Approved March 4, 2002

The Common Council of the City of West Lafayette, Indiana met in the Board of Works Room at City Hall on January 31, 2002 at the hour of 4:30 p.m.

Mayor Margerum called the meeting to order.

PRESENT: COHEN KEEN MILLS O'CALLAGHAN SATTERLY SPARBY

ABSENT: WINDLER

Also present were City Attorney Bauman, Director of Development Andrew, and City Engineer Snyder (arrived at 4:34 p.m.).

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

Ordinance No. 49-01 An Ordinance To Annex Certain Lands To The City Of West Lafayette (Prepared by Stuart & Branigin LLP).

Resolution No. 7-02 A Resolution To Adopt The Written Fiscal Plan For The Annexation Of Certain Lands Into The City Of West Lafayette (Prepared by the City Attorney).

Marianne Owen [Stuart & Branigin] said one thing to note for all of you is that under the State statute, we need to consider the resolution before you consider the actual second reading.

City Attorney Bauman said that's the procedure they followed last time. We amended the agenda to move that resolution ahead of the second reading of the ordinance and we'll need to do that again.

Ms. Owen said but in that there has been some important conversations between ourselves and your counsel, I believe we were going to propose for this, or you had proposed, that this be continued for another month.

City Attorney Bauman said OK.

Ms. Owen said actually, we were in the position we asked to have this withdrawn but your counsel suggested that we continue our discussions and continue it instead.

Mayor Margerum said so that applies also to the resolution?

Ms. Owen said yes, it applies to both the ordinance and the resolution.

Mayor Margerum said you want to remove both of them?

Ms. Owen said it makes sense to leave them both off.

Clerk-Treasurer Rhodes said may we have a motion to amend the agenda to reflect that?

Councilor Cohen said so moved. Motion was seconded by Councilor Sparby and the vote was AYE.

Clerk-Treasurer Rhodes said could I just get a clarification? It was the intent to defer those items until next month or simply remove them from the agenda for some undetermined time?

City Attorney Bauman said I think to defer them until next month.

Clerk-Treasurer Rhodes said OK.

Councilor O'Callaghan said and at the same time the resolutions that were to affect that.

Clerk-Treasurer Rhodes said right.

There was no further discussion.

Ordinance No. 2-02 An Ordinance Providing For Temporary Loans From A Fund Having Sufficient Balance To A Depleted Fund (Prepared by the Clerk-Treasurer).

Mayor Margerum said that is standard.

There was no discussion.

Ordinance No. 5-02 (Amended) An Additional Appropriation (EDIT) (Prepared by the Clerk-Treasurer) PUBLIC HEARING.

There was no discussion.

NEW BUSINESS

Ordinance No. 6-02 To Amend Certain Portions Of The Unified Zoning Ordinance Of Tippecanoe County, Indiana, Designating The Time When The Same Shall Take Effect (UZO Amendment 26) (Submitted by Area Plan Commission).

Mayor Margerum said that is to amend the Unified Zoning Ordinance, UZO Amendment 26.

Councilor Mills said it's an amendment to the NUZO, from staff.

Mayor Margerum said this was the public utility. Then, any questions about it? This was cell towers and the public utilities thing with Lafayette.

Councilor Mills said it cleared up some language that allowed the cell tower basically to be built anywhere. So, we changed the Unified Zoning Ordinance after that.

There was no further discussion.

Ordinance No. 7-02 To Rezone Certain Real Estate Within The City Of West Lafayette, Indiana And Designating The Time When The Same Shall Take Effect (R1 to NB) (Robert Bouggy/John Folkers) (Submitted by Area Plan Commission).

Mr. Joe Bumbleburg [Ball, Eggleston, Bumbleburg, McBride, Walkey, & Stapleton] said each of you, I believe, have your staff reports from Area Plan Commission which has on the back of it the drawing. This is the substance of what we are asking you to approve here this evening. My clients, both the doctors, are here with me this evening. Just a little bit of history here, this corner has been a dental office since at least 1964. The current site of the parking is noncomplying and what we are trying to do here is to do something that will make the situation better. With the advent of the work on Lindberg Road, which will ultimately make that road less appealing as parking and in an effort to try to lessen the parking impact on Summit, we have figured out a way to add at least 8 new parking spaces that would be used. That would bring us then up to 15 parking spaces and maybe with a little bit more engineering on this lot, we could put several more in there and get ourselves very close to complying on this particular site. The number of doctors that were there in 1964 is the same number that are there are now, just different guys, two. So, what we are trying to do is simply make this situation better. What we have done is carved out a piece of the lot immediately next door, which is also owned by their interests. We will be taking a piece which is 60 feet back from Northwestern Avenue and taking out of it, and I measured this two or three times and I never can remember what I measured, about 16 feet of the lot next door that's again, like I say, owned by the doctors, to let us put in a five yard no parking setback line and then part of the 18 feet of these 8 parking spaces. To do that, we cross a zone line. Would that it would be easy just by doing an exemption E transfer and then we would have it done, but that's not the way the system works. So, what we ask you is to let us do that, then we will exemption E this piece to that lot. The Lot 17, which is the lot immediately inside, which they also own, remains under the zoning code a totally compliant lot and it will, except for this little piece, stay in the "R" category which it currently resides in. So, that's what we are trying to do. I have prepared, and Scott [City Engineer Snyder] and I have worked on but not talked about in a couple of weeks at least, an agreement under NUZO 4-9-5 (c), which permits the Administrative Officer to agree with adjoining landowners and in this case the adjoining landowners are the same parties essentially to do what it is we are going to do and that is not provide the bufferyard for this. So long as the ownership of this property remains in the ownership as it is now, as the signatories to the agreement, which would be with the City and this agreement would also be recorded so that it would show up on any title records. This is simply a way for us to try to draw into the process this ability to get 8 more spaces, try to make that corner, which is Neighborhood Business, keep it there without invading any more of the front, and try to keep the current neighborhood look as much as we can. The parking will be behind on the property lines about 60 feet back so it will not encroach the streetscape, if you will, on Northwestern. What we are trying to do here is minimize the parking nonconformity and do so in a way, and I would dearly love to be able to, under the ordinance, have a way to do this without rezoning it but the staff at Area Plan Commission and I, no matter how hard we could shake and twist the ordinance, we just couldn't figure out a way to get that done. So this is our solution to try to do this, which is, I think, effective for what these gentlemen are doing and obviously this is a long-term good neighborhood use. The benefit of staying there has obviously been good for the previous doctors who were there, the current ones, too, and remains good for the community to have it there. So, what we are asking is just this little tiny strip to be made NB so we can add it to that other lot for purposes of moderating the parking problem.

Mayor Margerum said have you had any discussions with the neighbors or any concerns that the neighbors have on this?

Mr. Bumbleburg said there were two gentlemen who came to the Area Plan Commission and spoke, one of whom was from down Northwestern maybe even to the corner, and another gentlemen who was a back fence neighbor. Then, I received a phone call from two different people at the office, one of whom was from a businessman at the corner across the street and then another gentleman who lived on Summit, not backing up against us but right across the street. In fact, that gentleman called me twice to ask me what it was we were doing and when I explained it to him the first time he said, "Thank you, I don't see a problem." Then, he called me back a couple of days later and had three or four more questions, which is fine, I think that's perfectly the way the system ought to work, and I answered them for him on another issue and he said, "Fine" and that's the last I heard of him and the last I saw of it.

Councilor Sparby said Joe, I noticed that there were two dissenting votes at APC. Can you tell me what their reasoning was?

Mr. Bumbleburg said why don't you ask Jan [Councilor Mills]? She was one of them. Far be it for me to put words in the mouth of a Council member.

Councilor Mills said thank you, Joe. I think my only concern is just the encroachment in that residential neighborhood. I don't disagree with the idea of putting the parking there, because it has to go somewhere. It's going to be removed from Lindberg. Otherwise they'll be parking on Summit and behind the patrons. That's the only other alternative. So, I won't oppose it before the Council.

Councilor O'Callaghan said does somebody live in that house there?

Dr. Folkers said it's a rental.

Councilor O'Callaghan said you rent it to them?

Dr. Bouggy said we have a young couple living there. Both homes immediately west of our property are rentals and they've been turning over every six months or so. I haven't heard from them at all. We spoke with the people immediately adjoining, that rent our house, the Davidsons, on Northwestern, and took our drawings down and went over everything with them and he had some questions, to make sure we weren't planning on razing the house or anything like that. So, I think they are OK with it. But the folks that showed up at the meeting that night we met with in the hallway afterwards and kind of explained how we wanted to do it. We're trying to be good neighbors with this actually. Right now we have some people having to park on Summit and I think they are parked perfectly legally but we'd just assume, to be good neighbors, to not do that.

Councilor O'Callaghan said so when they spoke at APC they were against it?

Councilor Mills said only the one man, as I recall, that was farther down.

Mr. Bumbleburg said yes, and I'm almost really sure he's against it but I'm not sure I know why.

Councilor Mills said yes, I think he was worried about encroachment in the neighborhood also.

Mr. Bumbleburg said the concept of "creep" was discussed.

Councilor Satterly said the staff recommendation is denial.

Councilor O'Callaghan said yes, the staff recommendation was denial.

Councilor Sparby said the adjacent property is still going to remain R1?

Mr. Bumbleburg said yes.

Councilor Cohen said is this to require any more beautification as far as that ordinance is concerned?

Mr. Bumbleburg said well, you're going to have that five foot no parking setback and the agreement that I was working on with Scott [City Engineer Snyder] requires some hedge screening, planting, with some height and that sort of stuff and some screening. So, it would require some of that to be done.

Councilor Satterly said when you say screening, are you talking about a fence?

Mr. Bumbleburg said no, we are talking about plants.

Councilor Sparby said it would seem to me that it would be far safer to do this, too, because if I recall, there is not a sidewalk on Lindberg Road so if people park on Summit they've got to walk in the street to come around the corner.

Dr. Folkers said it would be nice if there were sidewalks.

Councilor Sparby said or they walk through somebody's yard.

Mayor Margerum said on Lindberg there is no sidewalk on that side. There is farther down when you get to the houses.

Mr. Dan Pusey [Purdue] said I believe there is for the improvement, though.

Mayor Margerum said is there?

Mr. Pusey said I believe there are sidewalks on both sides for the improvement.

Mayor Margerum said yes, I'm sure there must be. I was thinking for right now, but when it's improved it will be both sides.

Mr. Bumbleburg said trying to be a good neighbor, with this kind of thing like Bob [Bouggy] and John [Folkers] are trying to do, reminds me that my mother lives in an area where there was a public institution who constantly had students who parked in front of her house. Since she knew a member of the Board, I constantly got the heck raised with me because the Ivy Tech students were parking there. So, I know from first hand that having non-neighborhood people parking there can be an aggravation to the neighbors.

Councilor O'Callaghan said we know that.

Councilor Sparby said we know that because I was at an Area Plan Commission meeting, you brought your mother up at that one, too.

Councilor Mills said I think also our last time not passing the drive thru in Neighborhood Business gives us a little bit of security from letting that go to any other use.

Councilor Sparby said drive thru dental extraction. That would be interesting.

Councilor Mills said I think it is up to the Council to make sure that we don't allow more creep. I mean this is a business that's been there for quite a few years now so we just have to make sure it doesn't get changed.

Mayor Margerum said of course, it can always be sold.

Councilor Mills said that's what I mean. It's up to us to make sure that it doesn't creep any farther.

Mr. Bumbleburg said well, originally when we started this as a matter of fact, the 16 foot or whatever it was ran clear to the street. Then, in working with the staff, we pulled that back because we weren't going to be using it for parking to begin with.

Clerk-Treasurer Rhodes said this agreement you are working on, does it include the requirement that if the present use of the property changes, even though the property owners retain both lots, that this agreement will not be enforced for any other use of the property? Because, they could retain ownership of the lot, lease the land, and we could have a very different kind of business. I don't know whether that agreement would prevent that or not. So, is this contingent upon the continuation of a medical practice of some sort?

Mr. Bumbleburg said no, it's only conditioned on the ownership remaining in the hands of the signatories of the agreement. The technical side of this is as Scott [City Engineer Snyder] and I have worked out. The question of the ownership and everything is a completely separate legal kind of problem.

Clerk-Treasurer Rhodes said so the use of the property is not controlled, but the ownership would be the controlling variable.

Mr. Bumbleburg said that's right.

Councilor Mills said fortunately, there's quite a bit of control in the use in the Neighborhood Business zoning.

Mr. Bumbleburg said the change of a use triggers a whole new look at the parking situation. That's the way you treat it?

City Engineer Snyder said yes. The parking may meet the requirement for it.

Mr. Bumbleburg said but then again it might not, depending. So, you get a re-look.

Councilor O'Callaghan said and to improve it.

City Engineer Snyder said yes, and to improve it, correct.

Mayor Margerum said are there any questions for Mr. Bumbleburg and the dentists?

There was no further discussion.

Ordinance No. 8-02 An Ordinance To Amend The Zoning Ordinance Of Tippecanoe County, Indiana, To Rezone Certain Real Estate From OR To PDNR (Hentschel Complex PD) (Submitted by Area Plan Commission).

Ms. Marianne Owen [Stuart & Branigin] said this is actually a fun project. We are talking about an existing development. We have three buildings that were originally developed under one ownership and for use by these affiliated entities. As time has progressed and where we are today is now a matter of different, unaffiliated entities who are interested in using and/or are using these properties. So, the use of centralized utilities, running lines back and forth between each other's buildings, parking along those lines, that gets a little ugly. It's just not a good recipe for nice neighbors. So, what we have proposed is this Planned Development to allow us to clean up the property ownerships, to clean up where the utility lines are and ownership and who has rights to what, and it means that we can keep the use of this property continuing as opposed to having a white elephant sitting there. What you have in your package is what was presented by the Area Plan Commission staff and including the full approval of the Area Plan Commission itself. I would be glad to answer any questions you have on this matter.

Mayor Margerum said I guess I'm not quite sure what you're doing. I mean, are you dividing up the responsibility of each one of these property owners, which are now separate and used to be.

Ms. Owen said right now, it's one big plot. That's the way to put it, is one big plot and there are three buildings on it. We have Purdue, the Trustees - calling it Purdue, PRF and BAS. All are parties involved, interested in each one of these buildings and now that other parties are looking at, be it the Purdue building, be it the PRF building, we need to have them on separate lots. So, to allow the transfer of the property to new ownership it is a matter of dividing the land and it also means that we can clean up some of the handling of the utilities, and improve the parking and the whole drive area. How we accomplish that is by creating four lots and the one lot has the unification of all of the utilities, and the drives and the like.

Councilor Satterly says where is Lot 4?

Ms. Owen said that is the driveway, the common area.

Mr. Pusey said actually, what we have is we have three meets and bounds descriptions and usage has, shall we say, acquiesced over time that the BAS parks on land that is owned by the Trustees, PRF parks on land that's owned by the Trustees, and there is a mish-mash of utilities. We found that we actually have a situation where the private water company actually if we shut off water in one building, we shut it off in another. But it all goes back to those three buildings were originally all University buildings but they were sold off and at the time they were sold off they were sold off as meets and bounds. The use of that area is looking to change and you have three existing buildings with basically three different owners. The only way to really set the structure up such that it's an equitable scenario is that you created this PD. The common area, or Lot 4, is that part of the area that is owned in common and responsibility of taking care of that is in common. In a subdivision they call it a Homeowner's Association. It's a legal entity and they assign the parking based on the number of spaces that are there, in an equitable manner. It's all part of the contractual scenario. All of the utilities are in there. They, in common, are responsible for them because they all get service, say, out of the storm sewer that is on the property, out of the pavement and access to their buildings and things of that nature. It's not uncommon to what we create in industrial parks today with common areas. All we are doing is we're taking an existing entity and instead of wiping the slate clean, tearing everything down and starting over, we are working with what is there and creating this entity.

Ms. Owen said and that's the beauty of the Planned Development process. This is a great example of being able to take an existing development and reuse it and continue its use and keep it viable in our community as opposed to seeing it go by the wayside as a white elephant.

Councilor O'Callaghan said can you remind me what OR stands for?

Ms. Owen said OR is Office/Research and as you look through the conditions here, you see that one of the conditions is that we continue the uses which fit under that OR zone that it currently exists in.

Councilor Cohen said on this map, you have circled this one area here. Now, are you just talking about that area or are you talking about these lots going on up Kent?

Ms. Owen said no, it's just that, that one area. That's the Area Plan Commission's location map to allow you to see where that fits in the bigger picture. That actual drawing is on the backside of your next page.

Mr. Pusey said Arni [Councilor Cohen], it's bounded by Potter Drive on the south, which is a private drive that you get into Hentschel Center with, bounded on the east by Yeager, on the west by State Farm, and on the north by Kent Ave.

Councilor Cohen said yes, I see.

Councilor Satterly said on the drawing you don't label Lot 4. At least I couldn't find it.

Mr. Pusey said no, what you have in your packet is a preliminary and with Area Plan you actually, the common area like that, you assign a lot number. On commercial developments and other scenarios you see them as an outlot versus Lot 4, or whatever.

Ms. Owen said and that's why you'll see it designated as common area.

Councilor Satterly said it says common area. It doesn't call it. I see what Lot 1, Lot 2, Lot 3 all labeled and Lot 4 isn't there.

Mr. Pusey said Lot 4 is the remainder.

Councilor Satterly said also, it's difficult to see the lot lines on the drawing.

Ms. Owen said and that's the difficulty of the smaller size.

Mr. Pusey said now you understand why we're trying to do this.

Ms. Owen said when this was submitted, it's a lot easier to see on this.

Mr. Pusey said this shows the existing configuration, with existing ordinance required setbacks and things of that nature. Basically, it was referred to as tracts, Tract 1, 2, and 3. Basically, this shows the proposed lot lines and how they affect the improvements. This is a lot line, this is a lot line, and this is a lot line. If you remember before, BAS's came down here something like this. The Cindas facility basically came here and went all of the way over to here. This was out here and includes Potter Drive. So, by doing this and creating this Lot 4, you created that area that is common for maintenance and common for usage.

Councilor Satterly said Lot 4, in effect, includes all of the parking spaces?

Mr. Pusey said Lot 4 includes all of the parking spaces.

Ms. Owen said and it's probably, as Dan mentioned, that we talk about it and in the description from the Area Plan Commission they talk about four lots. In my presentation and in Dan's, we've talked in terms of Lot 1, 2, 3, 4. But as noted, in the vernacular of the development world and in something such as this, we talk about it, this fourth lot, is truly called "common area" and it is the remainder. We have the lots we created for the specific structures and then the balance is the common area that they will share ownership in common and have the management under an Owner's Association. Those documents were also filed with this request. Once it is fully approved, if you should deem that to be appropriate, we would then be filing the organization documents for the, what would normally be the Homeowner's Association in a residential context, this is strictly an Owner's Association and they will have the oversight of the maintenance of that common area and anything else to go along with that.

Mayor Margerum said are there any other questions?

There was no further discussion.

Ordinance No. 9-02 An Additional Appropriation (Police, Lindberg/McCormick Road Improvement Fund) (Prepared by the Clerk-Treasurer).

Mayor Margerum said first, this is the Police to expend a contribution from Subaru-Isuzu for the D.A.R.E. Program, of $300.00, and the second is the Lindberg Road Improvement Fund and this is to appropriate INDOT grant reimbursements expected in 2002. Any questions?

There was no discussion.

Resolution No. 5-02 A Resolution Appropriating Code Enforcement Revolving Fund On Hand Resulting From Payment Of Inspection Fees From The West Lafayette Target Area (Submitted by Department of Development).

Resolution No. 6-02 A Resolution Appropriating Housing Rehabilitation Revolving Loan Funds On Hand Resulting From Repayments Of Loans Previously Made By The West Lafayette Housing Authority (Submitted by Department of Development).

Mayor Margerum said the next two are the Code Enforcement Resolving Fund. It's just standard, as well as the Housing Rehab Loan Fund. The two are quarterly resolutions.

There was no discussion.

COMMUNICATIONS

Mayor Margerum said I just might add, or let Patti [Councilor O'Callaghan] say that she's been very active, as I have, on the Budget, which does concern us greatly. I know it's rather controversial, but a very large alliance has come together, all of the governmental entities, all the universities, teacher's associations, Farm Bureau, UAW, to urge the legislature. The House has to pass a budget restructuring bill by Tuesday, or it's dead. I think the plea is that this may not be the perfect bill, but it is the only vehicle on the table for continuing the discussion. The alliance has five points, the major factors, which are education, and providing cities with the ability to continue what they are doing, and I don't have all of the five. Do you remember what the five points of the alliance are?

Councilor O'Callaghan said homeowners, and.

Mayor Margerum said but, a lot of these groups are supporting this. So, if any of you would be willing to call anybody you know in the legislature, including our representatives, I think it's very important to get this bill passed. As you know, there's the Senate, there will obviously be some big changes, or maybe not, but probably, when it comes to conference committee. But, if this doesn't pass at all, then there will be nothing happening and the City property taxes will go up, they've talked about an average of 30% statewide. It probably won't be that much in West Lafayette but it will be substantial if nothing is done.

Councilor Satterly said has our representative declared as to where she stands?

Mayor Margerum said I have not heard. Maybe some of the other of you know?

Councilor O'Callaghan said no, she has said no.

Mayor Margerum said that she's not supporting it?

Councilor Satterly said she's not supporting it? So, she has declared.

Councilor O'Callaghan said I guess that's my impression. I don't know. She hasn't declared support, let's put it that way.

Councilor Sparby said I'm sure that will be an issue that will come out Saturday at the League of Women Voters Legislative Forum.

Mayor Margerum said yes, that's a good idea, for people to come to that and express your opinion. That's a good chance to do it. There is also gas tax increase that the Association of Counties is pushing very hard.

Councilor O'Callaghan said [unintelligible].

Mayor Margerum said yes, and that alliance is pushing that, too.

Councilor O'Callaghan said and Sue [Scholer] is the author of that bill.

Mayor Margerum said so, it's very important that we get something through or we are in deep trouble.

Adjournment

There being no further business at this time, Councilor Sparby moved for adjournment. Motion was seconded by Councilor Keen and the vote was AYE, the time being 5:03 p.m.

Office of the Clerk-Treasurer Judy Rhodes