Mr. Gibbs: II'd like to call to order the Planning Commission meeting for August 2, 2010. Mr. Carlucci would you poll the Board to determine a quorum?
ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM
Mr. Satterfield is absent tonight
Mr. McPhail- here
Mr. Brandgard- here
Mr. Dunkin- here
Mr. Kirchoff- here
Mr. Gibbs- here
We have five members present, one absent; we have a quorum for the purpose of conducting business.
Mr. Gibbs: Thank you.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mr. Gibbs: If you would please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES- July 8, 2010
Mr. Gibbs: I assume everyone has had an opportunity to review the minutes for July 8th in their packet. If so I entertain a motion.
Mr. Kirchoff: I move the minutes as read.
Mr. Brandgard: Second
Mr. Gibbs: Motion with a second, Mr. Carlucci would you poll the Board?
Mr. Carlucci: Yes, the motion was made by Mr. Kirchoff, and seconded by Mr. Brandgard.
Mr. McPhail- yes
Mr. Brandgard- yes
Mr. Dunkin- yes
Mr. Kirchoff- yes
Mr. Gibbs- yes
Mr. Satterfield is absent tonight
The minutes are approved.
OATH OF TESTIMONY
Mr. Gibbs: All of those wishing to make a testimony this evening will need to take an oath and Mr. Daniel will administer that.
Mr. Daniel: Conducted the Oath of Testimony.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mr. Gibbs: reviewed the guidelines governing the conduct of Public Hearings.
With that it looks like we are ready to start, Mr. James we will turn it over to you with RZ-10-004.
PETITIONS FOR PUBLIC HEARING
RZ-10-004
Mr. James: Good evening, thank you Mr. President. Our only petition tonight is a request to modify rezone commitments that were made with the RZ-09-004 of last year, to change the timing of when Metropolis Parkway extension entrance is to be completed. The entrance cannot be completed until the Indy Park Ride and Fly bought the property from the Indianapolis Airport Authority. The property was bought and annexed and rezoned to C-I last year with petition RZ-09-004 and with that rezone they made the commitment that Metropolis Parkway extension entrance would be completed by August 31st of this year. Due to the economy they would like to modify the commitment. The commitment would state that the entrance would be built at the first occurrence of either the Metropolis Parkway being extended over from Airtech Blvd to the Ronald Reagan Parkway or if development occurs and either they get Ronald Reagan Parkway Business Park or the Green park at AirWest Industrial park to the north which shares this entrance. Here is the site at Ronald Reagan Parkway, this is the property that was rezoned last year, it is now C-I zoning, commercial industrial. If you will recall they finally got these old remnant parcels from the Airport Authority and one big holdup is getting this parcel here so they could get the land and then the right of way to build out the entrance. Here is the primary platt for the Ronald Reagan Parkway Business Park, and then you've got the Indy Park Ride and Fly operation back in here. They gain access from this entrance to Plainfield South Drive and then to their operation. This is the entrance that needs to be completed. Here is a better look of it. Right now it is just the two lanes by getting this property they can now completely build out the entrance. Photo I took today, you can see how it is just two lanes and then now that they have this property it can be built out to four lanes. The Transportation Director had no issues with the modified commitments as proposed. Does the Plan Commission have any concerns and what other considerations should there be? I mentioned earlier that maybe it should be built before there is a change of ownership maybe put a timeframe on it. There is currently only one lane use that would be impacted by the delay of the entrance. That is the Indy Park Ride and Fly operation; they have been operating for 2-3 years with the existing configuration without any issues. The sign is just a temporary sign that has to be moved back to the proper setback once the entrance is built out. The existing entrance it only impacts two property owners, we've got the Ronald Reagan Parkway Business Park to the north you've got the Verus development but that is the GreenParke at Airwest. So when this entrance is built it is going to impact a Verus property also. So is Verus delayed in completion of the entrance? I handed out an email that I received today that they prefer that the entrance go ahead and get built and they had some other issues with the sign and then with the street light, but the street lights have already been installed. You can see right here, that shouldn't be an issue. They think in the current configuration it impacts their marketing efforts for their industrial park and then older issues, when will the right of way get dedicated? The petitioner agreed today that they would dedicate the right of way by the end of the month. Then the existing signs Indy Park Ride and Fly will be moved when the entrance is completed. Hopefully that is giving you a good understanding of what this request is about and Mr. Brian Tuohy is here representing the petitioner and I'm sure he will be glad to answer any questions you might have.
Mr. McPhail: Joe, I've got a question for you. Since they now own that frontage along Ronald Reagan Parkway, are they in a position now where they can put an integrated center sign along that frontage?
Mr. James: Yes.
Mr. McPhail: I know one of the issues all along has been the size of the sign. They could petition and come in and put a larger sign along their frontage there.
Mr. James: Yes.
Mr. Gibbs: Any other questions for Joe at this time? If not would the petitioner like to come forward?
Mr. Tuohy: Good evening Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Brian Tuohy, I'm an attorney with an address at 50 South Meridian and here with me tonight is Amy Jones. Ms. Jones runs the Indy Park Ride and Fly facility on Ronald Reagan Parkway. First off thank you for hearing our case tonight. Joe did a fine presentation just to remind you maybe a little history here. For some evening with everything on the agenda it will be a very quick history. What happened was the Airport was reluctant to sell Indy Park Ride and Fly some land. After a time they have changed their mind and this was after Indy Park Ride and Fly had opened and they changed their mind and sold us this strip of land right along the front. We opened the facility without that strip of land and with this entrance as its configured now and has been since the day its opened, and they have had no traffic issues and I checked with Don McGillem and he confirmed that he knew of no traffic issues and Ms. Jones will tell you there has been no accidents or traffic issues there. But when they then acquired the land from the Airport the land they inquired was this land right in here in that piece which they couldn't fill in because the Airport owned it until they bought it is that they agreed to fill it in. Well as you might guess the travel business has been adversely impacted by the economy. Their business has been down up to 40% from when they were in their other location. It has recently started to come back which they are very pleased about. However, they have never filled their lot; they have never gotten 75% of their lot filled. So the access in and out of there has just not been an issue at all and there is no development anywhere else around there. They have had their land marketed since 2008; they have really not had any serious inquiry at all about that. They believe their priced competitively, they are listed with it used to be Tucker and now they have another name and they also believe that no one has been very serious about purchasing anything up here at GreenParke. I assured the next door neighbor, Mr. Theobald that if anyone started development out at this site or any other development by the Indy Park Ride and Fly they would immediately put that road in. Or as Mr. McGillem asked me if Plainfield brought Metropolis over here they would build that slice in so that it would connect at that time. Frankly they would just like to avoid right now the expenditure of somewhere between $25,000.00 and 35,000.00 on a small section of roadway that they don't believe is necessary given that there is no other use out there but their use. I don't know if Mr. Theobald raised his email question about our street lights, those street lights we have purchased or actually I believe they are leased from the Electric Power Coop and I believe they are nice street lights I believe they are the street lights they should be in. Interestingly enough we have not charged the next door neighbor for those even though they certainly benefit his parkway. That was sort of curious to us that were raised about the street lights. This is a photograph of the entrance, there are three total lanes as you can see one going in and two coming out. There is quite a throat there is never any traffic that backs up, their traffic comes in over the course of the day and so it tends to be more of early morning and perhaps early evening but there is two lanes to come out and one lane to get in and they have never had any backup there. There is another photo showing one coming out of one lane and one going in and the sign. Here is now a photo looking west out to Mr. Stout's fields and that is the piece that we fill in, that green area from there over would be the piece that would be built in we would respectfully request once there was some other development there or Metropolis connects on through. That is another photograph where you can see there are three lanes there. Mr. Theobald at one point called me and said I think your sign might block our sign so I went out and stood in the middle of the northbound lane and took a photograph and as you can see it is very easy to see both signs. Then I went to the southbound lane and stood slightly off the middle and you can see both signs and both some distance from the entryway so we believe people know his sign is there and we believe people know our sign is there. The original commitment was we would put that in, in August and in July or June I contacted Mr. James and Mr. McGillem and discussed this with them and they suggested this would be the route to go and what we proposed was to put this road in as soon as any other development happens either on Indy Park Ride and Fly site, Mr. Theobald's site, or the Town of Plainfield extends Metropolis Parkway and Mr. McGillem said well what happens if you guys aren't there? Would you give us the land now? Would you dedicate the land now and I checked with my clients and of course they said yes. So now that we own it, we can dedicate it to Plainfield and you can do that before the end of this month. In summary there's been no accidents, we have had no complaints from any of our customers, the intersections are well lit, and they seem to function very well. There is just no other traffic there except Indy Park Ride and Fly traffic and we certainly hope that will change but so far the indications are there is not much appetite for vacant C-I ground right now, apparently there is a fair amount of inventory and in the event that either of us would get a lot sale or a lease or any pull of permit of any kind they are going to put the road in. It just comes down to their business has dropped back considerably, they certainly hope there will be other development in that area but it hasn't happened. I believe Indy Park Ride and Fly has been a good neighbor, they have been supportive of various organizations. They certainly didn't anticipate this drop in their business and it's not pleasant but at this point they would appreciate I guess you would say a little leeway and some time to spend that money on something that at least right now from a traffic standpoint, doesn't seem to be demanded. Again, thank you for your time and consideration, of course we could try to answer any questions you might have and we would appreciate your favorable consideration to our condition.
Mr. Brandgard: I have a couple of questions for you, it's been a little while and the mind gets fuzzy sometimes. Who paid for the road that is in there now?
Mr. Tuohy: Indy Park Ride and Fly.
Mr. Brandgard: whose property was it on?
Mr. Tuohy: Half on Indy Park Ride and Fly and half Verus. About better example would be 2/3 on Indy Park Ride and Fly and 1/3 on Verus.
Mr. Brandgard: You paid for the road that is on their side?
Mr. Tuohy: Yes sir.
Mr. Brandgard: They get full access from that road.
Mr. Tuohy: Yes sir and we paid for those lights in there too.
Mr. Brandgard: Another kind of a point thing. You said about $30,000.00 or so to complete that road. The Town's experience all this year has been really well when we go out for bidding on roadwork and that it usually comes in half or more than what the engineer's estimate based on normal says it would be. I guess my thoughts there if you figure it is $30,000.00 if you were to go put it in today you may find that it is a whole lot less.
Mr. Tuohy: I should have mentioned that. When they originally did this they thought it was going to be about $50,000.00 and what you said is true. A lot of things have lowered in price; their building was lower than they had originally anticipated. On the other hand, they ran into a situation involving ducks and geese and they had to put in a $300,000.00 sort of a cover on a pond. So that was an unexpected expense, but that happens in business.
Mr. McPhail: I just want to make a comment. You know we've worked really hard with both developers to get that entrance in as it is, we were impeded by the airport that problem has been solved and you know I appreciate that Indy Park Ride and Fly tenacity and working with the airport to get that resolved and they have been a real good corporate citizen and I don't have a problem with their request at this point and time. It seemed pretty simple to me that any development that kept commitment there and any additional development the commitments there to build it. It's not going to improve their situation by adding it at this point and time there is nobody else there to serve.
Mr. Kirchoff: 72055
Mr. Tuohy: It was, We were doing the rezoning in December of last year and we thought we would hopefully have some additional sales and so then there would be other businesses we'd be bringing here in the Spring for design plan approval and the road would come in and we'd have additional sales is what we thought, that forecast was faulty.
Mr. Kirchoff: Mel you mentioned a couple of weeks ago that we might
Mr. Daniel: Yes, one thing I think would at least from my experience representing this Board for a long time. I would encourage the Commission to consider at least one other element and that it would be completed before any change of ownership. Because I think from the standpoint of sometimes on these properties are sold and then you get into the “I didn't know about these commitments and all that other stuff”, so to the extent that they should for any reason choose to sell this property or that sort of thing, but I think that should be required to be in there before any closing on the sale of this property.
Mr. Tuohy: I'm sure my company would be fine with that.
Mr. Brandgard: I think really where I'm at, I understand the (inaudible) GreenParke over there but they've all got entrance in their area that they didn't have to pay for. They did not have any partner over what the commitment you are wanting is to put back in is the one you made original if I read the documents properly. Then when you are able to obtain those your (inaudible) August 31 date came in.
Mr. Tuohy: That's true.
Mr. Brandgard: But then at the same time, no way the reality of the economy and market today that, that has to have some kind of confession that that will go in. I don't really care who puts it in as long as the Town doesn't have to do it.
Mr. Tuohy: Yes sir.
Mr. McPhail: Certainly if it's dedicated and the commitment is there for any development it should not impede Various' to market that properly.
Mr. Brandgard: I mean I'm the first to tell you it would look a whole lot better if its split like it's supposed to, but that should not have any impact on his ability to sell that. If it does, he could put the other entrance in.
Mr. McPhail: I hope Verus comes in tomorrow with a project.
Mr. Brandgard: I look at the other side and that is if you look at Perry Road out there where we are finishing the other two lanes in that section from Stafford Road south. We are not doing that because there is a whole lot of need for it right now, we are doing it because the price is right and we know we are going to need it.
Mr. Tuohy: Is that the piece over there that I call the old Galyan's?
Mr. Brandgard: South of there, yes.
Mr. Carlucci: This is a question for Tim; do we still have performance bonds on that road?
Mr. Belcher: Inaudible
Mr. Carlucci: It would make that subject to those bonds remaining in place.
Mr. Belcher: Inaudible
Mr. Tuohy: We are fine with that.
Mr. Gibbs: Any other questions from the Commission at this time?
Mr. Tuohy: Thank you.
Mr. Gibbs: This is a public meeting I will open it up for anyone in the public in favor or opposing this petition? If not I will close the public portion of that and open it up to the Board to make a motion.
Mr. James: In the original commitment it said the right of way would remain a portion of Metropolis Parkway extension shall be dedicated to the Town but didn't give a date. So I guess we better add that.
Mr. Kirchoff: Mr. President, I move that the Plan Commission approve the Modification of Zoning Commitments request RZ-10-004 as filed by Airport Parking Management, LLC. Requesting to modify Zoning Commitments made with rezone petition RZ-09-004 to change when the Metropolis Parkway extension/entrance is required to be completed subject to the following commitments being submitted to Staff on Exhibit B forms prior to being recorded in the Hendricks County Recorder's Office:
1. Petitioner respectfully requests that Commitment No. 4 entered into in connection with Petition RZ-09-004 be modified to state as follows: “The Metropolis Parkway extension/entrance shall be completed upon the occurrence of the earlier of the following: the completion of the eastward extension of Metropolis Parkway to Ronald Reagan Parkway or the filing of a petition seeking approval of a development plan for construction of a building and development of a site within either the Ronald Reagan Parkway Business Park or within the Greenparke at Airwest industrial park.
2. All other commitments entered into in connection with Petition RZ-09-004 shall remain binding on the real estate.
3. This road must be installed prior to any change of ownership with this property.
4. That the right of way from Metropolis Parkway to allow completion of the entrance off of Ronald Reagan Parkway shall be dedicated at no cost to the Town of Plainfield on or before August 31, 2010.
5. That the performance bonds for this project remain in place.
Mr. McPhail: Second.
Mr. Gibbs: I have a motion and a second. Mr. Carlucci would you poll the Board?
Mr. Carlucci: The motion was made by Mr. Kirchoff and seconded by Mr. McPhail. Mr. Satterfield is absent tonight.
Mr. McPhail- yes
Mr. Brandgard- yes
Mr. Dunkin- yes
Mr. Kirchoff- yes
Mr. Gibbs- yes
We have five ayes, one absent, and the motion carries.
Mr. Gibbs: Next item on the agenda. CP-10-002: Proposed amendment to Plainfield Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. James: This involves two proposed amendments to the Plainfield Comprehensive Plan, first amendment; we need to change the future land use map so that the area south of Main Street between Lawndale and Buchannan/Holiday Street is changed from community commercial to medium density residential. There are existing homes in this area and the comprehensive plan was done back in 2004. I believe these home owners were told that this use would remain as residential and not commercial. But I guess mistakenly the comprehensive plan; the future land use map shows this as a community commercial. That is the first proposal.
Mr. Kirchoff: Joe to have that do we have to have a public hearing on that?
Mr. James: Yes, we will do that next month. We will do the ad in the paper and it would be advertised as public hearing. This is more or less a draft tonight. Second proposed amendment would be to add a sign amortization program to the comprehensive plan to remove legal nonconforming signs. We talked about this at the last months meeting. We've looked at model sign codes to use sign amortization. The model code recommended by the American Planning Association recommends that you add a sign amortization element to your comprehensive plan. I think this could cover us with regards to legal proceedings and we do have a form of a sign amortization in our current code where we require that the legal nonconforming signs have to be removed if they are not used within six months. This will help cover us in case anybody does challenge that. I have proposed two ways to do it. We either add a sign control and design element to our urban design element in the comprehensive plan or we just add a statement where it is needed in the comprehensive plan and that would be in the urban design element and then in the objectives of the implementation plan so there is two ways to do it, we can either add the paragraph about our sign program or just add the statement where it is needed. What are your comments about that?
Mr. Kirchoff: I was ok until I got to the last couple of sentences on page 4; I'm not sure what we mean when we say “Sign amortization should be used to remove old legal nonconforming signs. To aid in old sign removal by sign amortization, legal nonconforming sign should be inventoried, registered and certificates of nonconforming should be issued.” I'm not sure what you mean by that.
Mr. James: The model ordinance recommended that you inventory the signs then you register them and then you issue certificates of nonconforming to notify the property owner that it's a legal nonconforming sign it's got to be removed.
Mr. Kirchoff: I didn't know we had gotten to that. I thought last time we talked that we asked you guys to do an inventory so we had a sense of how many we have out there.
Mr. James: Which we have done, I think Jill said we got over thirty.
Mr. Brandgard: I think, I guess what Bill is saying, I'm kind of the same way. I thought we left the discussion last month where inventory would be made and then we would know about it so we would know what we are saying if we go with this.
Mr. James: Ok.
Mr. Brandgard: I'd like to know who we are dealing with and where are they. The other thing is from Kent's standpoint, from the Chamber, how is this going to fly with the Chamber?
Mr. McPhail: Public hearing to plan that I guess.
Mr. Kirchoff: It is premature from where we were last month. We said if you do an inventory, hopefully pictorial inventory, we would have a sense of how big is the issue, where are they, what do they look like? And then we could react to that.
Mr. Carlucci: One thing, I'm not going one way or the other on this but one thing we have got to be careful about, there are some old signs out there that have historic significance. You might not want to say every single sign that doesn't meet the requirements must come out whether or not it has historic significance to that sign. I say we, I don't know what sign, but let's say we drive by the signs out there to move it to a new location. Then you are violating, I mean there aught to be some type of relief from that requirement. I don't think we are talking about many of those, but I hate to see it just draw a blank at this point. I was like what Bill said; I was waiting for the list of signs.
Mr. James: Ok, we can put it on hold until we get the inventory done and then we will present the results from inventory at well, if we have a meeting next month, we may not meet next month.
Mr. Kirchoff: Just get it in the basket and we will look at it.
Mr. McPhail: You can distribute inventory when you get it done.
Mr. Kirchoff: Sure.
Mr. Brandgard: I understand the need for this; I also understand the ramifications of it, both legal and otherwise. So I think we need to make sure if we are going on down this route we need to fully understand what it is we are doing and how we are do it.
Mr. James: I want to go ahead while we are talking about signs and let you know of some proposing amendments we are looking at. Want us to allow one off premise sign for garage sales. Right now most that have a garage sale are violating the ordinance because they put out these signs at the corner of a main Thoroughfare.
Mr. Brandgard: Not only that but they put them up on power poles.
Mr. James: Yes, they put them on power poles and even on the traffic control signs and stop signs. This would allow one off premise sign at a major Thoroughfare like Main Street or Stafford to direct them to their garage sale. But it would only be six square feet and only four feet high and we would tell them to keep it out of the right of way and not in a vision clearance area.
Mr. Daniel: So that will be a ground sign?
Mr. James: Yes, a sign in the ground. Just something they can stick in the ground. Then we would make…
Mr. Carlucci: So the people that put out the six foot square sign, they do a nice job, thank you very much and take it away doesn't begin to catch all the people that are not going to do that. If you want to spend your time enforcing that then we can go ahead, but I think you have enough of a battle.
Mr. Brandgard: Dealing with garage sales is difficult enough to get the people in to get the permit to do it, let alone police the garage sales and the signs.
Mr. James: I don't enforce it now, when they are over with, I go back out and tear them down or pull them up and throw them away.
Mr. Brandgard: To me the thing is having an ordinance that you can't police is worse than having no ordinance.
Mr. James: Yes. Good point.
Mr. Carlucci: The one thing I always said about these things, the one thing that really is the most Regis of the signs is when they take them and put them on traffic control signs and that aught to be an ordinance violation because that is a big problem. You get all sorts of issues that you've got to deal with.
Mr. Brandgard: I would suggest something if we are going to do that. We have the ordinance requiring (inaudible). We aught to amend that ordinance and say that if you put up a sign saying a garage sale at XYZ location there aught to be a name on it and maybe a time and location. I guess where I'm at, you can drive down the street and there are garage sale signs that people put up that happened six weeks ago and they haven't taken it down.
Mr. Gibbs: Requirement to take the sign down.
Mr. Carlucci: That is the most irritating part of those things, they don't care.
Mr. Brandgard: If you have a permit we could kind of check, but again you get into the policing issue which we try to stay away from because we don't have the staff to ask to go out and look at it. The other part is like Rich said traffic control signs. I know of in my neighborhood they were hanging laminated signs with plastic ties on the signs announcing pool opening or party or what have you on every sign in the neighborhood and we can't allow that. Those signs aren't up for advertising purpose. It's as bad as the real estate signs.
Mr. James: Another thing that we need to do is make sidewalk signs exempt in the Town center. We just don't have that in our exempt signs; it is just only in the Town center standards.
Mr. Carlucci: If you start with all of the improvements we have doing now on 40, we add up all of the cost from Carr Road to Vestal Road, everything that we have done Vestal Road extension, P.Y.A.C., everything. All that put together is over sixteen million dollars. What I find and you guys can say I'm crazy or not, then we are going to put the railings back in and we've spent a lot of the Town money to make the signs look better and then we are going to put those little sandwich signs that will take over what is left of the sidewalk for part of it for people to even get through there. I've just never been a big fan of those signs.
Mr. Brandgard: We've spent a lot of money or spending a lot of money to improve the looks of Main Street. Part of it is if you allow, if there is a restaurant that might have room for tables outside or something like that and you are going to allow signs out there that are going to create traffic and take away from looking. I'm not a fan of it for that reason. Now if we had sixteen foot sidewalks that may make a difference.
Mr. Carlucci: I would have a less problem if they put…well the first of all it's all about marketing the downtown, to get people to go there. That is part of it, the other part is, I think that if you are driving by and you're looking at these A frame signs, even now when the road was open completely, I'm not the best one to talk about this because I can't, I'm not going to turn my head to read, I can't read it anyway. But I don't think a lot of other people can either unless you are stopped at the light.
Mr. Kirchoff: Don't we have a degree that we are working with a sign agreement program that we discuss this with them?
Mr. James: No, not the sidewalk signs. There is a flag at the antique shop that is a thing of the past with the new façade.
Mr. Kirchoff: I just thought what their thoughts might be about what it would be to help their business downtown.
Mr. Gibbs: One of the first things they will get is putting up one of those façade things the wire signs right there on the façade.
Mr. McPhail: Most sidewalks signs, the point there are for the pedestrian traffic not for the vehicle traffic.
Mr. James: Yes, that is true.
Mr. Brandgard: But I think we have got to figure out before we start saying no or yes we need to work with a group out here and figure out what will work best for them.
Mr. Kirchoff: That is where I am coming from. I welcome you to talk to them, we are doing all of this and the things have changed now, what would help them reasonably? I wouldn't know one way or the other. It is just kind of open ended. What do they think they would like to have?
Mr. James: The sign that is currently now allowed are signs for civic events and charitable events and events for not for profit organizations. We just sort of let them do it, like the signs for the Hummel Park.
Mr. Kirchoff: They are still up.
Mr. James: I meant to call Mick today and tell him to make sure he gets them. They forgot to do that.
Mr. Carlucci: I did the same thing. I was going to call the guy that works over there and say…this is the latest that they have ever been in picking those up.
Mr. James: Yes, they are usually pretty good about picking them up. Limit them to six, I've seen some communities allow as many as ten. They can still only be six square feet and only four feet high to what you can stick in the ground.
Mr. Carlucci: I got in trouble with one of these when the library put all of these garden tour signs right on the traffic circle which I'm trying to get people to go around there without being distracted so we took them down. We didn't throw them away we just took them down but they hired someone to come in on a little flatbed trailer thing and put them up everywhere.
Mr. Brandgard: Probably the same people that put up the real estate signs.
Mr. McPhail: I'm more concerned about where they are putting them than limiting them than anything else. You got Hummel Park, St. Susanna just had their big deal and Methodist Church just had their fish fry going and you know those things that they need to get the word out. But they need to be like you said Rich, where they are not causing a distraction when they aught to be looking at the roadway. I don't think six is enough I guess in my opinion.
Mr. Carlucci: I don't have a problem with them being out. I guess the one thing that concerns me more is when the Optimist Club puts out those boards, which is still out there. I think there is one on 40 by Duke Energy and the other one I think is upside down over in the parking lot over here, as far as I'm concerned, they aught to ban those things.
Mr. James: I emailed Brett with the Rec Department and asked him to call his contact and tell him to get them a couple of weeks ago.
Mr. Brandgard: You have people putting them in yards and that is usually not an issue, but when you start seeing them put up at an intersection then at each site around it. The point is what are they and how long are they going to be there where they are at?
Mr. Carlucci: I think the Methodist they have signs out now for their fish fry.
Mr. James: Limited them to maybe two weeks before the event and they have to be gone 24 hours after the event. I think two weeks is plenty of time.
Mr. Carlucci: I don't want to get in trouble with every church in Town or anything.
Mr. Brandgard: I recognize, especially with signage and stuff like this with the economy being like it is, majority of the small businesses that are struggling anyways so we are looking for any way to get people in and buy from the store. So this way we got to talk to these people and see what their needs are and how they can be met before we start going in and saying no, you can't do it. When you start dealing with signs that starts raising the blood pressure with everybody.
Mr. Kirchoff: I think you need to tread it carefully.
Mr. McPhail: I think the issue you are going to run into there, you got businesses that has a budget and is going to do it right and then you've got somebody that wants to (inaudible).
Mr. Brandgard: That is the problem. Speaking of that, I think we brought it up and had a discussion last time, where the parlor is at, when we had that parlor next to that old gas station. Then the tattoo place moved in there, I don't think anything had really been in there and they got that tall sign out there. I think by our ordinance that is probably nonconforming and that aught to come down for the lack of use.
Mr. James: Yes, we can get that one down.
Mr. Brandgard: We drove by there the other day and noticed Ribble's appliances are in that building behind there.
Mr. McPhail: Really, Ribble's?
Mr. Brandgard: In the building behind it.
Mr. McPhail: I thought we had him in Marion County.
Mr. Brandgard: That is what I said, well maybe they are running their service business out of there, and I have no idea. She must have seen trucks back there or something.
Mr. Daniel: While we are talking about signs, I don't know the answer to this, I'm sure Joe does. When they come in and apply for a yard sale, does anybody talk to them about signage or anything?
Mr. James: Yes, I wrote up a letter that explains all the rules for a garage sale that we made lots of copies and I asked Sandy to give that out with the permit.
Mr. Daniel: I just wondered if we had an 8½ X 11 in bold print that has about three lines that says signage. Then have them sign off on it. With all do respect letters and stuff I know a lot of people take the package and not read it. I think if there is something in print that has three or four lines and have them sign it.
Mr. Brandgard: Before you said to sign it, I was going to say if we are handing something out like that then there aught to be a sign or there aught to be a book or something that they have got to sign saying that they signed that they received it or they read it and the signature said they read it.
OLD BUSINESS/NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Gibbs: No invitees this evening?
Mr. James: Yes, I guess none of them showed up. First one is 23241 Shadowbrook Drive, Item list for inoperable vehicle it has a flat tire; it hasn't been moved in a while. It has trash, debris, high grass and weeds. Back on June 25th, the Town did go ahead and mow the property the 9th, we are going to put a lien on the property.
Mr. Kirchoff: Is it vacant?
Mr. James: I called the Hendricks County Health Department, some of the neighbors thought they might have some abandoned dogs in the house and also some water in the tires. Some tires back here, there is stuff in the backyard here.
Mr. Kirchoff: Does anybody live in there Joe?
Mr. James: Yes, they told the Health Department that they come and go that they've had someone sick and they have had to tend too. I went out and took some pictures today. The tire is still there, weeds have gotten worse, still all the stuff in the back, tires and they have not contacted me and they did not attend tonight.
Mr. Gibbs: You haven't talked to them at all personally?
Mr. James: No. I knocked on the door no one answered, but I did hear the dogs inside.
Mr. Carlucci: You aught to get our animal control.
Mr. James: I did have them go out there, they only had two, and I think two dogs.
Mr. Carlucci: I'm not sure about the cars, the car, it is not that the tire is flat, is it licensed? Because that is really what makes it, is it a current plate on it?
Mr. Brandgard: With no response, we need to move forward with this.
Mr. James: Ok. The next one is 1718 Rachel Drive, Roger Hungerman. He was before the Plan Commission back in March of this year for vehicles parked in the yard. He had a car in the yard and a boat in the back yard and we gave him 90 days to bring the property in compliance. We inspected it after 90 days and he doesn't have any vehicles in the yard, still has the camper in the driveway and the boat is still parked in the yard. I got another complaint on July 14th, went out and found a ponder of violations, was an inoperable truck parked in front yard, camper was not licensed, the boat was still parked in the yard, trailer parked in the rear yard, out door storage, trash and debris, stagnant water, they dug up two holes in the front yard, I guess they are going to be landscaping ponds or something of course invited them to tonight's meeting. Called the Health Department they went out and treated the stagnant water. These were the photos taken June 25th, trash and debris, the truck, camper not licensed, trailer in the back yard; this is open view in the back yard, the two ponds. Today cleaned up around the pond a little bit, they cleaned up this area up a little. The trailer and the truck have been removed and cleaned up the side yard a little. Still have the boat parked in the rear yard, items still in view in the back. Still had the stagnant water in the ponds, and an unlicensed camper. I called Chief Mitny, he is their neighbor. He said the camper can't be considered an abandoned vehicle because it is not licensed. The ordinance does not say anything that a recreational vehicle has to be licensed just limits the number to two and they had to be parked in the driveway or the garage. Not sure I can do anything about the camper. We had given them 90 days and a chance to comply and things in my opinion got worse. Do you want me to fine them?
Mr. McPhail: I would have figured there would be significant improvement.
Mr. Brandgard: If there wasn't improvement it is fallen backwards again.
Mr. James: The last one, 604 Brentwood Drive West, they had this log pile and these brush piles back here which I consider debris, high weeds, here and here. I went out today and took photos and she emailed me last week and said they are working on it and emailed me again last night and said that it will be cleaned up by noon today so I went out this afternoon and the brush piles are gone, straightened up the log piles, cut the weeds back here and back here. My opinion, they brought the property into compliance. I emailed them back and said they didn't have to attend tonight.
Mr. McPhail: One out of three Joe.
Mr. James: Went out to check the property behind this house today and noticed Mr. Hutchins house is getting in bad shape again. I wanted to get Mel's opinion on this, what can we call junk, trash, and debris? Does this qualify or is it equipment that he is using for something and when can we apply the nuisance ordinance?
Mr. Daniel: That is a good question. What is that thing there on the left, is that another trailer standing up there?
Mr. James: No, that is just a tire, this thing right here?
Mr. Daniel: Correct.
Mr. James: I'm not sure what that is.
Mr. Daniel: Why don't you email me that picture? Is that the only one you've got?
Mr. James: Yes.
Mr. Daniel: Ok, email that to me please.
Mr. James: Do we want to think about this before we send a notice?
Mr. Daniel: Yes, email that to me and I will look at it with the ordinances. Didn't he get fined once before? I pretty sure we had a court and fine on him. Took him to court one other time and he lost.
Mr. Kirchoff: When did you take this picture?
Mr. James: Today. Last item, Mr. Redford who I think is the President of Value Place, contacted Rich back in the spring and said he needs some help getting some advertising for the Value Place, and Rich sent him a letter and explained what the option would be getting an integrated center sign for that Cambridge Square West. So they sent me this and I said that is not going to work, that is basically a sign for the Value Place. You've got to have something that will be for the whole center so then they sent me this as an integrated center sign it can be thirty five feet tall, it can have two hundred square feet faced on their frontage. Ten percent has to be the name of the center and then they can have forty percent of the sign can be the changeable copy which can be the LED. He came back with this and I said yes, that complies but I just approved the design and they had submitted a permit.
Mr. Brandgard: Where do they want to place it?
Mr. James: They wanted to put it right here and I said you've got to have twenty-five foot setback for a sign that tall and that is not going to comply with the setback.
Mr. Brandgard: Let me ask something, an integrated sign is usually put up by the owner of the center, not by a tenant, and certainly not a half a mile from the entrance to the center?
Mr. James: This is the entrance to the Cambridge Square that cult-de-sac goes back in here.
Mr. Carlucci: Typically it all it is where Hog Heaven used to be, we would have a sign somewhere over there so that everybody could see as they came in what the other businesses.
Mr. Brandgard: They want an interstate sign is what they are after, that is what that location is at.
Mr. James: This was platted as a separate commercial subdivision so those six lots in my opinion that's its own integrated center.
Mr. Brandgard: Yes, but the point I am making is usually the developer of the center puts that in, not an individual tenant. I think, or at least I thought the intentions of allowing that was so that the developer would put that up and all of the tenants could have equal billing or however he wants to do it. Not for one tenant to put that up.
Mr. James: That is what I told him that this wouldn't work.
Mr. Brandgard: I'm not sure the other would work either.
Mr. McPhail: I don't see how we can allow him to put a sign up for a property owner, because that is the whole center.
Mr. James: Correct.
Mr. Kirchoff: If he gets the developer to do that…
Mr. Brandgard: If the developer came in to do it that would be his property.
Mr. Kirchoff: If we get him to do the request of the petition.
Mr. Brandgard: But then the developer has the control of what goes on that sign.
Mr. Kirchoff: I understand. It gets back in the right, and if the developer is comfortable with what it looks like…
Mr. Carlucci: I think what Joe is saying those lots out at the very end where the cult-de-sac is a separate center.
Mr. Kirchoff: Yes.
Mr. Carlucci: I don't particularly look at that, I say the whole roadway is a center.
Mr. Brandgard: To me, I would look at the whole roadway but if they are platted as two separate ones then you got another issue. I agree with you Rich. What they are after down there, they are after a sign for the interstate.
Mr. McPhail: Put that $199.00 on it that is what they want to do.
Mr. Brandgard: That leads to the intent of what that integrated center sign is supposed to do.
Mr. James: It would have to go at the entrance to Gateway Drive. They can't put it back here; it has to be at this entrance.
Mr. Kirchoff: How far back?
Mr. James: Twenty-five feet.
Mr. Kirchoff: That's all; I thought you said 215 or so.
Mr. Brandgard: I guess the point I'm making is the integrated center sign does not have to be at the beginning of the center which that is kind of the intent of the sign ordinance was for.
Mr. James: It has to be along a street frontage.
Mr. Brandgard: Can you build anything up on the cross road?
Mr. James: That is the hotel which is not part of the center.
Mr. McPhail: So Wingate owns that?
Mr. Carlucci: If you go back to the approval of that, there was never intent to put an integrated center sign, now you have one of the property owners, what are the owners of Value Place going in there saying I will put the sign up…
Mr. Brandgard: If you remember when that went in they wanted a tall interstate sign and we said you can't have it. Now they are trying to get around that by going this route. I think don't approve that.
Mr. Kirchoff: The petition has to come from the developer.
