what they think is going to appease us. And that drives me nuts.

This has been emerging over about the last 10 years or so that young professionals are seeking a non-fee-simple situation to live. So I appreciate that. There's nothing to hide there at all.

And I don't believe that there is. Yes. I have a couple questions. So there are private streets. So you will maintain them from here on out?

That's the beauty of our proposal. We do take that off the public works.

Is that true with the sidewalks as well?

Well, we'll maintain them. The public walks will be maintained just no different than a homeowner with their front walks, and they're responsible to the curb by city ordinance.

Well.

But yes. Frontage walks or internal walks?

Your internal walks. Yeah.

Any sidewalk that you have in there. Right. Oh, yeah. Okay.

We maintain everything impeccably for forever.

Is that a retention pond around the back?

In the southwest corner, that is a detention pond.

Would that be fenced in?

It is not our intent to fence it.

There's a lot of kids in that apartment complex that's next to y'all.

We are designing it. Do I need the microphone? Yeah. Per your ordinance, we're designing it per the ordinance to ensure that we have the right slopes and the ledges and everything that makes those ponds safe. So, no, it's not our intent to put a fence around it, but we do believe we're mitigating the risk.

I wouldn't want a fence around it. I would want easy access to fish it myself.

How do you do? I think that one's 8 to 10 feet. I don't remember. It's going to be the minute after the ordinance, which is typically 8 to 10. I'm sorry, I can't remember that. Immediately off the top of my head.

Any other questions?

Here's a good example of no curbing along the edge of the street.

I don't think that's a big deal. I hate to grant waivers for sidewalks on our streets. Um, but I'm not, it's not a sword I'm going to die on unless someone else on our street.

Yeah.

That's all we know that those two are well, um, Lindbergh road is, isn't it?

Yeah, but they're putting sidewalks there. Yeah, they're putting sidewalks there.

Okay.

Your requirements for the sidewalks. Yeah. So where's the waiver then?

The waiver's those curbs. Yeah.

So it's just going to be flat. It's a technicality that requires a waiver.

An asphalt street?

No, we concrete everything for a long-term. Did you guys say that you have a, so you have...

a history of putting in this style of apartment complex and you haven't had any accidents?

That's brought up almost every application we make and we have yet to have an emergency run with the hit and run. Our speed limits are less than 15 miles an hour for insurance reasons and the folks that walk their pets whether the sidewalk's there or not, but they'll walk down the center of the street anyway. So that's why we've learned to make it ADA compliant so that there's no trip hazards, no jump out of the way and trip on a curb hazard. We are required by law to have ADA access conformity and we found that this solution was highly regarded by the ADA compliance folks.

Do you have other properties here in the Anderson area?

No, this will be our first market into Anderson. We are in Fort Wayne, and we will connect dots as we go up the road. We're acquiring a property in Pendleton, and we'll convert that to a Redwood property, one of our first we've ever done like that. But the 69 corridor now is just... Flowing. It's flowing.

It's a wonderful thing. Yeah. Any further questions? Mr. House, did you have a question?

No, that was it. I just wanted to document it, that they have a history. They haven't had an issue with the other apartment complexes with this curbing style. It's kind of like a – I think people will drive slow. It's kind of like a – like a trailer park or like a vacation area. There's all these drives all in the same area. People do drive naturally slower and they start walking out. So I think it's good. I don't have any more questions.

If we did have a remonstrator, I think he left. He's not a remonstrator.

Steve's not a remonstrator. He's not? No, he's a friendly neighbor now. Okay, so you've worked everything out with him.

He lives across the street.

He lives across the street there. Okay. In the beginning, sure.

Any further questions from commission members? Mr. Delabaste, do you have any questions? You're the only audience member left. Okay. Is the commissioner ready to take action?

I move to approve Petition 826 for the primary plot for a subdivision to be known as Redwood Apartment Neighborhood Subdivision. Second. The primary plot is not to be forwarded to any unit.

With a waiver for the curbing requirement.

Second.

Motion and a second to approve Petition 8-26, a primary plot with a waiver from the curbing requirement. Can we have a roll call vote of the commission members, please?

Mr. Grubbs?

Yes.

Mrs. Cole? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Hey, thank you. Appreciate it. Good luck. Mr. Stiers.

Last item under miscellaneous, this reverts back to the project we just talked about. The third and final yes vote on the rezoning of this ground from R2 to R4 took place before City Council back on June 11th. So that's how we ended up tonight here with the primary plot because now it is an R4 zone class. That is all.

Thank you. Okay, thank you. I think motion is adjourned. Motion is accepted and we are adjourned.