Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

If it's going to the BZA, that means that it would be a um like a variance type of situation. And so the BCA is regularly hears that type of decision making. So they would be able to really do a very good job. So it' be kind of like they will be the in effect historic preservation commission if you don't have any. Well, we would have building inspector first layer. If the building inspector says no, you can't do that, then it would go to BCA and BCA would make the decision yes and do what the Historic Preservation Commission would have previously done.

Correct. But the difference between the BCA and the Historic Preservation Commission is that BCA regularly hears people come before them for changes to the ordinance as opposed to so that that they're used to that sort of conversation. So they're in a very good position to make determinations based on that sort of framework was the rationale.

Anyone have the time? It's time. Miller time. Let's call call the meeting to order with the pledge of allegiance, please. 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 need a roll call, please. Mark Mills, here. Larry Moer here. Mike Nichols here. Joe Stevens here. Isaac Chavez. Joseph Bookwalter here. Chris Alba.

Okay. And the next item on the agenda is our minutes from June 25th. But reading down who was here that night, only three of us were here that night. So unless other members arrive. Um Isaac and Chris will not be here. So So without Isaac here, we really can't vote on the minutes. So we'll have to just wait till the next meeting to do I think it automatically just continues, right? No motion or anything. Nope.

Okay. Then the first item in new business is docket CPC 20508 city of Frankfurt UDO unified development ordinance amendment historic preservation overlay district and also a second topic of streets. I'll turn it over to Mr. Stock.

Welcome back guys. It's been a while since uh we've met. It's good to see you all and hopefully we can have a a good meeting this evening. And uh Alicia, I I thank you for giving your time this evening. I I was really anticipating a lot more firefighters here tonight to have a discussion on the on the streets. So that's why I asked you to come just and to make sure that we were marching along. And then I do have a question as we approach and and start to deal with the streets.

So the first thing we're going to talk about is um the historic preservation overlay district. This is something that um we've actually worked on for a long long period of time. Um we finally are bringing it before you for your recommendation to to the council to uh adopted into the unified development ordinance. So let's give you a little history and a background on why we're doing this. Um so the historic preservation board was disbanded and when that happened um then that meant that uh uh all of the requirements that followed the board was not going to be able to be I guess in in in we couldn't use it. We we because it it referred everything back to the historic preservation board. So, basically what we did was we went into this this overlay and the mayor um wanted us to uh we had the discussion and we said, "Hey, let's let's not do a historic preservation group. Let's just make it an overlay project for the for the historic districts." Putting the building inspector and the building service office, kind of the front runners. And uh everything would come through those two offices, the building services with the in with the building inspector making the the final calls on on these items in in uh the overlay district because a lot of the changes that were going to be made would be made through building and he's the building inspector. So a lot of it falls upon uh uh Rob as our building inspector. So basically what we did is we took the or the ordinance from the historic preservation group and wherever it recognized the group we changed it to the building inspector or we changed it to the building service office depending on what was being discussed or what was

going to be changed. Um for the most part it it's almost word for word. Only the thing is is now it's in an overlay district being governed by both myself and by Rob uh to make sure that uh everything is running in a in a kind of harmonious way uh in in this in these two districts. Um, I know that Alicia and we'll have her explain it again to the point of, "So, what happens if we make a decision and they disagree with it and they want to um go to a higher means to to say, "Hey, we don't agree with what either Rob or Don does." So, Alicia, if you'll explain that. So the rationale with the building services department and the building inspector is that when you're doing a historic preservation sort of project, you're generally doing something that's going to be required to have an inspection regardless with the exception of things like painting and that sort of thing. But as far as materials and um you know whether they're using the appropriate materials, that sort of thing, there's really no one better than the building inspector to make a decision about a material usage uh and whether or not it would fall within the scope of the historic preservation uh document that we've got and the and the guidelines there. So that was the rationale with the building inspector. If the decision is no, you can't do something, um it doesn't fall within our guidelines, then they would have the opportunity just like with a decision, no, you can't um put the fence up because it's not, you know, it's it's too close to a corner or something like that. They would have the ability to come before the board of zoning appeals and request sort of a variance just like they could with any other other building standards. And the rationale behind having the board of zoning appeals hear these kinds of discussions is because

that generally speaking when someone comes before the board of zoning appeals they are requesting a change from our standard ordinance. And similarly if they're requesting a change from our historic preservation ordinance they are not following it or they don't want to follow it for some reason the board of zoning appeals could hear that discussion as well. and they're perfectly positioned to hear those sorts of of uh conversations because that's what they do for everything else uh with regard to variances and special exceptions and those sorts of things. So that was the rationale. Practically speaking, how it works is if a person wants to repaint their house, they would go in front of uh the building services department. They would say, "Hey, this is the color that I'm selecting." building services would vet it, see if it falls within our historic preservation overlay guidelines. If it meets those, then they would grant them the authority to do that, and they would move forward with painting their house. If they wanted to paint it purple or something like that that did not fall within our guidelines, they would be able to go in front of the board of zoning appeals if they wanted to appeal that decision and and get a a ruling from them. So it just kind of makes sense as far as um having those two different groups uh manage that and and follow through with it. So that's how it practically would work.

So what happens is is that if you recommend it down to the to the council um we're going to put this in chapter 4, which is the overlay districts in the UDO. Um and then uh we'll we'll follow the guidelines. And you know, I I want to talk a little bit about that because, you know, we're we're not like a a black and white group of individuals here when it comes to these and and I'll I'll use the example of just right across the the uh the uh uh street here or the alleyway. Uh the the house over here wanted to put a gazebo up. Um they did. they wanted to put a metal roof on and the historic preservation group said, "No, we're not going to let you do that because the metal roof isn't what would be normally part of a roofing system under the historic guidelines and so they wouldn't do that." So, um it just turned down down the line that when they removed the the group, um they then came back to us to our office and asked about the metal roofing. We saw no issue with the metal roofing. If you look at the gazebo, it looks very very nice with the metal roofing on. And so, um, we we try to do a little common sense and we we we try not to overthink the process. Um, the guideline that we really like to follow is we'd rather have the house taken care of and and and cleaned up and looked nice um versus not doing anything because we won't let you you have to put back the original sighting or we're not going to let you do this, we're not going to let you do that. Um, we are very stickler on the building itself. If it has to deal with, let's say, a lead glass window or something that makes it a unique uh part of the to the home. Um, we're we're going to be very sticklers

to make sure that all those stay in place. Um, because we feel like that is the historic value of the house. But when you get into windows, um, you know, I'm not here to pay their their heating bill. And if they want to put a window in toh update the house, I don't have an issue with that. We try to tell them to put the same size window in, and we try to tell them to put the same look of the window in. So, um, uh, we have a lot of discussions about those things. If they can do it, they do. If they don't, they come back and give us examples of what they can put in. and and we we roll off of that. So, we're a little more lenient on on some things. Some things we'll we'll stay pretty firm about, but um we hope that you'll recommend this down to the council for passage and adoption into the UDO. And I'm ready for any questions that you may have on this issue.

Let me give a little more background on this. When we were doing the original Frankfurt UDO, this is like four, five, six years ago, we had a lot of discussion about actually putting it in the ordinance back then because see Frankfurt has had a separate historic district ordinance for quite a bit of time way before the UDO. It was a separate ordinance and it made sense in my opinion to put it in the ordinance then. We did not. Yeah, I was kind of out voted back then and um and so so it's a really it's a good thing to get get it into the ordinance and but but there just a couple clarifying points. You're still going to be doing certificate of appropriatenesses, right? Yes. And but and that'll rest with you as the building service office. Correct.

That's correct. But as far as the day-to-day enforcement, it'll rest with the building inspector who technically is not part of your office. It's actually except she share an office but command goes through the U board of works right

that that is true but the the whole issue or the is the situation in that matter is is that he is his own office he works through the building service office. So um basically what it is is that people will come in and and uh bring their their recommendations of what they want to do to fix the building. um it'll fall in the hands of of of Rob to check through it. And and normally we would go out together to make a decision. Um I can tell you that I I'll give you an example of a house that we we did stop on painting. Um it was here on uh East Street here in town and they were painting it. Um, I I call it like the wicked witch of the west green and uh and it was not not appropriate for the historic preservation. So we we stopped them from painting it, asked them to to uh change the color. They did and they ended up making it into like a burnt orange color which was appropriate for the and you know it still may be a little bit brighter than what you'd like but it's appropriate for a historic uh uh district. So, um, very thankful for all that to happen, but, um, you know, I I would been the one who'd gone out to say, "Hey, it's it's a paint, so I'm going to deal with that." If it had to do with structural thing, then it would have been robbed. So, we try to tag team on those things, but as in a building permit, the occupancy actually falls through the UDO process. So,

and certificate of appropriateness actually comes first. So you'd make the call first and then the building inspector would kind of enforce that call. That would be true.

Okay. And then the other the another question is it references the local historic districts. Okay. Are we anywhere in this ordinance actually officially adopting those historic districts or is it only in contained in the old separate ordinance and somehow we need to seem like we need to get into the zoning on the zoning map. The historic districts are a completely separate process from the historic standards. So the historic districts were adopted uh were adopted and recognized by the state. There was a process to go through that to create those historic districts through the state. And so we do reference those districts. those will remain a separate um because of the way in which they are adopted and the way that the state requires adoption of those historic districts. Those are not going to be specifically um they're incorporated by reference. Basically, we're not we're not going to change those districts in any way. They were adopted through the state process. And so those districts remain exactly as they are. And then this document references those those districts

somewhere in here. That's what I was getting at because we need to reference those already adopted maps in a separate ordinance and officially make it part of our zoning which is like the Christian ridge district the you know east you know Clinton Street area south Jackson downtown meaning like a map is that because see it refers here in the ordinance to a local historic district LHD and those are actually shown on on a historic map that actually comes from the historic study that was many years ago and then the city adopted that, you know, and this whole ordinance is actually a kind of a state model ordinance just just so you all know that. And

and and the districts, it it was a study they did for every county. I mean, by by that I mean the state actually studied every county and identified historic districts, historic structures. It's a it's a great resource to have and this is the standard language that most it's kind of like the flood plane standards. We're kind of having to have to lock into what the state gives us as their boilerplate matrix, right? And uh but the districts we can still determine where they are. We just need to make make sure the language is in here saying, "Yeah, that those maps previously adopted are officially part of the zoning map because it's not going to be part the text is going to be part of the zoning ordinance." And so the maps need to be part of the zoning map in my opinion.

It may just be a matter of just saying it somewhere. It doesn't say it. I I guess I never noticed that it's not referenced in as far as the Christian religion, but I thought it was I thought it was even in the definition. because we should define it because it's it's going to matter to somebody who's right along the line somewhere, you know, and I'm actually in the Christian ridge. I got I I got to deal with this process myself last year when it was a free, you know, not in the zoning ordinance. And uh it's um

okay. It it does it does have the um it does have the local historic district as a single building structure object or site in or a concentration of building structures, objects, spaces or sites the boundaries of which are described or delineated on a map approved in an ordinance adopted under this title. So, we need to have that because all of our other overlays are actually on the zoning map, right? So, if this is now an overlay, it would need to also be on the zoning map. Yeah. So, what we'll need to do, Don, is we'll need to add the um the maps to the UDO as well. Okay.

Then, do we have to advertise it then as zoning map amendments? I would say no because what I would do is I would just attach them to this overlay district section because we're not changing the zoning. We're just adding the maps for the overlay district. So, I don't think we need to advertise them for a zoning change because it's not going to change their zoning at all. Not at all. Yeah.

Yeah. because I'm I very much support this and having it in our city and and you know I'm just glad you know we're having some good enforcement of it and uh and hopefully in the future you know because because we paid a lot of attention to it over the years even before it was really strictly enforced and now it has been in recent years and for a while it almost got too strict and now it's kind of going back to more I'd say common sense you know trying trying to keep the the the look of the structure the same the best you can and still allow to be a little bit of updating to do be done to the buildings.

Right. I I think the focus really has been as Don said earlier, there have been some people that had tried to repair their buildings and weren't able to do so because they couldn't afford the materials that were required by the Historic Preservation Commission. Um, and so the idea that is it better to have a house that's falling down because we can't afford the materials to fix it or is it better to have a house that is structurally sound and safe? And so there's there's got to be a balance there. And I think that that has been a focus of of this process to try and find that balance. But if if you you want to talk about sighting, you know, um it all comes in different sizes, fours and sixes, I think maybe eights. You probably know more, Joe, than I do. And and we try to say, "Hey, let's look at your lap. And if you're going to make it final, then let's try to make it the same lap that's on the house. We're not saying you got to keep the wood the same, but we we try. And sometimes you can do that, sometimes you can't. Uh but but we we try to do the best we can to try to make the house stay the look that it that it should uh with the materials that we have the bill will work with. So

and and one of the key things is if you have a window like this, particularly like an 1890 window like this, don't go putting a window like this in or if you tear off your 1895 Victorian front porch, at least put back a porch that looks something like it. That's right. not just a slab, couple steps, you know, which you do see all over the place before we had these ordinance. And that's why because historic districts standards can really enhance values in the whole area. And that's why I'm in fact I kind of bought my house because I knew it was in the historic district to be honest and so I very much support this and so the main thing I

well the main thing I see wrong is and really like most of it but telling people what color they can paint their house I I still honestly I disagree with you on that. Yeah. I mean we they pay their mortgage, they pay their property taxes, their utilities, they keep their yard up. Shouldn't they be able to pick out what color they like? I mean, just because we don't like it, why are we telling them they have to, you know?

Well, I think that the the challenge that you have with that is is um if you're living beside me in a historic district and you paint your house uh a wicked purple color and I've got my house up for sale. And so people come and look at my house and they go, "Man, I'd like to buy your house, but I'm not going to because I'm not gonna live beside that purple monster house right there." So then I'd be happy once what you do to your property affects the value of my property. Then I think that you got to look at at uh the ability to say what you can and can't do in paintwise. Very seldom do we turn anybody down. But if you put up a a a bright pink or a orange color that's glows during the night, we're we're probably going to come and have a talk with you. Um, but you know, as I said, of all the houses have been painted, we've stopped one so far.

And and one of the biggest complainers about that green house you talked about was actually from a business in the neighborhood, I think. Right. Well, it was it was the fact that it was so bright that it you could see it way down the road. And several calls about that one.

I mean, I I can give you example on on South Street. Um, Pastor Leo was painting a house and um, it was it was a pink color, Pepto-Bismol pink, and I'm like, "Ah, Leo, you know better than that." So, we drove by to a house in the district down the street to compare it to what what was going on. And when we came back, the pepismal pink house was now a a real pretty green, light green, real pretty green color. And Leo was there and he goes, "Oh, yeah." He says, "Uh, my primer is white, pink, and what do you say?" Steel.

Steel. Yeah. So, um, we just like to get the neighborhood riled up. I said, "Well, you did a good job." Because we had calls that came in when that pink hit the hit the wall. So, um, but you know, we we go out and we'll check. Uh, but I I do believe that, you know, you you want to try to keep the tones of paints down as best as you can. So, I mean, I can understand asking them to, but tell them, you know, it's an ordinance I don't agree with. If I like that color and I want to paint my house like that, who's to tell me what to do when I pay my old bills? If you're in a historic district, it'll be me.

I I think I think I think the the thing to keep in mind and remember is there are always going to be ordinances that tell people what to do with their property. Whether that's a mowing ordinance, that's an ordinance that says, you know, you can't put your fence on, you know, on the property line, that's an ordinance that says that you, you know, can't put a playground in the front yard, whatever the case may be. There are always going to be ordinances that tell people what they can and they can't do with their property. And part of being in a city and part of being in a community is that you're going to have those those ordinances in place. And there are complaints all of the time from different people because of different things. Um, you know, they can't put their shed in their front yard. They can't do different things. And I I think

on the grass,

they can't park on the grass. There are all kinds of ordinances that people don't like. And and I while I understand the frustration with that and and the ability to do what you can do with your property and what you want to do with your property, the reason that those ordinances are in place is because, you know, the government officials have worked really hard to to make Frankfurt a nice place to live and uh a nice place to to see with, you know, while you're walking through the neighborhoods. And so while they may not always hit the mark exactly, the goal is that we're providing a a place that that the majority of the people um you know like to be in and and like to look at and and that's the goal. And so I I think just keep in mind that while there are ordinances out there that we may not like, the goal is that we're trying to make it a a beautiful place to live and to be. And in order to further that goal, there has to be some guidelines in place to tell people what to do with their property.

I understand that to a point, but as far as color, I I don't see where Another good example is the bright yellow house on Wabash Street. It's right behind my house. Okay. With orange trim. Yeah. And I I I I compliment them when they paint in it because it it needed a paint job bad. But bright yellow in the historic district just doesn't quite fit. We used to have one down here with Disney characters. But but I will say though, that house sits right next door to to a former Grand Victorian house that that that's now on Don's probably close to the top of Don's list as far as houses that need remediation. Yeah. Right across the alley. That's one of the local rentals that is not in very good shape.

And I much prefer the yellow house to that I call it the junker behind the across the alley from the yellow house, you know. And um so it's it's um Tom, just so I understand it that I don't I I certainly support this thing. If it's pain or something like that and they come and see you, that's something you handle that you guys handle in in house. That's right. If it's construction, then it goes to Rob. Mhm. So nothing ever goes to Boza unless Rob has something that probably in the construction of it that would need Boza's approval. Is that right? They they would nothing. When When you say as in Moses approval, who which which whose approval? BAZA.

BZA. Oh, I call it Moses. Yeah. Voting. Um, well, I mean, they really a lot of the things that they're going to be doing to the historic houses probably will not require the BCA to be actively engaged in it at all. Um, because they're not going to be changing the building itself. Yeah. Okay.

It's difficult to add on to them. Um, if you add on to them, you can add on to the back side of it because it's out of sight, out of mind. We don't don't really care. And what you do to the inside of the building, we we really don't care. Um, so I can't think of any variances that would be required for them to unless we go to what Alicia had said where we say, "No, you can't put a bright red shingle on your house." Well, we want to put a bright red shingle on your house. If you're telling me no, then we'd like to go to the BZA and ask for a variance or a change. So, um, that that would occur that way. Okay. And speaking of this painter, would you call him Reverend Leo? Reverend Leo.

Yeah. He needs a copy of the sign ordinance. There is no way unless he has a workforce of 400 painters that he is painting on every house in this town that he has a sign in front.

Here's what we here's what we allow. Uh Larry, I know it's we're off the topic here. Uh but what we allow is uh if he has done work there. The sign usually is able to stay there for 30 days because that's that's what's required in the UDO. You can do that. If you're doing construction work on a house, you can advertise for that length of time. And I mean, I'm not out checking it. I'm I'm not out. But if I see one that's been there for a while, I I usually will say something to to Pastor Leo. He's even got a billboard painted on Whisky's fence down there. I'm not sure that's part of the ordinance. Let's Let's get refocused here to the historic district.

Well Well, in my opinion though, the key thing is a certificate of appropriateness rest with Don, which makes it zoning related, you know, and it's not and that comes first, I think. Mhm. And and and as far as paint, since that might be an issue at city council, how many tens if not hundreds of pink alternatives are there? I mean, it's not where you have to go five or 10. I mean, there's probably 100, 200 different

as, as I said, we've only dealt with with one house. Um, a lot of people will come in and we'll have that discussion prior to them purchasing the paint. What we normally will say, here is the historic pallets. You can pick one from any of these colors that's in the historic palette. Um the palette we have is from Sherwin Williams. Doesn't mean that you have to buy from Sherwin Williams. And if you can get the paint close to the same color, we're we're going to be good with you. Um so we we do the best we can to work with them. We're just going to be, you know, just protective of not having something that um doesn't need a street light because your house is so bright. So,

okay. Any more questions or discussion? Because the motion would come next and and this would be a recommendation to city council. I think the the one thing would be to make sure we get the language in to officially make the map. Yeah. So, if if we wanted to make the recommendation to city council, what I would recommend is that you recommend it to city council with the incorporation of the uh local historic district maps as part of the zoning map. Yeah,

correct. I would I would make a motion that uh we would make a uh you say a recommendation to the city council a recommendation for approval to the city council with the incorporation of the local historic district maps into the ordinance. That's my exact motion. You said it very well. I'll second that. Any more discussion? I will have a roll call to favorably certify to the city council with the amendment. Mark Mills. Yes. Larry Moer. Yes.

Mike Nichols. Hi. Joe Stevens. Hi. Joseph Bookwalter. Hi. Thank you very much. I should have said when we got started that when you make a recommendation to the council on on anything that goes there, your recommendation is either you approve it, you don't approve it, or you send it down with no uh either way. You just send it down. So, those are the three ways that you would send it to the council as far as uh heading their direction. That's what the county plan commission actually did with the data center. They sent it up with no recommendation, which is always the third option. Yeah.

Yeah. All right. So, another thing that we would we're we're addressing into the UDO is um we've worked a long period of time on on a on a ad address adjusting our streets uh in our UDO. I'm I'm I'm going to kind of hop around because the last thing I want to put in places or to discuss is the width of the streets because that's what seems to get a lot of folks excited. So, um I think we'll talk about how we're going to do um uh our driveways and our sidewalks and we'll hop around a little bit. So, and I'll I'll try to guide you through this. So, the first thing that we'll talk about um will be right off the bat 70311 um number two where it says all street shall complete be completed to the dimensions required by crosssections and work performed in the manner of detail in this section. And then right below it in red which shows you the what we're trying to add is a minimum of 14 in of subgrade treatment cement stabilization adding cement and water to the existing material that has been cut to grade tilling and to rolling. Note alternative to this typical 12 in of compacted 53 aggregate after removing 12 in of existing material. a minimum of 3 in of compacted 53 aggregate, 4 in of HMI, uh, gaze number 25 M O, uh, two, one and a half, 2 and 1/2 in. Um, and and so basically what we're we're doing is we're we're saying when you do the street, this is the materials that we like to have. This comes from um at at the time it came from Jason Foresight, our our um u building or our street superintendent. Um Brian didn't have an issue with it either. And uh so we would like to try to to adjust or make sure

that everybody understands how the the streets kind of get laid out in in um um uh through all the materials. Um we're we'll skip the the width of the street. We'll head to um the third page if you go back to back the third page. So we're going to get into number two sidewalks. So right now the UDO says the sidewalk shall be separated from the back of the curb of the adjacent road by a minimum of four five feet. We're going to make it four. And there's a reason for that. All areas between sidewalks and the back of the curb that are not used for accessing individual properties must be planted and maintained landscaped areas. So when you go to 3A, the change that we're making, this why we want to go 4 feet, not 5T, is because we want to make the residential sidewalks go from 4T to 5T because that's ADA approved. ADA requests that you have a 5 foot wide sidewalk. And the reason for that is that um if somebody is disabled and um is in a wheelchair, they have the ability to turn around in the middle of the of the uh uh block so they don't have to go to like a driveway or uh to be able to turn around so they don't have to get out into the grass. Five foot wide allows that turn to be made. If if it if we didn't do that then and I didn't remember I I should have looked it up before I came down. There's a reference of so many feet then you would have to put some type of a five foot area in so that the the chair could be turned around. So by just making the sidewalk 5 feet instead of four feet it then makes the sidewalk ADA accessible. When we were doing assessments on sidewalks on the northwest side of town, you you would be unbelievable of the number of five- foot

sidewalks that were put in way way back when because most of them are 5-ft sidewalks. I I thought it was pretty amazing when we were going through and and uh and trying to inventory those sidewalks. So, we're asking for those two changes. The next change that we're making has to do with driveway construction. Um I I was wrong in saying driveway in the first it was a street but we want to make a change in the driveway uh construction. And basically what we want to do is we we want them to go five uh we actually want them to have the drive to be 6 in thick from the curb of the sidewalk or the curb of the street to the back section of the sidewalk. And the reason for that is um a vehicle or a truck that's delivering packages are going to pull in there. And if we stop the the thickness of the entry to 4 in to the to the sidewalk, now you got the ability for everything to get busted up. So we're asking it to be 6 in to the back edge of the sidewalk. We're asking that rebar get put in and all the material that you see listed here um under the driveway construction. Um we've kind of started that a little bit and people have been very very have been okay with making this adjustment um because um it's it's not a lot more than than than what we're requiring normally. Um give you an example. Last week we I went to ah I think it was McClur Street. I think it No, it was Central Avenue down by by Circle Park and a a young lad was putting in a new driveway. Um we don't

require that once you get inside the the back edge of the sidewalk towards the house. We don't require that to be hard surface. You can make it gravel if you want. We're okay with with making it a gravel driveway, but from the side back edge of the sideway forward, we request that this be a concrete concrete hard surfaced uh entryway. Um, in this case, Central Avenue has probably about, what would you say, Miranda, 8 foot of of space between the street and where this normal curb would have been on on the driveway. Well, we're not making him make a concrete all the way to the street because more than likely people that are driving on Central Avenue would end up driving on this small section of concrete. So, it just didn't make sense to do that. So, we started at what we believe was um almost the sidewalk area. Bring bring your your roundness of the entryway, make it 6 in. and and the guy says, "We we've already done all that. We're we want it six inches to the back edge of the curb or to the sidewalk." And and so um a lot of people have have already done that. The only thing that we haven't pushed so far is the rebar situation. Now, when you get into somebody like Campost who's putting it in, they do all that rebar. A lot of folks do not. So, um that'll be that'll be something new that we'll add

as as we go forward. Go ahead, Joe. you use that metal uh screen that I've always used instead of rebar. You what what we say is that if if you have a mesh material in your concrete, then no, you don't need to put rebar in. Okay? And a lot of the concrete now comes with that that mesh material because it acts the same in the same manner. And it even states that here in the in the

driveway metal in mind, but it's not just rebarb. It's uh it's a little thinner in rebarb and it's a little bit more price acceptable. Yeah. So, three to four inches up off the ground and everything's good. Yeah. So, um that's that's the change that we're looking at on the driveway construction. Um and now I I want to get into table two. Um let me get the let me get my right sheet of paper here. I actually had it there and for some reason I've I've changed it. here. So, you need mine.

You're what I want you to look at is I have a a a sheet of paper that has um a list of of numbers um inches. Nope.

This one right here. I'm talking about Oh, it's the very last one.

The blue one. Yes. The very last one. The very last one. So, if you look at that sheet on there is a column called CBR and it has a number there. Well, there's nothing in the book that says what that is. And and basically what it is, it's it it's telling you what type of soil that is in Clinton County. And now that we've annexed out to 65, I think this becomes kind of an important factor for our UDO. So what it does is it tells you what type of soil um is is there on the ground. So, if they're putting a street in, um, uh, these tables will then start to direct you on whether or not you you have to put more stabilization in or if it's satisfactory or if it's not satisfactory. And so, we're trying to give some definitions to the CBR level that has no definition at all. So, that's why you have all these Indiana soils in it. And the only reason why we kept all of those Indiana soils

is because we're we're now out in the county. We're we're heading out in the county. I can give you an example of the Banderas project where they ran into a soil that was nonstable and it it actually stopped the whole project for quite a while. And so we want to add this to the UDO so that um it will help us direct people when they're putting streets in or they're they're they're putting buildings in to make sure that the stabilization is there properly and can support what it is that they're putting in. So um the information that you get right here is actually from the county UDO and so when I went through it I'm like man I don't understand why it's not in ours. Probably more by accident than on purpose. So, we wanna we want to add that to the the street section or the table section in the back of the UDO. Um, also on that blue section, it has a a 17 and a half. And and that's because if you add all the uh numbers that go across it, it doesn't add to 13 and a half, it adds a 17 and a half. So, we want to make that adjustment. So there also that's the only one that's that's uh not not proper. So with that we can get into the the width of the of the streets.

You know I go ahead. Yes sir. Has this been advertised for hearing tonight or we just reviewing this to call for a hearing next month? It's been advertised as a hearing. It just didn't get put on your agenda. So it's in the same category as the historic district. Yes. We're having a hearing to Yes. the city. Yes. Just wanted to clarify that. Yeah. Yes. The same docket. That's okay.

So, um I've been I've been hashing this out through since about 3:00 this morning when I woke up. Um uh on on this issue because this seems to excite a lot of the the individuals. I know it excites the fire department. And uh I I was trying to, you know, work through the process of of what to do. Um I had a two-hour meeting with um the mayor and and and Greg Miller and and Joe was in on the meeting to discuss the fact that um I wanted to make um the minor arterials, the streets that go in residential districts and local roads, we wanted to make them 30 feet wide. just like um Metobrook is from back of curb to back of curb and then keep the principal arterials, your main streets, keep them at 36 ft wide from back of curb to back of curb. Um after our conversation and after I got to work this morning, the mayor had sent me a letter uh requesting that I change the minimum from 30 to 34. And uh so that's that's what we're bringing to you today. Um, you know, um, I had a meeting today with FNK on on on some things going on out of out of Metobrook. And so, just out of curiosity, I I asked them, um, so I said, "Hey, we're thinking about not making our streets 30. We're talking about making them 34. what what price difference is it to add four more feet two feet to each side of the street um when you're looking at uh putting a subdivision together. And so they got their calculators out using all

the streets in Metobrook and moving them from 30 to 34 ft wide. they would need to have another five or six lots in this subdivision to offset the cost of uh making these streets from from 30 to 34 foot wide. Um that then can be a deal breaker when you get ready to put a subdivision in and then they could roll out. I'm not saying that they would or they wouldn't. I'm just telling you that that's that's how much difference there is in just a measly 4 foot of of space two on each side. But I'm I'm doing what my my uh boss, my mayor has asked me to do. We're asking you to make these 34 foot wide minimum distance from curb to curb. Um man, I've I've been measuring streets. I've been out for a couple days doing all that. Um, I can give you a lot of street measurements that are that are smaller, that are less in size. Um, I can I can give you a quote from a meeting back in February when this all came up in Metobrook and and I know Matt's here to talk and he'll talk after I get through with this. Um, but this is a quote from Matt Stdum in the February meeting where he says uh um he opposes to the streets narrowing and is obligated to provide safety service to everyone. He states that while ladder trucks aren't typically used in residentials, these homes could require a ladder truck in the future, which takes up a minimum of 12 to 14 foot of space minimum to get set up. Uh Matt reiterated his opposition to the streets being 30 and would like them to keep them at 36 feet wide. Um so when when you look at that and and you're talking about 34 foot wide um I don't know what the parking is going to be because

that's that's not my call. That call comes from the uh council also. Um metal metal Brook has no parking on it at all yet. Right. It comes from the council, but then it's also part of the development when we're when we're talking about the subdivisions that are coming in. That's also part of the conditions that can be put in place that there's no parking. So, with Metobrook, one of the things that is in their um um covenants is that there won't be parking on the street generally. So, that was one of the concessions that was made in order to have it be 30 ft was that there wouldn't be parking on that. And that's part of their um

Yeah. And and we we obey covenants if it's stricter than what we have, right? That's what that's what we normally do, right? Yeah. So, so that said though, that particular that particular development has covenants which govern that. So, generally speaking in the city, the city council would determine whether or not there's parking, but if there's a new subdivision coming in, that can be a part of their covenants that the developer would make a decision on, and it would be something that could be worked out at the city plan level. Just to clarify that.

So, this is the question, Alicia, that I that I wanted to ask you, and that is um I we're recommending 34, but let's just say that we were going to go with 30 foot wide streets. Does does the council does does the plan commission have the right to put a recommendation as they pass this down to the plan comm or to the council? What I'm what I'm reiterating to is like let's say well let's use Armstrong Street. Armstrong Street is 30 foot 32 foot wide east of Clay Street all the way to um uh Williams Road. Well, it may not be Williams Road. It may be what's what's the street is it? East Street. And there's parking on both sides. And uh the the the distance between cars being parked on Armstrong Street is 19 ft.

Mhm. So if if we were to say, "Hey, we're going to make these 30 foot," and I'm not saying to do that because we're recommending 34, but this is just a question. If we were to do that, could could the plan commission along with the recommendation say and and we would like to see parking on one side or they would not be able to do that?

So, Armstrong Street because it is not a new development that the city council would have to make the determination that it should be parking on one side. So the the plan commission could say to the city council, hey, we're sending this with a favorable certifi certification, but we recommend that you have parking on one side of the street only. And then it would be up to the council to decide whether or not the parking should be on one side of the street only. Most of the time when this is going to come into play is going to be a new development. So when we have a new development coming in, we've got the developer, they're going to have to get um approval of their development plan. And as part of that process, there's a review committee that sits down with them. And one of the things that can be negotiated and put in place with regard to that development plan and getting uh their plat approval is that we could the city plan commission could say, well, we are in favor of you having streets that are less than 34 or that are 30 foot wide, but you have to have no parking or you have to have parking on one side. And that can be a discussion that can be part of that plat approval and part of that development plan. So to answer your question, yes, it could be something that that is discussed. Um the issue I think with doing 30 ft versus having 34 ft, you can always get special approval to go smaller, you're not going to be able to get a developer to go wider most likely. So by having it 34 feet, the plan commission could in theory say it doesn't make sense for this street to be 34. We recommend that it's going to be 30. We have that commi that committee sit down and talk about it. That committee is in has should have a member of the fire department and the street department involved and and those discussions can be had. If the fire department didn't have a problem with that particular street being 30, you

could make it 30 and then also recommend and require that there's only parking on one side or there's parking on no sides of the street. So, that's something that could happen, but that would be a discussion with that particular project on a case-by case basis. Yeah. Because these standards only apply to brand new streets, right? Exactly. Right. Yeah, because existing city street ordinances or what I should have said was if we were doing a development and we made the street 33 foot wide and then

Right. So, so that would be a conversation that would occur when the developer comes in and they've got their development plan. That would be a conversation that that committee that would evaluate the development plan would have. And if it's determined that it's in the best interest, the project isn't going to move forward. If it's 34 ft, it needs to be 33 feet or 32 feet. That could be a conversation at that point and you'd want to bring in those different departments to that discussion. Make sure that everybody was on board with the concession that there wouldn't be parking and then that no parking could be added to the covenants of that neighborhood um or that development because you don't want to write these too rigid where like you say they would not do that development if they're going to lose the four or five lots. I mean that's that's that's a deal breaker and so we have to make sure the ordinance

but it gives a flexibility to all the people talking about this ahead of time right

you know and maybe word you know 30 ft with no parking on one side 36 with with parking on both sides and that is that the starting point and you could just put that in the ordinance that way or something. My recommendation would be to pick a certain amount of foot that we're going to try for. And in this case, it would be 34 foot is what's being proposed. And then if that needed some sort of change, that change could be discussed on a case- by case basis. But the idea that we're going to have a standard street size that we're shooting for. This is what we'd really like to see in the city. And while there are a lot of streets that are narrower, I think the question that comes up is is does the plan commission want to continue to see narrow streets just because they were already, you know, they used to be this width. Now it makes sense based on on you know what the fire department is saying that they need to be this wide. Does it make sense to continue to do narrow streets just because we've always done that? And so by setting it up at 34, you have the ability to make it shorter or, you know, less wide if you want to, but you don't but you're you're setting that standard out so that individuals who are wanting to come into the city of Frankfurt and develop know that this is what we really would like to see for safety reasons based on what the fire department has recommended.

Yeah. Um, I I can tell you that under my watch, we won't go any less than 34 because the fire department's going to come in and recommend that they stay at 34. So, it would be crazy to to for people to think that the variance could occur. It's not going to occur. The last thing I want to say before we turn over to Matt for Matt's discussion here is that um I I get that we're we're trying to look after the the safety of of uh the fire department or the police department or the street department picking up trash, making sure that um uh the street is wide enough at all times. I can tell you my conversation with Brian on Monday when when the mayor asked me to go talk to the department heads um was that um the only two streets he has an issue with is Glendale Drive and and and hope or Boone Street. Both of them uh Glendel's 23 and a half ft wide. Parking on both sides very difficult and and west and and east Boone Street is also about a 25 foot street with parking on both sides makes it challenging. is that I feel like my job is to not just look after to safety and making sure that the fire department can get their equipment through there, but I also have to look after to make sure that we get the development that I have a study that says that we we need. And so when I when I come to you with with these type of changes, we're we're coming to you not to to make it difficult on any one individual or anyone group. We're trying to reach a happy medium so that we can get more housing in our in our community versus maybe somebody saying no to it because um now I got to come up with, you know, five, six or whatever lots there is to to make this subdivision happen. So, uh with that, I'll I'll let Matt come up and have his discussion. Um but once again, we're recommending that

you uh make the minimum 34 feet from back of curb to back of curb. How many houses was Metal Brooks putting in? 134. Out of 134, I don't think they'd shut down a job over five houses. Um, they they they told me that it's a deal breakaker. They they would do that. Well, so I think you just what you just got to understand is that the subdividers are here to make money. We don't have to beckon down to everything they're calling. I understand that, but I mean always I don't think we're beckoning down to them. We're just trying to make adjustments. So without all that Matt talk, Matt, thanks. Thank you, brother. We already we already gave him a word.

All right. Well, as Don said, as we all know, that's what I would probably be opposing. Um, you know, I have talked with the mayor about this same issue and I have agreed that I think 30 sorry. Oh, there there was a question whether or not this was going to change Metobrook. Metobrook is is set in stone. Approved it. Yeah, it's it's already been approved. This is only moving forward. So for future developments with future streets, the streets that are already in place are not at issue here. A subdivision that's being planned and so their streets were 30. Now they're going to have to make them 34 when if this goes through, right?

Yeah. All right. So again, Matt, that's okay. Um, just wanted to bring up the fact that, uh, you know, I know Don's been working with the mayor and Alicia, um, and obviously with Joe about a lot of these issues. Um, and I'm okay with the 34 feet. You know, that to me that's acceptable. I know that, you know, for Don, he wants to bring those developments in. I too, as a department head, want to see the development of of the city of Frankfurt continue to grow. And I don't, you know, think that we have to set back some of the safety concerns. And again, I know Don has a job to do just like I do. And my biggest concern when we talk about road with sometimes is the trucks that we have now. You know, you think about the trucks you had back in 1970s, 1980s. I mean, these things were, you know, a lot narrower, a lot smaller. These trucks now have gotten a lot bigger and a lot t a lot of times, especially the new developments, you know, you're talking about twostory, threestory houses that could be potentially coming in here and those are going to take ladder trucks to be there. We're going to have that operation more prevalent, I think, throughout the our future in the next, you know, 5 10 years. We're going to see that. So, when I do come to these meetings and I do talk about the road with um you know, I'll definitely bring up the point that Don brought up when they went out and they did the Meadow Brook edition. I went out there and measured and again, this may be a fault of my own. I thought it was 30 ft of road, not 30t from back of curb to back of curb. So, when I actually went out there with the truck, I think I even called Don and he came out there. I was like, I'm only getting like 28 ft here. So it concerned me on the road whis because when you have one apparatus parked there which was just our engine that's not a ladder truck with our outriggers out or nothing and you had another apparatus or a car parked on the side of the road. I literally had less than 3 ft to move in between those vehicles. And my concern isn't about the profits that we're going to make or the profits that um you know a company's going to come in here and want to develop and make. My concern is is it

one life? One life in that subdivision, one life in this new construction, is it really that important to somebody to say, you know, we're going to narrow the roads a lot smaller and fire apparatuses can't get in there. EMS can't get in there. That's my concern. I understand the trash pickup. Trash pickup makes sense. You know, they have a truck, they have an arm, they pick it up, everybody knows where to put it. But you don't know where the incidents happen with a fire. I mean, you don't. It could be in the backyard, could be on a roof, it could be in a basement. So for us, we just want to make sure on the fire department side that you guys at least understand our position that we don't we're not opposed to development. We're not opposed to, you know, sometimes just as Don said, if there's going to be a street that needs to be a narrower for some particular reason, you know, I think that, you know, if Don and I can work together with it, as he does with the street department, I think we can probably work out a lot of these things and come up with a better plan. So I do support the 34 ft. um at this point and as you guys had already talked about I think changes will be made later on if that development needed

on on most your calls uh there's usually an like an ambulance first thing shows up so typically we'll have a emergency response vehicle of ours at Frankfurt fires will show up first and then an ambulance shows up soon after so if another fire truck shows up after the ambulance and you got a 30ft road and he has to take somebody to hospital those two firet trucks got him locked in and they do and that's the thing that you know yeah that safety is more important with 34 also.

Yeah. And you and it could have that with 34. And you know, I think we talked about this and again, I'm not going to go back in history, but we talked about, you know, last time about, you know, having parking on the road, not parking on the road, how that would affect things. And it does affect things. Trust me, there's streets in our community right now, old streets that really shouldn't be having parking on both sides of the road. There's roads I can't get a fire truck down. Um, especially over here. And, you know, you you talk about Christian Ridge, it's over here. I can't get some fire trucks down there, especially ladder truck.

I know the new housing development he's talking about that's coming in wanting to come in. Uh there going to be a lot of duplexes in there. Am I right? And then a lot of houses and to me duplexes mean twice the families. Are you really going to want a narrow road? I wouldn't. And so I just wanted to bring that to you today. I wanted to at least let you know that, you know, I do support the 34 foot. Um, that's something that I would support. Um, not that you need my support, but it's just something that I'd least like to recommend to you that, hey, this is important to us as a fire service. You know, I always talk about the fire service, but law enforcement same way. I mean, we have accidents on a highway. You got half the road blocked off because we got cop cars and fire trucks and ambulances there. So, you know, they are concerns when we come talk about these road widths. And again, I just I appreciate you guys listening to me and I'll turn it back over to Don for you.

Thanks, Chief. Yeah. And if they run into a deal breaking type situation, you know, we could keep the standards higher, but they can always ask what's called a waiver of standards. It's kind of like a variance of subdivision standards. And so they can make a compelling argument why 30 or 32 might fit. You know, they go with no parking on either side, use alleyways as parking or whatever. And we can always have the right under state law in the ordinance to actually grant a waiver. I mean, maybe we did on Metobrook, you know, wave the W. We did because at the time that Metobrook was um 36. Yeah, it was 36 ft. So there was a waiver on that one.

So if you run into a deal breaking situation, you know, at least give us flexibility to, you know, they always apply for what's called a PUD, you know, and and negotiate everything too, you know. So that's always on the table, you know, where they can talk uses and lot sizes and everything. And that that requires a reasonzoning first and then you know you you look at the individual layout. If anybody can come in and apply for a variance then why do you change it from 36 feet? If anybody can come in and say hey me Brook well this would be through this subdivision ordinance where we would have to say as a plan commission subdivision hearing. I I think that

waiver which is like a subdivision variance. I think part of the rationale for for making it uh less wide is that it it allows um it slows traffic down a little bit too. And that was one of the things that was kind of looked at in this discussion is, you know, you've got the safety of the fire department. You've also got the safety of if you are if you have super wide streets, you're going to have people just driving super fast down them. And so part of the discussion was to uh slow down some cars is to make it a little bit less wide that that makes it less of a racetrack. So there are lots of things that have gone into this discussion. It wasn't just fire or you know anything like that. There there were a lot of different things that were considered but that's one of the reasons to make it to make it less wide. So you're you're balancing all the different curious why if people can come in maybe everybody's familiar with Maiden Lane is the road that te's in in front of my house. Um it's 33 foot wide and they don't park on either side and we're all guilty of it. I live on right now I go down Maiden Lane and once you turn the corner off of Williams Road then it's a quarter mile track baby and everybody's running down and you can ask anybody that lives on it. it it can be pretty brutal coming down there with some of the vehicles go down. So, one of the reasons for narrowing it is just like Alicia said, is to try to slow the traffic down. When a car is coming your way on a little narrower street, it has a tendency to make you slow down because the car is approaching. But, um we're we're ready for any type of questions to come for for this. And if not, then uh

if you go past Myrtle on West Morrison, that's about that wide and people fly through there. Yeah. Yeah. And ideally, Hulk Avenue part of Mebrook should be probably should be wider than the culde-sacs, you know, just some of the I I agree. We we messed I messed that up a little bit.

Yeah. But, you know, and a lot of ordinances make that distinguishing factor and I don't know where ours stands now. It was a situation where through a discussion I thought they were 36 and then I didn't pay attention to the drawings or the the plan and they were down to 30 and so we we passed it as is and moved forward. So you you I learn a lot but this is in a position to be learning. You talk about only five lots. I mean that doesn't sound like a lot but that's a potential for a builder for two. We always want to have it where the city has the flexibility to say yes with some waiverss if we need to with approval of all the you know

it can be it can be done in the development and then you guys can do that also in the primary plot. You can you can make those changes also on the primary plot. So um without any any anybody else saying yay or nay to it. So yeah, any more thing any more discussion on the street part because I want to go back to to to this table here. Okay. On this table you what's called a which I think you said came from the county ordinance. You use the term satisfactory and permitted. Can't we just make them all permitted?

We can do that. Why why why have two separate rooms? Because permitted fits the ordinance. The the the reason was is that if if you look down, if you can see through my scribbling there, I think there was an S on it. And um the S was for special exceptions, which ties into the county point system ordinance. And so I think permitted would fit.

Okay, that I'm okay with that. you know, just and that would match the bottom too because satisfactory isn't even, you know, defined anywhere. And u and I think it would work. You just, you know, it's the flood plates and the hilly ones, which of course there's not many hilly ones. If if we didn't annex out in the county, I probably wouldn't be such a stickler on this, but man, we're out there now. And then I think of the Banderas project and maybe not getting into some soils that aren't stable and not knowing that because we don't have anything that guides us. So,

so I would just the one comment I would have and I'm okay with the streets as you recommend you know pretty much yourself. So you said you just want permitted only. You don't like Well, I mean I would make wherever you have satisfactory or permitted. Just make them all permitted, but but keep the ones uncorrected the same because you don't want hilly or flood plane ones. You still want to distinguish them because because this table here actually ties into building whole new houses, you know, part of what's called the point system in the county.

It's to um make sure that the building gets put on stable ground, right? I mean, that's and we we don't have any of that material in our book right now. And maybe it wasn't necessary. I don't know. But I just felt like it was a good thing to have in there to to make sure that we're protected. [Applause] But did you happen to check the map the one that's creating the problem? I compare it to what kind of soils actually is because you know there is there is a soils overlay on on beacon and see if if by doing this would have actually caught that before

you know I know that you did a lot of work in both the ordinances and and being in the county that you pretty familiar with soil my knowledge on soil is natada and and so you know you're going we're going to rely on when they do their ground testing for them to come back to tell you what it is. Now, I can look up and see whether because if they could have told me, "Yeah, we're good to go." And and the soil was not conducive to anything. So, um I I'm just I'm just trying to look after after myself in the city itself, too. I'm just looking at what are the soils there. No. However, that really should not have been the city or county alerting the developer that hey, you got bad sales. Okay. I don't think this little phone has the soil overlay on it. Yeah, it doesn't. So, I can't check. But if you recommend it, I'm in favor. Any more discussion on this would also would be a to favorably or unfavorably certify the city council be sent by the same evening as the previous one I think.

Is that what the changes has made? Yes. With the changes as made. Yeah. Motion made. Is there a second to the motion? Second motion second. Any more discussion? If not, I guess roll call. Mark Mills. Yes. Larry Moer. Uh, it's a no for me. Mike Nichols. I. Joe Stevens. Yes. Joseph Bookwaler.

Hi. So, it's favorably submitted 4 to one with the amendments that we've discussed. [Music] Um, Mr. President, I have one more thing that that we need to discuss and then maybe under new business, I have a topic. I know we're running late here. um and and the topic when we get into it. I don't want to be here all night to discuss it, but I I do want to have uh your input on on a system that we're kind of running into on a challenge out of Metobrook. But right now, what we want to bring up is that we we need you to adopt um a not or a public regulation or our public conduct code uh when we have large crowds that come into um uh our meetings. Um Alicia actually put this together for us because of of the concern of when we were getting ready to do the data center and the number of folks that we were going to be dealing with. And um so this is kind of the guideline that we would like for to for the not only the plan commission but we're going to take it to the BCA to adopt to say this is how we're going to run a meeting when we have multiple crowds. Lisa or Alicia I'm going to Lisa I'm going to send it to you.

Yeah. So basically what this does is this just gives the rules that are going to be in place. you you all have to adopt the rules as the as the governing body um for your meetings. And so these are recommendations based on I worked with um Chief Shoemaker on these. This allows the police department to remove anybody if they're disruptive. So if we have anybody who comes in and is acting in a manner that is um causing a problem, we can have them removed by the police department. It also allows that individuals can have three minutes to speak, which is something that we've done for some time, but it puts it in writing. Um, and uh, you know, requires that they're respectful to you all. Um, and it's uh pursuant to Indiana code and like I said, I worked with Chief Shoemaker on these rules as well to kind of get some guidelines in place so that if we do have meetings that are contentious, uh, we are able to retain order and and keep those meetings productive and respectful.

So, is this going to be inserted into our rules or procedures kind of as a Yes. And then um what my recommendation is is at the beginning of every meeting just to announce that there are um rules that have been put in place and that if anybody wants to see them where they can access those rules andor to post them outside. I like this idea. Yeah, it's a good idea. Thank you. And um we were concerned on the after we got to the data center and the number of people that were coming were like oh my gosh. So, in a way, we are okay for them to make the poll so that we can get this adjusted.

But we're going to have separate ones for the for the BZA and separate ones for the planning commission. Do you want to use a term commission instead of board? We we can um basically this uh the the plan commission and the board. I mean, you you each one has its own board. You guys are the board of the plan commission. So, I tried to make it as general as possible, but I'm recommending the same rules be adopted kind of across across the board, if you will, for uh for for all of the different um groups that I'm working with just because it it makes it a little bit easier if you've got the same rules and then they can be posted. Yeah. [Music]

So, does that need to be made a motion or anything? Yes, it needs to be a motion to uh approve the the rules or adopt the rules. And this would not be sent to city council. We just No, this is just for your own rules. Yes. Yeah. I I'm going to make the recommendation to board of works and city council as well that they adopt the same rules, but um ultimately they could change theirs if they wanted to. And we actually can I think state law allows us to amend them that evening if something just really doesn't fit. You know, you know, if we got thousand people in three minutes could still take a while. Yes. Yeah. Yes. You can make it 30 seconds, you know. Yes, you can. You can do that.

I'll make a motion we adopt these uh rules as presented. I'll second. Okay. With the motion and a second. Roll call, please. Mark Mills. Yes. Larry Moer. Hi. Mike Nichols. Hi. Joe Stevens. Hi. Joseph Buffer. Hi. Yes. In my history, I can think of the time we filled the Clinton Central Gym. Okay, guys. That could be coming at some point. Okay. And and we were we we we had the courthouse working that even that meeting that night. So,

you know, and and the thing is what I've observed is just people have gotten very um contentious and and sometimes can get a little bit out of hand. And so the goal is to keep the again to keep the meetings respectful and productive. That's a good point. So any more

Mr. President, I have I have one more and and and the reason I'm bringing it because you put the UDO together. You may be able to help us through this little bit of a challenge. We're talk maybe making another adjustment to the to the uh standards of our of our building. So, out at Metobrook, um, we're running into an issue with the impervious surface ratio. Um, B and C residentials are 50% of the of the lot has to be impervious, but when you get into A residential, it's 30%. And it's causing havoc because some of the homes that they want to build, they can't build because it'll it'll put them over 30%. But it but it fits on the lot. Everything is perfect on the lot, but it's over the impervious surface ratio. So our discussion is, is there a a challenge of of making everybody 50%, now the industrials actually go higher, they go 80%. um to to off instead of having to say, "Okay, we got to spot zone these things and make it a B- residential so that that makes this property the ability to do 50% and they can put this house on the on the property."

I would see what the county drainage board says about that percentage and then what city utilities storm water drainage folks say and if they're okay with going higher, I would be because they're the experts. they probably were the ones who drove these percentages anyway. Great point because I I asked that or if it's just one or two situations, they just go to the BCA and get, you know, get a variance because surface variances are not that uncommon.

I I asked that to Dan and I said, Dan, what I don't understand about the 30% on on this particular subdivision is that it's got two ponds and all of the storm water doesn't go to Man's Ditch. goes to these ponds. So, it's self-regulated um before it gets to to the to Man's Ditch to keep Man's ditch from overflowing and keeping Prairie Creek from overflowing. So,

it it it doesn't make a lot of sense for us to say, "Okay, it's it's 30% here and then I can't get the house." We we actually stopped the house for about three weeks trying to work our way through this on a house that fits on the lot. And so, that's what made me call Dan about it. And I wanted to come and have that topic of conversation. What Dan said was Don that it's not going to put the amount of water because my concern was will it put more water in the street where now I've got a street full of water because it's got it's getting too much and Dan said that that's not going to happen. You you'll be okay with what it is that you want to do. And but I but once again I wanted to have that conversation with the board members to make sure that when we bring this before you that everybody understands and okay with with it.

Yeah. In my experience it generally been with impervious surface variances. It's usually in in was in the towns not out in the county. Can can I ask this newer subdivision because they're already pretty wide open. You know

maybe maybe we don't make the change. I I get why it's that way because eight eight lots are a lot bigger and the last thing you want is 4,000 square foot of property being covered in hard surface versus but when you go into BNC residentials half of their property can be covered which is probably as as much as what be 4,000 but if is that something that can be debated in in the development standards to say hey in in in these case because of this subdivision we we want the impervious surface ratio to be 50%. Can can that instead of the 30%. I think it would have to be a PUD.

Okay. So, we need to make the change is basically what you're saying. Change but again in the city you're you're going to have storm drainage systems. Okay. Most of the city has storm drains. Some doesn't. I you know but because I I don't believe that's part of our subdivision development ordinance. Is it? It it it is. Is it in the subdivision section? It's citywide, I believe. Yeah, it's on. When when I when I went through this originally, I said the biggest challenge to people adding on to this property will be the impervious surface ratio. And we've we've turned people down. We people wanted to put a barn on. You can't. You're going over the surface. You can go to the BCA and get get a variance if you want. But um

if they have good storm drain systems, there's probably no problem with going more. But if they don't have good storm drains and the water's going to be dumped everywhere, they probably should be told no. I mean, it's it's possible. I'd have to double check. Uh if it's part of our subdivision ordinance and it's part of our development plan and that sort of thing, all of those things can be negotiated. Um because the the hesitation I have with uh having it changing it across the board and not just for new builds is that if we change it across the board for residential A and we've got places in town that don't have two retaining ponds,

right, that really could cause a problem if we made it 50% all the way across town. Whereas if we've got it specific to new development that does have drainage, you know, more appropriate drainage and that sort of thing. So maybe that's something we want to do where we say new development with appropriate drainage da da da da da could have 30% as opposed to just across the board residential a we need to talk more about it. I think if you want to take a look before I come and visit you, you'll find it in chapter three. Chapter three. Okay. And that be the overall applies every everything.

The only thing I have is um if you think that today's meeting was a little exciting, we're going to be a little more exciting potentially depending on um we're still waiting for uh the mayor to make the final decision on this is that um we have worked on a landlord registration program ordinance for the city of Frankfurt. That doesn't mean that we're going out and and and inspecting property. We're not doing that. We're what we're asking is that we're asking landlords to register um the the number of of properties that they have. If we can register them, what we want is the owner's name and phone number and and email address along with a property maintenance person. A property maintenance person, we'd like to have them live in town or in the county. and uh and the and the the group that we're really trying to target are the folks that own outside the state of Indiana and and the county. Um there's I believe 839 rental properties in the city of Frankfurt and a lot of them are owned by out ofstate folks. I've had dealings with both commercial and residential and out of state. It takes a long period of time. Matter of fact, we're still working towards a commercial building trying to get get them moving to finish the facade or get the facade put together, look at the parking lots, but um this could be coming to you. We're having discussions with the mayor about it to make sure that she's okay with it because if she's not then, you know, we'll we'll not bring it before you. But that's what could be coming to you um next month. Why next month is that if it's in October. Yeah, in October. That gives the council to look at it in November and then us the ability to get 800. Well, it won't be 839 because there there are multiple

or people own multiple properties. Um get the letters out uh to make it active as as the first of the year. Um, so that's that's what could be coming, but we'll keep you a breast of that as as we march closer to the deadline for the uh agenda for the uh plan commission in October. That's all that I have. One more thing I I've been seeing on the city's Facebook page that the city is trying to get make an application to do a new comprehensive plan to get funding. Is that our kind of comprehensive plan or is it something more specific? I I really don't know because I've not been included in this. The plan commission would be involved with the comprehensive plan.

Yeah. Because they have to be initiated by the city council or us. And that's what I'm getting at. Yeah. It it would be initiated by the city council, but the plan commission would be involved in that. Yes. Yeah. So, we definitely would want to be involved in that. Yeah. If they if the money, right, right now they're just working on trying to get a grant to help fund uh a consulting agency to start working on a city plan uh a comprehensive plan. The consulting agency has not been selected yet, right? There are They're not all equal. I I believe there are two that were that bid. You know, they are um American structure standard and uh I don't remember. I don't remember

because it really makes a difference who you get. You know, some are more planning oriented, some are more, you know, other stuff. Yeah. I I don't recall who they are off the top of my head. And but this will be strictly for the city and the new city limit. But not to include undeveloped land outside the city, right? No. And I think American structure point that would be true. But you you got to you got to have some type of discussion on the two-m radius. And

because ideally if if we update the comprehensive plan, we need to also somehow incorporate everything from here to the interstate more than just the city limits. I think one of the reasons why they're looking to do that is because of the annexation that went on to get that because there's nothing out there that says where we're going.

Yeah. Because as you know the county also has this big mammoth huge tiff district that's hypothetically is going to be stewarded someday. It's kind of waiting for Frankfurt to antic someday and maybe it needs to be a collaborative effort now. That's kind of the intention of it because the county is capturing the dollars for it. I think that's what's paid for the water and sewer lines and the water tower out there probably is is is the tiff money and it needs to incorporate that whole area because that's Frankfurt's future as well as even other directions, you know. So, so when the when the time comes like to be part of that, you know, sure you will. That was some background check on the on the

What's that? There was some background just done Yeah, because some are very engineering oriented and some are very planning and engineering oriented. Some are, you know, designoriented and so they're not all equal. So look what their specialties are. If they're just an engineering firm, you and they're trying to do a planning document that sometimes doesn't work. You know, I have from experience, you know, and so it's Did we originally interview five of those or six? I don't remember.

Five or six different companies. So I would encourage not to sign had a contract been signed yet on that with any of them. I would encourage not to do so until bigger proposals like that. But so any more discussion motion to adjurnn? Got a second. All in favor say I. I. We are adjourned. All right. You need anything else tonight? Mark, are you good? Um, serve milk. Tell them hi for me. I will tell him. He said in the basement, huh?

She's doing fine. Still work the county. Yep. I've not even been to see Liz lately either. Probably longest I've not seen her. Actually, I did run across her out on the streets, but haven't been to her office for a while. It's too