FORTVILLE – The Fortville Plan Commission voted on a continuation after discussion and public hearing comments at Tuesday night’s meeting about a planned unit development (PUD) that, if approved, would allow for a new development of over 200 apartment units and two industrial buildings.
Adam Zaklikowski, planning and building director, said with this PUD, the developer, Lauth LLC, would extend South Madison Boulevard and Park Street through the development.
Zaklikowski also provided comparisons between the PUD and their PUD standards template, which has been used a few different times as a launching point for other developments.
In the analysis, Zaklikowski said that a PUD allows for the developer to put forth the vision for the property for the plan commission and public to understand the vision.
“They’re held to the standard of they would have to develop in substantial conformance of the concept plan, building elevations that they are showing, so it does provide a lot more vision,” said Zaklikowski at the meeting. “Especially when you have a large piece of property like this.”
This covers approximately 38 acres, with setbacks varying from the PUD standards.
The project’s height would not exceed the height of three-stories in the multi-family area, and then not to exceed 50 feet for the industrial side. The types of material proposed would include brick, stone coping, hearty plank and more, with vinyl prohibited.
With pictures of a recent project done by Lauth in Franklin, Indiana, some of the conditions Zaklikowski asked to be considered when motioning a recommendation is to have a different color scheme than the project in Franklin, the entire first floor be brick and EIFS be a prohibited material.
Zaklikowski said he sent those conditions to the developer, and that they had a couple of changes they wanted to add, such as the possibility of constructing less than the originally said seven buildings, making fewer buildings larger; the flexibility to added up to 225 units when the original number was 204 units; having 20% brick in masonry instead of the entire first floor; and then allow EIFS of 5% use.
Michael Garvey, chief investment officer for Lauth, said in response to questions from the board about the renderings presented, that they were not renderings created for the development in Fortville, but rather samples from their most recent project.
Garvey said the request for 20% masonry would be for surfaces the public would see more of, but still be sensitive to the request to not have just a blank wall. In terms of parking and unit count concerns, Garvey said they should have demographic information to Zaklikowski in the next approximately 48 hours, and that the market tells that the size of units will be driven by the need of three-bedroom units – sizing being in the range 850 to 900 square-feet.
Garvey said that with EIFS, it is the product that can accommodate certain designs, and that they don’t want to limit themselves or the town without the building being designed.
Brittney Layton, plan commission member, said that there are a lot of the proposed development that she likes, such as streets connecting to existing roadways and also having matching open areas that border original open areas. Layton attended the town council meeting last week and said that she has heard some concerns from residents.
One of the concerns is tractor trailers traffic with the industrial buildings, and Layton wanted to clarify that with the addition of these roads, it is supposed to help divert heavy traffic from Fortville’s Broadway Street.
Garvey said that when they engaged with Fortville roughly four to five years ago, looking at the traffic in the area was a priority.
For the public hearing portion of the meeting, property owner John Gay said he proposed the PUD would take some control out of the town’s hands.
“This is where we lose control of the project,” Gay said.
Gay addressed his concerns about the changes of the number of units, square footage of the units and parking. Gay also questioned major changes versus minor changes, and said that he would want the developer to come back with “a real plan that they want to put together before you buy it.”
Tonya Davis, town council president, said that she thinks they need to be careful about the look of the apartments, and said that she thinks there are better products than what they were shown, such as one done in Lexington, Ky.
“It has to happen – the layouts good, the commercial side is good, the residential needs some work I think – so I’d be careful about not asking for some architectural things,” Davis said.
Vanessa Battaglia, town council member, agreed with Davis on the look of the apartments and said if they are going to give over a piece of land to be developed, they should “enjoy a taste of such scenery.”
Battaglia also questioned motivation to be more urban, since Fortville has a small-town feel and that’s why she moved to Fortville from Carmel.
Battaglia said that at the town council meeting, they didn’t receive substantive answers to some of the questions, such as why it needed to be a PUD and how does this improve traffic.
“I just wanted to make sure that the full sentiment from last week was carried through to this week because I definitely had a lot of questions,” Battaglia said.
Addressing comments in the rebuttal, Garvey said that on the design, they have not gone to architecture yet because to do that with a design that they commit to would cost approximately $200,000.
Ryan Thomas, senior vice president of development for Lauth, said that with the PUD their proposing, they are trying to provide a better land use transition. Thomas said he can’t say this area won’t produce some semi-truck traffic, but the level of industrial does not produce semi-truck traffic on a frequent basis.
Thomas also said that as a multi-family developer they understand what the market will bear, what they can afford to build and what people desire.
“We’re still gathering information from bodies like yourselves, to try and arrive at what that compromise looks like, because it is in fact a compromise that makes everybody happy,” said Thomas at the meeting.
After more discussion, the board wanted to request more information and explanations of the different aspects of the project where concerns were raised and motioned to continue the PUD to their next plan commission meeting in April.
