Is the city just plugging holes in the dam? How long can you plug holes before the dam breaks? Hopefully residents are not living down stream when it does.
CLICK IMAGE FOR FULL ARTICLE
CLICK IMAGE FOR FULL ARTICLE
I think most would agree that a base expectation of an existing resident of their city is to be protected. Obviously there is a wide spectrum of topics that fall under the category of protection. I think it is safe to say that one of these areas would be protection from new development that is not in balance with the existing area and properties. Having a comprehensive plan is a great tool that a city can utilize to build a sense of protection in a community. By setting standards to protect you current residents puts these residents at ease with the idea that the city has their best interests in mind when considering new development. I pose these questions. What factors cause a city to stray from this idea? What causes a city to prioritize a timeline or financial gain above protecting existing residents?
CLICK IMAGE FOR FULL ARTICLE
IBJ coverage from last nights city council meeting. The council voted in favor of Aurora PUD in their usually 5-2 format. The 5-2 voting trend continued in a passing vote for Scofield Farms. I find it interesting that our single city council member with an urban planning background continues to be a consistent "no" vote on these projects. Maybe other city council members should take this members expertise into consideration. I think the quote by Lehman in the header sheds light on a great topic. Why isn't the city demanding the best from developers? The city should not vote based on a good enough policy. A "D" grade project is better than an "F" grade project but it is still not an "A" grade project. Why is the city not holding developers to an "A" grade?
CLICK IMAGE FOR FULL ARTICLE
Neighborhood Voice Posts are posts submitted by individual neighbors or concerned residents to our site. These posts can be submitted anonymously. Email us at rgawestfield@gmail.com for info.
Submitted by: Linda Naas Westfield Resident
Interesting:
Of course, Steve Hoover, would be in favor of this PUD as he admitted he made most of the changes to the Concept Plan himself, actions outside his bounds and responsibilities as APC member or Councilor or any code of ethics pertaining to planning. He also influenced the developer to avoid and cancel a preset meeting with the RGAW for 12/16/16, before the APC meeting submission deadline. Mr. Hoover was "shocked" that anyone came forward to speak against the Aurora PUD at the public hearing and public comments meetings. Many came forward to speak against and no one came forward in favor of the Aurora PUD amendment Ord 16-22. Mr. Hoover, himself, asked those who spoke to submit their concerns and suggestions to the developer following the 12/5/16 APC meeting.
There is also concern that the City of Westfield Economic Development Department Director and Secretary of the APC (Matt Skelton) has an ongoing relationship with the developer, Chris White, and represented him on the original Aurora PUD Ord 6-55 in 2006. The Director has great latitude in applying or waiving ordinances and development standards of the City and will continue to work on this development. This is clearly a conflict of interest.
This PUD meets the Comprehensive Plan only per page 24, location per the land use map. It comes nowhere near meeting the Comprehensive Plan on buffers for large lot residential and especially buffers for commercial/industrial next to residential. The Comprehensive Plan recommends 100' or more of buffers with reforestation. An example of larger buffers are in Chatham Hills residential areas next tor residential areas using 75' reforestation buffers. The Comprehensive Plan calls out commercial/industrial development to be developed with campus-like style, contrary to this development.
With the current WoodWind PUD going through the APC process in Westfield at this time also, the City staff found 85 points in the Comprehensive Plan that the developer needed to meet. No City staff or developer representatives reviewed the Comprehensive Plan for compliance in detail like this for the Aurora PUD. It is erroneous, therefore, to state that the Aurora PUD meets the Comprehensive Plan.
From the outset the developer Chris White has been represented by attorney, Russell Brown, who misrepresented input from RGAW at the 1/4/17 APC meeting without an opportunity for RGAW to respond. Although the developer is allowed to have legal representation, when RGAW hired attorneys to help them navigate the APC/Council process regarding this development within their neighborhood, Councilors V-P Jim Ake, President Chuck Lehman, Steve Hoover, and Robert Horkay became angered and started referring to the RGAW as adversarial, ignorant, and showing a lack of involvement in the community overall. President Lehman announced at a meeting that he "will not read this " 40 page document from RGAW. He was angry the RGAW hired attorneys, put up signs and wore yellow T-shirts to APC meetings. It is a conflict for any of these elected officials to represent a developer against residents. It should also be fair for residents to choose legal representation when it is standard procedure for developers.
The RGAW offered much information to improve the development in a manner respectful of the process. Their suggestions were studied, researched and well-thought through. At no point did they suggest there should be no development as they are all aware a 2006 Aurora PUD exists. This amendment process initiated by the developer, Chris White, gave an opportunity to improve upon a project that was voted down by the 2006 APC 10/23/06.
There are 11 points the RGAW would like to have considered to improve on this development and make it fit into the existing neighborhood.
Our Points:
Any information contained herein is supported by written documentation and audio files.
Clearly the City of Westfield needs commercial/industrial development and the taxes it brings if done properly, but such a large project should be fully studied and scrutinized. And the facts should all be considered.
Linda Naas
Westfield City Resident
317-867-0584
Neighborhood Voice Posts are posts submitted by individual neighbors or concerned residents to our site. These posts can be submitted anonymously. Email us at rgawestfield@gmail.com for info.
I am prepared to discuss this petition tomorrow, and if there is collective agreement among APC members, send a recommendation to Council. Strictly my reading of the tea leaves is that I expect there will be agreement, and that it will be for a favorable recommendation.
What I have watched over the last few months appears to be a lack of understanding, or ignoring, the fact that this site has approved zoning from 2006. This is clear from the very first paragraph where RGAW implores APC to send a negative recommendation, with I have to presume, further hope that Council would also reject the revised PUD proposal. Does RGAW understand that this results in the property being developed in accordance with the 2006 PUD? It does not stop development. It is unfortunate that some existing residents may not have known of this PUD in 2006, or new residents since 2006 prior to making a decision to locate in the area. But it doesn't change the fact that the Aurora PUD was approved in 2006, and that approval cannot be unilaterally rescinded. If the developer does not desire to make changes, it cannot be changed.
The developer has offered to hear neighbor concerns and integrate reasonable changes. But he is under no obligation, and has specifically expressed no desire, to completely rewrite the PUD, which from my observations is what RGAW is expecting. This was an excellent opportunity to bring reasonable concerns to the developer and work toward mutually agreeable changes. I cannot support reaching beyond what has been offered, as the City is powerless to take away existing zoning, or to otherwise deliberately interfere with allowing this petition to progress through our established review process. The developer could drop everything and simply start applying for permits for the 2006 PUD, which would be issued.
RGAW members may believe group actions have been responsible (the "R" in the name). But in the context of this proposal, overreaching and not using your last best opportunity to effect reasonable changes, appears to me irresponsible in general, and to membership in the vicinity of Aurora in particular.
I do not agree with attempts to involve majorities of APC and Council at meetings other than regularly scheduled meetings; that's what Monday nights in City Hall are for, to conduct the business of the City. In public. I will not attend such meetings as I do not believe it is an effective way to manage this process. In general I would encourage APC members to decline meetings outside of City Hall; Council as an elected policy-making, not advisory, body can make individual decisions to attend other meetings. I occasionally attend outside meetings, but not when the number of attendees will not fit comfortably around a table the size of my kitchen table, and when the end result is not intended to be educational.
Whoever constitutes RGAW may want to use hours remaining between now and Wednesday's APC meeting to determine a few absolute most important items to achieve. There is no public input on the agenda, and it will be the discretion of the chair to consider allowing comment (or not). I recommend if RGAW wants to have any chance to comment, and do not take this as a promise it will (or even might) happen, come to the meeting with only your few most important items to discuss if opportunity is offered.
Robert L. Horkay
Westfield City Council - District 5
January 3rd, 2017
Dear Gentlemen of the Advisory Plan Commission of Westfield,
We are writing to you today to implore you to study more passionately, hear more clearly and take action by making an adverse decision or negative recommendation to the Aurora PUD, which is back on your January 4th, 2017 agenda.
It is our most sincere plea that you read the documentation provided by the Responsible Growth Alliance of Westfield (RGAW) and understand each and every concern from the group. We believe we have collectively brought to light many points that have yet to be mitigated by anyone. Great effort has been made to meet with all parties including the Developer, APC members, City Councilors and neighbors regarding Aurora PUD.
The petitioner, Mr. Chris R. White and his representative, Mr. Russell Brown, publicly failed to submit the final Aurora PUD documentation needed for the December 5th public hearing on a deadline provided by the Community Development Department.
Article VII: Hearings & Conduct of Hearings, Section 1-Hearings, Number 4:
“Administrative rules and deadlines are established by the Secretary (Director of Community Development) for procedures such as filing petitions and are available in the Community Development Department.”
Article VII: Hearings & Conduct of Hearings, Section2-Conduct of Hearings, Number 2, subsection a):
“The burden shall be upon the Petition Representative to supply all information, including charts, diagrams and other exhibits necessary for a clear understanding of the case.”
Though the Commission allowed Mr. Brown’s presentation, without the proper and final documentation, it was the Commission’s burden to ask and receive a majority vote to grant a continuance to the petitioner.
Article IV: Meetings, Section 5-Quoroms & Decisions, Number 7, subsection c):
“The Commission at its discretion and on an affirmative vote of a majority of the Commission, may continue or postpone a public meeting or hearing of any case where, in its judgment, the petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence on which to make a final determination.”
Also, during this same public hearing, Rory O’Bryan, the legal representative of Responsible Growth Alliance of Westfield, was limited to 3 minutes to speak, rather than the 5 maximum minutes permitted to him.
Article VII: Hearings & Conduct of Hearings, Section2-Conduct of Hearings, Number 1, subsection e):
“The official public hearing shall then be opened. Comments from organized groups, committees (5 minutes maximum), and individuals, other than the petitioner, shall then follow (3 minutes maximum per speaker). Speakers should present new points and not repeat comments from previous speakers. The public hearing shall then be closed.”
As we approach the January 4th, 2017 meeting of the APC, Mr. White’s deadline for filing was understood to be December 16th, 2016. Again, the burden is placed on the petitioner for a comprehensive submission. However, as the agenda was released by the Planning Department on December 30th, 2016, we discover that page 4 of the amendment to the Aurora PUD is missing in its entirety and therefore the submission must be deemed as incomplete, yet again. Ordinance 16-35 also fails on several other levels, including but not limited to:
Cited in the footnotes of page 12 of the Staff Report,
1) “Westfield’s 2020 Comprehensive Plan; Comprehensive Plan Map (Figure 40 on page 47) shows the area east of U.S. 31, south of State Road 38, west of Grassy Branch Road, and north of 196th Street as appropriate for low and medium intensity commercial/industrial. The area immediately adjacent to Grassy Road was identified as medium density, varied residential. The 2020 Comprehensive Plan was adopted in December 1999 (Res. 99-10)
2) Westfield-Washington Comprehensive Plan: Future Land Use Map (Page 24). The Comprehensive Plan identifies that area east of U.S. 31, south of State Road 38, west of Grassy Branch Road and north of 196th Street as appropriate for business park development. The current Comprehensive Plan was adopted in February 2007 (Res. 07-06).
Article VIII: Notices, Number 7
“In accordance with City of Westfield Ordinance 07-09, all development proposals which are located within the area designated as the U.S. Highway 31 Overlay Zone, as defined in the Westfield-Washington Township Zoning Ordinance, that require a public hearing or action by the Commission shall provide notice to the Indiana Department of Transportation in accordance with the requirements established on the INDOT Notice Form.”
We ask that you require the petitioner to adhere to one of the following applicable rules of procedures regarding Ordinance 16-35, the amendment to Aurora PUD:
Article VII: Hearings & Conduct of Hearings, Section2-Conduct of Hearings, Numbers 4 – 6:
4) “Applicants shall be entitled to the meeting advertised by public notice. Such postponement/continuance must be requested in one postponement/continuance to another scheduled Commission meeting following writing by the petitioner / applicant, or their representative, at the scheduled meeting.”
5)” Subsequent postponements, continuances or requests for such action to a meeting beyond the meeting referred to in paragraph “4” above shall be made to the Commission in person by the petitioner / applicant, or by their representative.”
6)” Failure of the applicant, or Petition Representative, to appear in order to make the request referred to in paragraph “5” above shall result in the dismissal of the petition. If the applicant chooses to proceed with the petition, it will be treated as a new petition and shall be re-filed in proper form with the required data, numbered serially and placed on the docket of the Commission by City staff. Should the above occur the petitioner / applicant shall be responsible for paying all associated fees with the new petition / application.”
In conclusion, we respectfully ask that the Advisory Plan Commission admonish the Petitioner and the Petitioner Representative by assigning Ordinance 16-35 an adverse decision based upon the aforementioned and supporting evidence, as is allowed.
Article IX: Final Disposition of Cases, Section 7-Cases Decided Upon, subsections a) and b):
a) “A case which has been decided adversely to the petitioner shall not be placed on the docket again for consideration until the legality of the Commission’s decision is finally determined pursuant to IC 36-7-4-1000 et seq., or for a period of twelve (12) months following the date of the adverse decision previously rendered, whichever is later.”
b) “A new case involving the same property that was the subject of a case which has been decided adversely to any petitioner shall not be placed on the docket for consideration until the legality of the Commission’s decision is finally determined pursuant to IC 36-7-4-1000 et seq., or for a period of six (6) months following the date of adverse decision previously rendered, whichever is later.”
Responsible Growth Alliance of Westfield asks that this Commission demand Ordinance16-35, the amendment to Aurora PUD, be sent to committee as authorized by Indiana Code Title 36 (Local Government Code Section) 36-7-7-407, before it is presented again:
“Each plan commission may establish advisory committees of citizens interested in problems of planning and zoning. In its resolution establishing such a committee, the Commission shall specify the terms of its members and its purposes. Each advisory committee shall:
1) study the subject and problems specified by the commission and recommend to the commission additional problems in need of study;
2) advise the commission concerning how the subject and problems relate particularly to different areas and groups in the community; and
3) if invited by the commission to do so, sit with and participate, without the right to vote, in the deliberations of the commission, when subjects of mutual concern are discussed.
A committee shall report only to the commission and shall make inquiries and reports only on the subject and problems specified by the commission’s resolution establishing the committee.”
It is our most sincere hope that this Commission amends its Rules of Procedure forthwith, clarifying and strengthening its adherence.
Article X: Amendments
“Amendments to these rules of procedure may be made by the Commission at a First Meeting, Second Meeting, or Special Meeting. With and upon the affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the Commission it shall be effective.
Having completed a diligent review of the Rules and Procedures of the Advisory Plan Commission (http://www.westfield.in.gov/egov/documents/1396840086_83286.pdf), we conclude and believe you would agree that the actions of this Commission to date as they pertain to Ordinance 16-35 Aurora PUD do not align with your own rules and procedures. It is the responsibility of the APC alone to protect and defend this document and execute your duties in line with this document and state codes. We have discovered that many rules seem to have been dismissed or changed of late. We are concerned that the integrity of the Commission's purpose and authority is under threat of being usurped or negated within the City. We also believe that the residents whom you serve will be encumbered and all, including the City and developers, will be hindered from bringing forth development plans that bring the most benefit to all in harmony with existing development. Therefore, we are compelled to implore you to refresh yourselves by reviewing and upholding the following to the benefit of the Commission, our community, our neighborhood and prospective developers.
Indiana Code 36-7-4-400 Series, 500 Series, 600 Series,
http://iga/in.gov/legislative/laws/2016/ic/titles/036/
and, the Indiana Citizen Planner’s Guide
http://www.indianaplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/Files/5.3c_Plan_Commission_Basics.pdf
With Regard for your appointments and the protection you provide to the Citizens of this Community,
Responsible Growth Alliance of Westfield
Letter submitted to APC members this morning prior to Wednesday APC meeting by the RGAW resident group.
January 3rd, 2017
Dear Gentlemen of the Advisory Plan Commission of Westfield,
We are writing to you today to implore you to study more passionately, hear more clearly and take action by making an adverse decision or negative recommendation to the Aurora PUD, which is back on your January 4th, 2017 agenda.
It is our most sincere plea that you read the documentation provided by the Responsible Growth Alliance of Westfield (RGAW) and understand each and every concern from the group. We believe we have collectively brought to light many points that have yet to be mitigated by anyone. Great effort has been made to meet with all parties including the Developer, APC members, City Councilors and neighbors regarding Aurora PUD.
The petitioner, Mr. Chris R. White and his representative, Mr. Russell Brown, publicly failed to submit the final Aurora PUD documentation needed for the December 5th public hearing on a deadline provided by the Community Development Department.
Article VII: Hearings & Conduct of Hearings, Section 1-Hearings, Number 4:
“Administrative rules and deadlines are established by the Secretary (Director of Community Development) for procedures such as filing petitions and are available in the Community Development Department.”
Article VII: Hearings & Conduct of Hearings, Section2-Conduct of Hearings, Number 2, subsection a):
“The burden shall be upon the Petition Representative to supply all information, including charts, diagrams and other exhibits necessary for a clear understanding of the case.”
Though the Commission allowed Mr. Brown’s presentation, without the proper and final documentation, it was the Commission’s burden to ask and receive a majority vote to grant a continuance to the petitioner.
Article IV: Meetings, Section 5-Quoroms & Decisions, Number 7, subsection c):
“The Commission at its discretion and on an affirmative vote of a majority of the Commission, may continue or postpone a public meeting or hearing of any case where, in its judgment, the petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence on which to make a final determination.”
Also, during this same public hearing, Rory O’Bryan, the legal representative of Responsible Growth Alliance of Westfield, was limited to 3 minutes to speak, rather than the 5 maximum minutes permitted to him.
Article VII: Hearings & Conduct of Hearings, Section2-Conduct of Hearings, Number 1, subsection e):
“The official public hearing shall then be opened. Comments from organized groups, committees (5 minutes maximum), and individuals, other than the petitioner, shall then follow (3 minutes maximum per speaker). Speakers should present new points and not repeat comments from previous speakers. The public hearing shall then be closed.”
As we approach the January 4th, 2017 meeting of the APC, Mr. White’s deadline for filing was understood to be December 16th, 2016. Again, the burden is placed on the petitioner for a comprehensive submission. However, as the agenda was released by the Planning Department on December 30th, 2016, we discover that page 4 of the amendment to the Aurora PUD is missing in its entirety and therefore the submission must be deemed as incomplete, yet again. Ordinance 16-35 also fails on several other levels, including but not limited to:
Cited in the footnotes of page 12 of the Staff Report,
1) “Westfield’s 2020 Comprehensive Plan; Comprehensive Plan Map (Figure 40 on page 47) shows the area east of U.S. 31, south of State Road 38, west of Grassy Branch Road, and north of 196th Street as appropriate for low and medium intensity commercial/industrial. The area immediately adjacent to Grassy Road was identified as medium density, varied residential. The 2020 Comprehensive Plan was adopted in December 1999 (Res. 99-10)
2) Westfield-Washington Comprehensive Plan: Future Land Use Map (Page 24). The Comprehensive Plan identifies that area east of U.S. 31, south of State Road 38, west of Grassy Branch Road and north of 196th Street as appropriate for business park development. The current Comprehensive Plan was adopted in February 2007 (Res. 07-06).
Article VIII: Notices, Number 7
“In accordance with City of Westfield Ordinance 07-09, all development proposals which are located within the area designated as the U.S. Highway 31 Overlay Zone, as defined in the Westfield-Washington Township Zoning Ordinance, that require a public hearing or action by the Commission shall provide notice to the Indiana Department of Transportation in accordance with the requirements established on the INDOT Notice Form.”
We ask that you require the petitioner to adhere to one of the following applicable rules of procedures regarding Ordinance 16-35, the amendment to Aurora PUD:
Article VII: Hearings & Conduct of Hearings, Section2-Conduct of Hearings, Numbers 4 – 6:
4) “Applicants shall be entitled to the meeting advertised by public notice. Such postponement/continuance must be requested in one postponement/continuance to another scheduled Commission meeting following writing by the petitioner / applicant, or their representative, at the scheduled meeting.”
5)” Subsequent postponements, continuances or requests for such action to a meeting beyond the meeting referred to in paragraph “4” above shall be made to the Commission in person by the petitioner / applicant, or by their representative.”
6)” Failure of the applicant, or Petition Representative, to appear in order to make the request referred to in paragraph “5” above shall result in the dismissal of the petition. If the applicant chooses to proceed with the petition, it will be treated as a new petition and shall be re-filed in proper form with the required data, numbered serially and placed on the docket of the Commission by City staff. Should the above occur the petitioner / applicant shall be responsible for paying all associated fees with the new petition / application.”
In conclusion, we respectfully ask that the Advisory Plan Commission admonish the Petitioner and the Petitioner Representative by assigning Ordinance 16-35 an adverse decision based upon the aforementioned and supporting evidence, as is allowed.
Article IX: Final Disposition of Cases, Section 7-Cases Decided Upon, subsections a) and b):
a) “A case which has been decided adversely to the petitioner shall not be placed on the docket again for consideration until the legality of the Commission’s decision is finally determined pursuant to IC 36-7-4-1000 et seq., or for a period of twelve (12) months following the date of the adverse decision previously rendered, whichever is later.”
b) “A new case involving the same property that was the subject of a case which has been decided adversely to any petitioner shall not be placed on the docket for consideration until the legality of the Commission’s decision is finally determined pursuant to IC 36-7-4-1000 et seq., or for a period of six (6) months following the date of adverse decision previously rendered, whichever is later.”
Responsible Growth Alliance of Westfield asks that this Commission demand Ordinance16-35, the amendment to Aurora PUD, be sent to committee as authorized by Indiana Code Title 36 (Local Government Code Section) 36-7-7-407, before it is presented again:
“Each plan commission may establish advisory committees of citizens interested in problems of planning and zoning. In its resolution establishing such a committee, the Commission shall specify the terms of its members and its purposes. Each advisory committee shall:
1) study the subject and problems specified by the commission and recommend to the commission additional problems in need of study;
2) advise the commission concerning how the subject and problems relate particularly to different areas and groups in the community; and
3) if invited by the commission to do so, sit with and participate, without the right to vote, in the deliberations of the commission, when subjects of mutual concern are discussed.
A committee shall report only to the commission and shall make inquiries and reports only on the subject and problems specified by the commission’s resolution establishing the committee.”
It is our most sincere hope that this Commission amends its Rules of Procedure forthwith, clarifying and strengthening its adherence.
Article X: Amendments
“Amendments to these rules of procedure may be made by the Commission at a First Meeting, Second Meeting, or Special Meeting. With and upon the affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the Commission it shall be effective.
Having completed a diligent review of the Rules and Procedures of the Advisory Plan Commission (http://www.westfield.in.gov/egov/documents/1396840086_83286.pdf), we conclude and believe you would agree that the actions of this Commission to date as they pertain to Ordinance 16-35 Aurora PUD do not align with your own rules and procedures. It is the responsibility of the APC alone to protect and defend this document and execute your duties in line with this document and state codes. We have discovered that many rules seem to have been dismissed or changed of late. We are concerned that the integrity of the Commission's purpose and authority is under threat of being usurped or negated within the City. We also believe that the residents whom you serve will be encumbered and all, including the City and developers, will be hindered from bringing forth development plans that bring the most benefit to all in harmony with existing development. Therefore, we are compelled to implore you to refresh yourselves by reviewing and upholding the following to the benefit of the Commission, our community, our neighborhood and prospective developers.
Indiana Code 36-7-4-400 Series, 500 Series, 600 Series,
http://iga/in.gov/legislative/laws/2016/ic/titles/036/
and, the Indiana Citizen Planner’s Guide
http://www.indianaplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/Files/5.3c_Plan_Commission_Basics.pdf
With Regard for your appointments and the protection you provide to the Citizens of this Community,
Responsible Growth Alliance of Westfield
The Aurora PUD is once again on the agenda at this weeks APC meeting. We need a strong attendance at the meeting in support of a "no" vote from the APC. Even though we have opened a new line of communication with the developer Chris White, we still feel that the current amendment is not ready to clear the APC. Hopefully a committee similar to the Spring Mill Station group can be formed to work towards a solution. The committee or group would be comprised of the developer, residents, outside consultants, APC representation and city council representation. We feel this approach would be a positive and effective way to move forward. Please attend this weeks APC meeting to show support and stay informed on the current status of the Aurora PUD and other projects in your community. Here is link to meeting agenda with documents. This meeting will also be a great opportunity to bring yourself up to speed on The Grand Millennium Center Planned Unit Development (PUD) slated for downtown. Hope everyone had a great holiday!
A not-for-profit wildlife rescue organization could be displaced if the massive Aurora project moves forward in Westfield.
At the last APC meeting, the RGAW submitted a very well organized and complete opposition packet to the developer, APC, and city council. To accompany the packet, we filled the Westfield City Hall and organized a variety of speakers, each touching on individual topics. Rory O'Brian, a member of our legal team, took the podium first, and other speakers in our group followed. At completion, Russell Brown, the attorney for the developer, Chris White, offered his verbal praise, recognizing the quality of our submission. Unfortunately, after all of the information offered, neither Russell Brown nor the APC touched on any topics beyond buffering options and the new sub-zoning areas added by Chris White. Our intention and plea to the APC at the meeting was to vote down the current Aurora amendment and send the developer back to the drawing board. Unfortunately, the APC abstained from a vote and suggested we meet with Chris White, along with members of the APC and city council, to discuss our issues with the usage tables. We left a bit defeated, but in RGAW form, we instantly put a game plan in place for the upcoming meeting with the city and the developer. Under a condensed timeline, we worked tirelessly to meet the submission deadline. We decided the best way to illustrate our concerns and demands would be to completely overhaul and redesign the current Aurora PUD amendment. We dissected all the usage tables, per zoning use, and applied strict but reasonable uses to the design, while also eliminating all open industrial. Our research led us to the eco-park concepts that other cities have explored and implemented. The idea is to build an eco-friendly mixed-use park with large green spaces and reforestation buffers that balance with new buildings and structures. This idea creates for a much more aesthetically pleasing project, while also protecting existing wildlife and both wildlife rehab centers in the area. Our reforestation plan helps preserve the wildlife corridors needed for animals to move from the Aurora property to the adjacent Roberts woods. Roberts woods is the largest stand of trees in Hamilton County and harbors a wide variety of wildlife. The reforestation zones are a minimum of 100' and must be planted with larger established trees, both conifer and deciduous. In addition to the reforestation buffers, we have also relocated the retention ponding to extend the buffering further. We felt the addition of the reforestation buffers offset the acreage of the original 24 acre park the developer had removed. With this buffering concept in place, we felt that it was better to remove residential from the project and relocate to the East side of Grassy Branch Rd. This removes a residential zone that was way out of balance with the current residential properties. By relocating, it condenses the residential with other residential onto property currently optioned by the developer, Chris White. This move also makes the residential area more appealing to buyers and will command a higher value home price point. Along with removing the residential, we streamlined the park zoning to include three zones. The three new zones are business park, commerce park, and retail/shops. We condensed the commerce park and extended the business park to meet the standards of the Hwy 31 overlay. We also put height restrictions in place for any areas abutting residential property buffers. This concentrates any taller structures to the center of the property and towards Hwy 31. To address the potential new traffic volumes and patterns, we also created a designated truck route for the park. Taking from the playbook of many other commercial parks we designed a route that enters and exits the property from one point. This route allows access to all necessary areas while restricting truck traffic to any residential areas. As a tool to illustrate these ideas and concepts, we designed a new digital map overlay to help deliver our proposal. This map was designed as a tool, not a final product.
After many late nights and expense, we were prepared for the APC-suggested meeting with the city representatives and Chris White. We submitted our materials Thursday morning before the submission deadline, and tweaked a few details before the next morning’s meeting. At the eleventh hour, Russell Brown and Chris White backed out of the meeting, saying that they needed more time to process our material. We were shocked. The meeting was intended to create a productive environment for all parties to provide feedback for each other. We were not expecting the developer to come to the meeting with final solutions to all of our issues. Upon receiving this bad news, we also were made aware that other parties supposedly invited to attend by Kevin Todd and Russell Brown we never notified of the meeting. It was starting to feel like there was never any intention of having the meeting in the first place. We decided after all of our work and expense we were going to hold up our end of the deal. We were also not going to cancel on all of the city officials we had invited to the meeting. We arrived on time for the Friday meeting prepared to discuss our new proposal. Even though Chris White, Russell Brown, and Kevin Todd were not in attendance, we were still provided with a receptive audience. We had a great meeting with APC members Chris Woodard and Dave Schmitz, as well as RDC member Joe Plankis. All in attendance created a positive, productive environment for us to present our proposal. Invaluable feedback was generated for everyone around the table. After the meeting, we distributed hard copies of our proposal to other city officials and were contacted by others expressing interest in working with us. Unfortunately, the email contact we were waiting for still had not pinged my inbox. After canceling on the meeting we expressed to Russell Brown that we still wanted them to attend the Friday meeting. We felt this meeting was a very important tool in improving the communication between our group and the developer. Needless to say, after multiple emails, we received no response. In our minds, it was a common courtesy to attend the meeting, due to the amount of effort that was put forth to make it happen. The timing for this meeting also comes into play. Everyone agreed we needed to schedule the meeting prior to the submission deadline for the developer, which was December 19th. The idea was that if Russell Brown and Chris White were willing to work with us they would be able to push Aurora off beyond the January 4th APC meeting for a vote. This would give all parties time to continue talks and come up with a solution that benefited everyone.
This brings me to yesterday, Tuesday, December 20th. We finally received a response from Russell Brown. In this email they did not offer to reschedule our meeting, and also informed us that on the Friday of the no-show meeting, they filed their paperwork with city for the January 4th meeting. It strikes me as funny that their excuse for cancelling the meeting was based on lack of time to prepare, but they found time to revise the whole amendment and file with the city on the same day. This basically means they sidestepped our APC recommended meeting and took our materials to interpret without our input. This further reinforces the idea that Chris White has never had any intention of creating a positive communication channel with the impacted residents. All of his interactions have been solely at the request of the city and he has, for the most part, phoned it in. Before I have finished this post we have already put into motion our plan of action for this event. We had hoped Russell Brown and Chris White would not have chosen to take this path, but again, in RGAW form, we are prepared.
Thanks!
*Below is attached link to our proposal packet and map. If you would like a personal copy please let me know and I will email. If you have any questions please let us know. Keep in mind the map is a tool not a final product. Please read text document before trying to digest map.
FILE LINK AURORA SUBMISSION PACKET
*Upon clicking link if asked for login, click "No thanks, continue to view" . When downloading click "No thanks, continue to download".
CLICK IMAGE FOR PACKET DOWNLOAD
Below is the link to the opposition packet that was submitted by the RGAW to the Westfield APC and city council prior to the December 5th APC meeting. At 108 pages it is long but worth the read. Also below is link to APC meeting agenda with updated Aurora PUD documents. If you would like me to email you full file please let me know.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/qnnkznujaxjruh5/AABrtu6UiFbm41lFIBpmL30oa?dl=0
http://www.westfield.in.gov/egov/apps/document/center.egov?view=item;id=5184
Please click link for details on last nights APC meeting regarding the current Aurora PUD amendment vote.
NEIGHBORHOOD VOICE SUBMISSION
Submitted by: Kristen Heitman, CWR
Executive Director of Providence Wildlife Rehabilitation Inc.
Providence Wildlife Rehabilitation, Inc. relocated to NE Westfield in 2005, amid a bounty of mature trees and surrounded by the tranquility of farmland, with neighboring homes few and far between.
We accept 1,100 to 1,500 wild animals (mammals/reptiles/amphibians/all bird species) each year, raising orphans and rehabilitating injured adults.
One of the essential elements of rehab is to provide a quiet and dark/light species-appropriate environment - devoid of loud noises, inappropriate lighting, noxious odors, and air-borne contaminants.
Currently, our wild patients benefit from outdoor pre-release conditioning with the ambient sounds of nature, open skies, trees, fields, and natural nocturnal/diurnal lighting.
If Providence Wildlife is surrounded by an industrial park with multi-story buildings, outdoor lighting, air-borne contaminants, noxious fumes, loud noise, etc., our wild patients will be impaired by such intrusions. These are serious stressors that must be avoided; stress myopathy is a grave concern and must be avoided for the well-being of the patient - it hinders their recovery and can result in death, some species being more susceptible than others.
Additionally, our education birds of prey are primarily housed in outdoor enclosures. The stressors listed above would affect them 24/7, and possibly affect their ability to be present at education programs for MacGregor Park and other venues if they are too unnaturally stressed.
Respectfully,
Kristen Heitman, CWR
Executive Director
There has been a continuation on the Aurora PUD that reschedules it to December 5th. We have been working closely with our friends fighting the Wood Wind Pulte project. We have agreed to support each other in any way we can. Even though the Aurora PUD is not on the agenda tonight we need as many people as possible to attend meeting to support the Wood Wind group wearing our yellow shirts. In turn the Wood Wind group will show attendance support at our meeting. If you do not have a shirt please pick one up on my front porch. Meeting location and details below.
TONIGHT!
Advisory Plan Commission (APC)
MEETING DATE:Monday, November 21, 2016 at 07:00 PM
MEETING PLACE:Westfield Intermediate School- Multi-Purpose Room
RGAW meeting Tuesday Nov 22 6:30
Please join us tomorrow for this weeks RGAW meeting. Sorry for the last minute notice but there have been multiple variables that caused scheduling delays. This is a very important meeting for everyone in group to attend. This is a tedious process but we need everyone to hang in there! Meeting location and time below.
Tuesday Nov. 22nd
RGAW Meeting
MEETING DATE: Tuesday Nov 22nd 6:30 pm
MEETING PLACE: First Baptist Church of Westfield 20101 Grassy Branch Rd
December 5th
Advisory Plan Commission (APC) (Aurora on agenda)
MEETING DATE: December 5th
MEETING PLACE: TBD
PICK UP SHIRTS!
We still have plenty of shirts available. Please pick them up today to wear to tonight's meeting as well as the December 5th meeting. They are in box on my front porch. Other groups fighting the city are also wearing yellow shirts to meetings to show support for each other. SHIRT PICK UP: 20244 GRASSY BRANCH RD
Get Involved!
To make this a success it takes people. We have put together a smaller group of neighbors that have been doing a ton of research , footwork, media contact and arranging meetings with officials and experts. If you would like to be more involved and offer your time and skills to the process please let me know. We are more than happy to add you to the group! Thanks! Kevin
Contact us at rgawestfield@gmail.com
Questions?
RGAWESTFIELD@GMAIL.COM
Copyright © 2016 Responsible Growth Alliance of Westfield, All rights reserved.
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list
Already one of the largest proposed new developments in Westfield's history, Pulte has added more land and more homes (new total 1,040 homes and over 400 apartments) to their Wood Wind proposal. A second public hearing date is set for Monday, November 21st at 7:00 p.m. during the APC Meeting at City Hall. Due to the first public hearing being one of the largest remonstrances against a project in Westfield's history, a request has been made to the city to move to a larger venue than City Hall. At the first public hearing, people stood in line over an hour to enter the building and many gave up and went home. It is critical the citizens of Westfield have an opportunity to share their views on any development and especially one this large as any new development has implications for the schools, road safety, and public safety.
While this proposal intends to keep the golf course, it should not be at the expense of Westfield citizens and our children. The golf course is a private business. The group managing the course said they need rooftops in the Current last week. There are already 21 neighborhoods under construction on the west side of Westfield. It looks like having new rooftops isn't a problem.
City leaders must understand the extreme concern that you have. What can you do?
Every effort counts and helps! Thank you for your support and let's keep the strong message going that enough is enough!
Neighborhood Voice Posts are posts submitted by individual neighbors or concerned residents to our site. These posts can be submitted anonymously. Email us at rgawestfield@gmail.com for info.
Upcoming TAC & City Council Meetings (submitted by anonymous)
For those interested, there is an upcoming City Council meeting on November 14th at city Hall. As Aurora will not be on the agenda, public comments are allowed (for all non-agenda) items prior to regular agenda items. It has been suggested that RGA Westfield, shows up in large number. (This exact tactic was employed by several people at the September 12th City Council meeting. One regarding Wind Wood and three concerned about the GetGo near Harmony.) Residents should be advised to choose topics that are of broad concern for ALL rather than individual concerns about private property. All Counselors should be urged to vote no (when the PUD arrives in front of them) and advise APC committee members to vote no on the Aurora PUD. Unless compromise can be met between residents and the developer, the ramifications of the project can have a very long reach. Despite Mr. White's insistence that his project falls within the guidelines of the UDO, the APC can request limitations on what he plans to build in terms of size and height . As well, the current UDO, which has not been updated in two years, does not adequately address specific aesthetics. As a great example, Mr. Henke's PUD at Chatham Hills has an incredibly beautiful and cohesive design. While the UDO makes no requirement of this type, it would behoove both committees to consider the future of what Westfield will look like, instead of only focusing on their collective bottom line. The fiscal opportunity Aurora brings to Westfield is difficult for APC and City Council to ignore. In my opinion, arguments should be made to accept the opportunity for commercial sprawl without damaging the beautiful and rural landscape in the northern boundaries of the City. Moreover, there is a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting on November 15th at 9 am in the morning at the City Services Building. These meetings are public and may include information regarding infrastructure in the Aurora area. It might also be a good opportunity to find out if and when the East Street extension might happen. Just food for thought and a little information to keep you up date.
Come join us tonight November 3rd at 7pm for our third meeting of the RGAW. It is great to see support pouring in from all directions for our group and the residents involved. Hopefully this is a sign that theRGAW will be a long standing alliance in Westfield to provide a platform for residents to voice their opinions and concerns to the city. We are conducting research and building great new relationships that have resulted in information that is invaluable to us opposing the Aurora PUD as well as future impact projects. Thursday night we will discuss options and make some decisions on how we move forward from here concerning the Aurora PUD. We will also cover the topics from the developer meeting on Tuesday night for those who could not attend. These meeting are a great way to get to know your neighbors. This meeting is open to everyone. Feel free to invite anyone that would have positive input on this process. Looking forward to seeing everyone there. Thanks! Kevin
Signs & Shirts
Shirts to wear at upcoming planning commission and city council meetings are ready to pick up. Drop by and grab them from my front porch. I will also bring them for pick up to RGAW meeting. There a still a few yard signs available for those that still need them.
Get Involved!
To make this a success it takes people. We have put together a smaller group of neighbors that have been doing a ton of research , footwork, media contact and arranging meetings with officials and experts. If you would like to be more involved and offer your time and skills to the process please let me know. We are more than happy to add you to the group! Thanks! Kevin
Contact us at rgawestfield@gmail.com
*Please forward this email to any interested parties.
Yard signs still available for pick up
Developer Meeting Location
Bridgewater Country Club Clubhouse (North Ballroom)
3535 E. 161st St
Carmel, IN 46033
November 1st 6pm
Developer Neighbor Meeting 2
Tell your neighbors! Tomorrow is the second developer hosted meeting for neighbors impacted by the Aurora PUD. We need a strong turnout to show the developer the growth of the opposition. The developer is hosting this meeting at the recommendation of the planning commission. We need everyone to show up and voice their concerns. This could be a redundant process but this meeting is even more important than the first. We have put together a document based on input from the last RGAW meeting (RGAW document link). Listed on document are concerns and demands that we intend to send to the city council, planning commission and the developer. Please read through and send me any additions or edits that you might have. Even in its rough draft form, please print out and bring to meeting tomorrow. We want to make sure everyone has information to generate questions for the developer . It is imperative that we show up tomorrow, this is the last meeting before the November 9th planning commission meeting. At November 9th meeting the Aurora PUD will be put up for recommendation or rejection to the city council. There is a high likelihood that the developer will ask for a continuation that will bump Aurora PUD vote to the next meeting. I will keep everyone posted on this. Hope to see everyone there!
We will be hosting our second neighborhood meeting to discuss our plan of action regarding the Aurora PUD. At our initial meeting the open discussion hopefully brought everyone up to speed on the potential impacts that this project will have on our propery values and quality of life. On Thursday we hope put all of the concerns and demands into a format that we can formally present to the city and the developer. Please come prepared to contribute general and personal concerns to the list. This meeting is open to everyone. Feel free to invite anyone that would have positive input on this process. Looking forward to seeing everyone there. Thanks! Kevin
Meeting Location
First Baptist Church of Westfield
20039 Grassy Branch Rd, Westfield, IN 46074
October 20th 7pm
Yard signs will be available at the meeting for pick up.
Questions?
RGAWESTFIELD@GMAIL.COM
