Warsaw Plan Commission Sends Menards PUD OK To Council
Warsaw Plan Commission Sends Menards PUD OK To Council
Posted
David Slone-dslone@timesuniononline.com
Warsaw Plan Commission Sends Menards PUD OK To CouncilA planned unit development (PUD) going in behind Menards wasn’t so much a concern at the Warsaw Plan Commission meeting Monday for existing neighbors as the elimination of trees was.
City Planner Justin Taylor told the Plan Commission that the preliminary plat for the Harvest Ridge subdivision PUD was reviewed for its conformity to the subdivision control ordinance and the section for PUDs. He said the petitioner - Menard Inc. - wants to subdivide 30 acres into 91 lots containing a mix of attached and detached single-family residential units. A 10,200-square-foot area has been set aside for a neighborhood park to fulfill the greenspace requirement in the PUD ordinance.
“It is the opinion of the Planning Department that you give a favorable recommendation to the City Council for this proposed PUD ordinance,” he said, reminding the Commission that their recommendation will be brought before the City Council and considered during a public hearing for the ordinance. “If the City Council chooses to defer to the Plan Commission for the second reading, this PUD ordinance will return to this board for final approval.”
The property is east of Menards, 100 Husky Trail, Warsaw.
Asked if any comments were received about the petition, Taylor said the Planning Department received a couple phone calls and a couple people stopped by the office.
“One gentleman called and asked about screening. I let him know that the city doesn’t screen between residential districts, so once he realized that, we were able to discuss other things,” Taylor said.
By telephone, Nick Brenner, real estate representative for Menards, Wisconsin, provided a “quick” background on the development.
“So, 15 years ago this subdivision was platted out. It still is today. We’re going through this process to change some of those things up that we have realized over the last few years since we did that original development on what was really beneficial,” Brenner said. “The last couple of years we’ve done a number of subdivisions across the Midwest. One of the biggest things that we’ve found is extremely helpful is to have flexibility in housing styles.”
He said this PUD and plat “is doing that for us.” Brenner said “twin homes” - or attached single-family residences - provides a “nice alternative to people that don’t necessarily want to have single-family detached house.” He said that is extremely popular among first-time homeowners and the elderly population.
“The other thing we changed is just the road layout. We found that cul de sacs are extremely popular. They’re usually the first things to sell in any subdivision that we have, so by incorporating a couple more of those in, that has been something that’s been real beneficial,” Brenner said. “It also got the lots a little bit larger in size. We actually lost a couple lots going to this design, but we felt it was worth it because the lots are a little bigger. It also cuts down on the density of houses in those areas and those single-family homes.”
He said it also provides a more secluded feel for that portion of the subdivision.
Adrian Shinners, a resident on Lydia Drive, said there is a tree line between Lydia Drive and the new proposed lots. The tree line is to the back of his house. “With the new proposed allotment, would those trees remain or would they all be taken away?” he asked. A second question he had was if there would be a tree line put in between Menard’s and the new proposed housing to replaced what would be taken away.
Taylor said, “Unfortunately, since it’s another residence and somebody else’s property, the developer could leave every tree on the lot and build a house, and then the homeowner could come in and cut them down if they wanted to. So it’s kind of up to the homeowner and the developer. As a city, we don’t dictate what they can and can not do on their property. Same with you, if you have trees and wanted to remove them, as long as there’s no issue as far as ownership of that tree, you could take those down.”
He said the green area behind Menards was for their commercial property and they weren’t developing homes on that space, which was about 54 feet wide.
A woman who just identified herself as a resident in Patterson Place said if there was a requirement for the PUD to have some type of green space, “since you are able to ask for that requirement of having greenery, could you request the same in preserving that woodlands where there’s wildlife there?”
Taylor said the city ordinance does have language that encourages developers to keep existing trees that are mature in the way of development, but city ordinances don’t have any language that currently requires them “to do anything beyond that.”
PUDs have to have greenery space for recreation, and a screening requirement is typically done between uses, he said, like between parking lots or heavy commercial areas and residences. However, he said the city doesn’t have a policy of screening between same uses like residential and residential.
Taylor pointed out there was a protected wetland area to the north of the subdivisions, which is controlled by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management. City ordinances also protect the wetlands.
District 1 City Councilman Jeff Grose, who represents the area, said, “As a city councilman, and, not just for that development but also for Patterson Place, it’s a PUD, which we are allowing them to do lots of good things, but it’s a PUD for a reason. I would hope that we would consider the fact ... that there is adequate screening. Not just for those people that are going to be in the development, but also Patterson.”
He said Menards is a big commercial development.
“I’m real excited. These PUD developments have been great. I’m sure this one will as well,” Grose said.
City engineer James Emans said Menard’s went in over 15 years ago and asked who would be responsible for the screening between the commercial (Menards) side and the residential side. Taylor said the commercial side.
“So, this issue of buffer, would it not have been addressed when they platted the current residential?” Emans asked.
Taylor said, “They have about 50 feet in there of space between the commercial side and the residential. Could they beef that up a little bit? We can look at that to see if they can plant something like a hedge or maples or something that would grow relatively quickly and kind of take over and provide that green buffer.”
Community Economic and Development Director Jeremy Skinner said, “I do not think it’s unreasonable for the Plan Commission, City Council to ask from Menards to have a green screen, which means it would make them plant some trees along there, to act as that buffer since the screening, the trees” are being removed when the development occurs.
Emans said the screening wasn’t the residential development’s responsibility but the commercial’s. Skinner said it wasn’t unreasonable to ask for the green screening. Grose said it was important the developer be made aware of the concerns expressed at the Plan Commission meeting.
Councilwoman Diane Quance pointed out that Menards owns the commercial and residential property at this point.
Grose made a motion to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council that the PUD be approved with comments, with Quance providing the second. It was approved unanimously.
