The Plainfield Plan Commission met on Monday, June 4, 2007. In attendance were Mr. Satterfield, Mr. Matrana, Mr. McPhail, Mr. Kirchoff, Mr. Brandgard and Ms. Whicker.
ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM
Ms. Sprague administered the Roll Call.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
MINUTES
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to approve the minutes of the Plainfield Plan Commission of May 7, 2007 as submitted. Second by Mr. Matrana. Motion carried.
OATH OF TESTIMONY Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Testimony.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Ms. Whicker reviewed the Guidelines Governing the Conduct of Public Hearings. Those of you who received an agenda this evening we are going to have our public comprehensive plan amendment concerning the park impact fee. We are going to move that up to the first on the agenda.
Mr. James said it has been requested to change the order of the agenda around a little bit and move our comprehensive plan amendment to our first item tonight to accommodate our Park's Director, Mr. Clay Chafin. As you recall, you were sent the park impact fee analysis last month and had a chance to review the document. Mr. Chafin and Mr. Klausmeier, the consultant that did the park impact fee, were able to give you a summary of the fee and answer your questions and provide an explanation to you. I did not send another memo at this month's hearing and tonight is the public hearing. We put the ad in the newspaper and got the required 10 day public notice. With that Mr. Chafin is here and if you have any further questions on the ordinance, I'm sure he would be glad to answer them for you.
Mr. Chafin said as Mr. James said I'm here to answer any other questions and if not, we are ready to have you recommend this to the Council and make this amendment so we can have our six month waiting period and enact this January 1 of 2008.
Ms. Whicker said for verification that is for new construction.
Mr. Chafin said that is correct and new permits; every new residential permit that is applied for.
Mr. McPhail asked, what was the final dollar amount?
Mr. Chafin said $850.00. The calculations based on all of the figures we had the impact fee could have been $1,023.30 but when the impact fee committee met, we reviewed fees from other cities and towns around the metropolitan area. They determined that $850.00 was a fee that was reasonable and similar to other towns and cities.
Ms. Whicker asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this comprehensive plan amendment? Being no one coming forward the public portion is now closed.
Mr. McPhail made a motion to forward the comprehensive plan amendment relative to the park impact fee, CP-07-002 to the Town Council with a favorable recommendation. Second by Mr. Matrana. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Satterfield – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Gibbs – absent
6-ayes, 0-opposed, 1-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. James said our second item tonight is a petition that requires three motions by the Plan Commission. It is a rezone, a primary plat and a development plan. The first order of business is to waive the rules for the filing deadline for a primary plat. The required deadline is 60 days but I'm requesting to waive the rules to a 37 day filing deadline. The reason is it is just a re-plat and it doesn't involve the addition of any public streets. This would allow the petitioner to move forward with this project in a timely manner.
Mr. McPhail made a motion to waive the 60 day waiting period. Second by Mr. Brandgard. Motion carried.
Mr. James said as I stated, this requires three motions by the Plan Commission tonight. The first is a rezone to rezone approximately .59 acres from NR, Neighborhood Retail to I-2 Office/Warehouse Distribution. The second motion is approval of a primary plat, which is a re-plat of Lot 1 in the Andico Industrial Park. We are taking the .59 acres that is going to be rezoned and we are adding it to an existing one acre parcel to create a 1.59 acre lot and then the third request for a motion tonight is a Architecture and Site Design Review for a development plan to allow four warehouse distribution facilities for a combined square footage of 35,625 square feet on two lots.
This is the site. Here is Andico Road. This is Carr Road right here. This is the .59 acres we are going to take from this lot and add it to this lot. This is an existing one acre parcel. This is an existing 1.6 acre parcel so we are going to create this lot with this flag and this lot right here and put two buildings on this lot and two buildings on this lot. This lot does have the required 100 foot of frontage for the I-2 Industrial District. Andico Industrial Park is all zoned I-2 but we are going to take the .59 acres right here and rezone that to I-2.
I have given you an explanation of the three motions we need tonight. These are the last two remaining lots in this Andico Industrial Park yet to be developed. There are existing buildings and what the petitioner is proposing is he would like a waiver from the building material requirement to allow construction of the four buildings that would be similar to existing buildings out in this industrial park. So, they need a waiver from the Gateway Corridor standards because the building material he is proposing is not what is required with the Gateway Corridor standards.
The reason why we have to meet the Gateway Corridor standards is because it is within 600 feet of two residential districts. The one parcel that is zoned R-2 is one house here and then the R-4 down here is within 600 feet of here. Carr Road is not a Gateway Corridor but when you have industrial development within 600 feet of Residential Districts, it has to comply with the gateway standards.
So, they feel their proposed buildings are compatible with the existing buildings in the industrial park. No waivers are required from the Subdivision Control Ordinance. They don't have to do sidewalks because there are no existing sidewalks and sidewalks are not required for local streets in industrial districts.
This is the Comprehensive Plan. This is all Light Industrial Warehouse. This is the property approximately in this area so it does comply with what is recommended by the Comprehensive Plan.
This is the site plan and the two lots. Here is the .59 acres. We are going to add the one acre piece. We are going to do a re-plat to create Lot 1B and then this is the existing 1.6 acre parcel, Lot 2. Here is Andico Road. They will have one entrance back to this parcel and the two buildings will be back in here and then two buildings on this lot here and here.
The Design Review Committee recommended approval with stipulations. All plans have been revised since the DRC meeting to comply with DRC's comments and stipulations. All plans comply with the Gateway Corridor standards except for the waiver for the building material. The Comprehensive Plan does recommend Light Industrial Warehouse use for this area. Does the Plan Commission feel that the proposed buildings are compatible with the existing buildings within the industrial park and, therefore, you can support the building material waiver?
These are the elevations of the building. Here is a colored rendering of the building. All buildings will be this same type with this color of metal siding and then 40% split-faced block around the entire building. Here's building two and three. We are missing building four but all buildings will be about just the same in appearance of the building materials.
Here is the landscape plan. They had to do a Level 1 around the perimeter. We moved the landscaping around a little bit so the plan complies with the 100 foot increment requirement; at least the plant unit value of one for every 100 feet. We moved some trees over here to help screen an air conditioning unit back here. We arranged trees in here. They are going to have a loading dock here but since we have two buildings the front yard of this dock we felt the development incentive for the loading dock orientations was not required.
The photometric plan complies. The light fixtures comply. Here are some photographs. Here is the site looking back to the west. This is looking back to the east and the existing structures. Here are some more buildings in the park. Here is the license branch building. It is metal and brick. This building to the west, the license branch, is mostly metal. Here is the post office and another building to the west and brick out front. They have brick wrap down here and metal siding. This is another building that the petitioner did farther to the west with metal and then some split-faced block wrap. This one has some stone just north of this building. I wanted to show you the existing buildings out there so that you could get a good understanding of why the petitioner is requesting the waiver of the building material requirement. With that I would be glad to answer any questions and the petitioner is here and I'm sure he would be glad to answer any questions that you may have.
Mr. Brian Kempf said I'm the owner of this building here or part owner of this building. I live here in Plainfield just south of Town at 6136 E. CR700S. I'm getting ready to develop this project over here and hopefully everybody will approve everything we are going to do. I think it will add to the area with what is over there now. It is equal to what is there now, if not better than what is there. I think it would make a nice addition to Plainfield. I have samples of building materials if you need to see anything. I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Ms. Whicker asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this matter? Being no one coming forward we will now close the public portion of this hearing and I will open it up for further discussion or a possible motion.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion that the Plan Commission certifies the zone map amendment request RZ-07-003 as filed by KDS Real Estate, LLC requesting rezoning approximately 0.59 acres from NR: Neighborhood Retail District to I-2, Office/Warehouse Distribution District with a favorable recommendation. Second by Mr. Matrana. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Satterfield – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Gibbs – absent
6-ayes, 0-opposed, 1-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion that the Plan Commission approves PP-07-002 as filed by KDS Real Estate, LLC requesting approval of a primary plat to be known as Andico Industrial Park creating 2 industrial lots in a non-residential incremental subdivision on approximately 3.28 acres upon finding that:
1. Adequate provisions have been made for regulation of minimum lot width, minimum lot depth and minimum lot area.
2. Adequate provisions have been made for the widths, grades, curves and coordination of subdivisions and public ways with current and planned public ways.
3. Adequate provisions have been made for the extension of water, sewer and other municipal services.
And that such approval shall be subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the Town Standards, including but not limited to: Plainfield Ordinance 1-96 regarding Floodplain Management; Plainfield Ordinance Nos. 4-94 and 3-86 regarding Sewage Works; Plainfield Ordinance No. 17-97 regarding Drainage; Plainfield Ordinance No. 19-97 regarding Municipal Waterworks and Plainfield Ordinance No. 18-97 regarding Access Permits.
2. Compliance with the standards and specifications of the Plainfield Subdivision Control Ordinance.
Second by Mr. Matrana. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Satterfield – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Gibbs – absent
6-ayes, 0-opposed, 1-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion that the Plan Commission approves DP-07-010 as filed by KDS Real Estate, LLC requesting Architecture & Site Design Review approval for four warehouse distribution facilities for a combined 35,625 square foot on approximately 3.28 acres in Andico Industrial Park located within 600' of a Residential District finding that:
1. The Development Plan complies with all applicable Development Standards of the district in which the site is located.
2. The Development Plan complies with all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Control ordinance for which a waiver has not been granted.
3. The Development Plan complies with all applicable provisions for Architectural & Site Design Review for which a waiver has not been granted.
4. The proposed development is appropriate to the site and its surroundings.
5. The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
And regarding a waiver to allow the building material for all buildings to be a combination of metal and split-faced block the Plan Commission finds that:
1. The proposed development represents an innovative use of a combination of building material which will enhance the use or value of area properties.
2. The proposed development is consistent with and compatible with other development located within the Industrial Park.
3. The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
And that such approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Substantial compliance with the Site Plan, Building Elevations, Landscape Plan, Photometric Plan, Sign Plan, Trash Enclosure Plan and Light Fixtures submitted file dated May 18, 2007 and Colored Renderings file dated May 9, 2007.
Second by Mr. Matrana. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Satterfield – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Gibbs – absent
6-ayes, 0-opposed, 1-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. James said our next item tonight under the public hearing portion is PP-07-002. The petitioner is the Bay Development Corporation requesting to primary plat the Oak Tree active adult lifestyle community creating 828 lots for the potential of 967 dwelling units on approximately 266 acres. If you are orientated with its location, it is around the Oak Tree Golf Club, the Elks Club. This is CR500E so it's on both sides of CR500E. This request was approved by the Plan Commission at the March 15, 2007 meeting.
I will go back and refresh your memory a little bit on this project. It is an active adult lifestyle community. Fifty-eight percent of it will be age restricted. It is split into five areas. Each area will have different densities, lot numbers, lot sizes and housing models. Area “A will be a tri-plex multi-family area. Area “B is a 46 foot wide lot. Area “C is 52 foot wide lots and Area “D are the largest lots with 90 foot wide lots. As a Planned Unit Development, standards were written specifically for this project. Zoning commitments were made when this went before the Plan Commission. Zoning commitments were that all signs, landscaping, lighting, trail path plans, village center and park community plans be reviewed by the Design Review Committee and approved by the Plan Commission. A final detail plan is done with a primary plat and a secondary plat review for residential PUDs. This is a schematic of the plat with all of the areas. We did make one change at the Plan Commission as far as the overall design. We took out the cul-de-sac that was here and we made this a tee intersection and made that an intersection. We didn't like the way the access and traffic control worked with that cul-de-sac so that is one change that has been made to the site plan. They are also requesting one change to the development standards. The requested change is to reduce the rear yard setback in Area “C. This is the standard matrix from 20 feet to 15 feet when the largest home model has been chosen and they want to do the four foot bump-out. They reason why they have to do that is because the way the front yard setback is measured or the way the lot width is measured it is measured at the front yard setback. So, this occurrence is only when these specific scenarios occur, when you have the largest home model, a four-foot bump-out and for Area “C. That is the one change that they are requesting that is different when you saw this back in March when we looked at the PUD ordinance.
This was reviewed by DRC, the other plans. The committee approved the street layout for Section 1; sign concepts; the street layout for Section 1; master path/trail plan/ perimeter landscaping along CR500E and the main entrance sign concept. Once plans are finalized for the village center all plans, including the building design and architecture for buildings in the village center, the lighting, landscaping and sign plans will be brought back to DRC and to the Plan Commission for approval.
A memorandum of understanding is yet to be worked out. It is to provide details for the scope of improvements needed for CR500E and the Vandalia Trail. This is to be finalized before the third reading of the PUD ordinance by the Town Council. Adequate provisions have been made regarding the primary plat for public ways, access, sanitary sewer, water and other utilities and maybe even fiber optic. This was brought up at the Design Review Committee. The petitioner has stated that they would look into that or they may create a wireless community. I wanted to bring that. Drainage and traffic control has also been taken care of. They did a traffic impact study and that has been reviewed and that will help us to determine the scope of improvements needed for CR500E and also for the intersection CR500E and U.S. 40. All lots comply with the standards as set forth in the PUD ordinance.
This is the trail master plan. This is a conceptual landscape design along CR500E. Some changes were made since the Design Review Committee. We added some evergreens and I believe they added the shrub height for the required landscaping on CR500E.
This is the main entrance sign at CR500E and U.S. 40. In your packet you received the colored version and these are the identification pillars they proposed along CR500E. They amended the sign so that it does meet the eight foot requirement. Here are some lighting and signage concepts; street signs and lamp posts. That is everything that was approved by DRC.
Tonight they are requesting approval of the primary plat. The plat does meet all of the standards as set forth in the PUD ordinance. Representatives are here and I'm sure they would be glad to answer any questions that you have.
Mr. Bruce Sklare with Bay Development Corporation said I think Mr. James did a good job of giving you the elements that are in the plat. The only one item that I just want to make sure that is maybe clear is in the actual proposed request talking about 828 lots. And then Mr. James indicated that there were actually 927 dwelling units because in Area “A, which is maximum 99 homes, they are the tri-plex and there are actually no lots there. We are allowed to build doubles, triples or higher densities but the PUD ordinance calls for a 99 maximum. So, that is why you take the 99 from Area “A and add to the 828 and you get the 927. There are also 40 in Area “E, which have to come back to the DRC and Plan Commission for approval. I'm here to answer any questions that you might have.
Ms. Whicker said upon the entrance to the west on our Staff Report it showed it as once being Area “B and that has been changed to the tri-plex Area “A on the southwest as you enter from the CR500, is that correct? It was reflecting “B. I just noticed that this is file dated the 29th.
Mr. Sklare said that is correct. There are three Area “A's which combine for 99.
Ms. Whicker said that change was made prior to meeting with DRC, is that correct?
Mr. Sklare said yes. That is the way that it has always been.
Ms. Whicker asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this matter?
Ms. Trudy Flynn said since we are directly south of it since you guys are going to tear down the stone building and put up a tri-plex I know there is a drainage ditch right south of where the tri-plex models will be. Are they filling that in since they are tearing down that stone building? What are they going to do with the railroad? There is a bridge that used to be the old interurban bridge and I believe that is on their property and I just wondered what they are going to do with that. And I know there is a buffer of trees between our house and the house they are tearing down and I just wonder if they are tearing down those trees or what? Basically, I just have those questions.
Ms. Loraine Tatum at 4991 E. U.S. Highway 40 said my question now is is there going to be a stoplight on U.S. 40 and CR500? I was told yes and then I was told no. Is that sign that he is going to put there is that going to be right on U.S. 40 right by the Elks' sign that is there now? I understood there was going to be a sign right on U.S. 40 directing that subdivision.
Ms. Whicker said I believe so.
Ms. Tatum asked, why would they put that there when it is way down the road? That is where the Elks' sign is now. Is that going to replace that, the current sign that is there now?
Ms. Whicker said I believe that is the location that is stated here but we will let the petitioner mention the current sign.
Ms. Kim Potts at 4232 E. U.S. Highway 40 said this is the first time that I have been here. My husband and I own about 350 acres immediately adjoining this property. We have been grain and cattle farming and hay farming in this area on this piece of ground for almost 65 years, four generations now. The 62 years we have been there we have tilled this ground and raised Black Angus cattle. It concerns us that now I have to worry about nine hundred and some units coming across my fence and messing with my cows. I have trouble enough now with mushroom hunters, with coon hunters, with deer hunters cutting my fence. Now I'm going to have possibly 2,000 opportunities here. It concerns me; it concerns me greatly. I don't want to be responsible if somebody cuts my fence and my cows are out running around in somebody's neighborhood. My couple of questions is who is going to build the farm fence because there is a farm fence law in which each half is responsible for the fence. Who is going to be responsible for their part of the fence? I don't want to have to knock on doors when there are all of these houses in the subdivision in trying to find out who is going to pay me to fix the fence or replace the fence.
Mr. James asked, where is your property?
Ms. Potts said immediately west. It is right there. We own the railroad all the way to Cartersburg. There are just a few residents right there that we don't own. The other thing that I'm concerned about since I have not been here to hear all of the proposed plans is a construction berm on the west side. The reason that I'm asking that is because I did not want construction debris blowing onto my property when they bring the dozers in to push dirt, stumps and trees onto us. The main thing I was worried about was the fence and a berm.
Ms. Peggy Abner said I own two residents on CR500E at 4633 and 4615 South CR500E. I talk to a lot of people especially the people around this area that are going to be directly affected by this housing development. I have not spoken to one person in Saratoga and CR500E or anywhere that want this type of development here. There are 46 feet between houses. I have a living room that is 33 feet long and you are talking about the width of a block being 46 feet and it is displeasing to me that they keep showing the landscaping on CR500E because we have told these people that we are not granting any easements on CR500E for their landscaping. You can see the landscaping up there and it shows it on both sides of the road. The east side of that drawing on CR500E is incorrect. That landscaping will not be there. The picture that is right there is right at one of the property lines that I own. No one on CR500E is going to grant these subdivision easements for this kind of landscaping. The development of this lifestyle center that they want to have in it they have now conceded to having a private owner's club in it. Everyone that I have talked to that own a residence in Saratoga that have children that play right within that area they cannot believe that this type of community; this type of commercialization of alcoholic sales is going in the middle of a housing development. Whether you want to call it a housing development or community they cannot believe that it is going in. Some people are considering moving from Plainfield and putting their houses up for sale and selling because of this development. They have an ordinance to do all sorts of things like shrink road sizes and everything. I'm still amazed at lots being 46 feet wide. Is there any way that we can propose an ordinance that would not allow any alcoholic sale establishments in the middle of a housing development? You are more familiar with ordinances and things; is there any way that it can be done to protect the communities henceforth in Plainfield. You guys are the backbone. You guys are the establishment of all sorts of rules and regulations and I'm going to have to live with this development. Obviously, it is just a piece of paper and a picture on a screen to most of you but I'm going to have to live with 967 homes and cars and people going up and down my road. Now I'm going to have to deal with that but they might have already been to their little private owner's club and driving up and down my road to go somewhere else. I don't see where you can have 42% of this housing development be family oriented and still have basically a bar in the middle of it. I would like to ask Mr. Sklare why he is building this development? He doesn't care about Plainfield; he wants to make money. That's what his answer should be. How close are the homes in Claymont? Those people are stacked on top of each other. You know the problems there. You can call the police department and ask for the problem reports that they have had generated out of that division. The people are stacked in there. They are packed in there like little rats. This is even tighter. When you take out all of the little green space that they have established in this community that they have allotted on there, 266 acres goes way down. There are a lot of houses in there. You are talking about a minimum of 200 people just living in the 99 little tri-plex homes right there or more. Forty-two percent of their housing development is not being restricted to 55 and older but that is still 42% so you are talking about all of the other areas. If you will notice the areas that are being allowed to have the greatest number of children, it is the Plainfield section of this. It has nothing to do with Middle Creek; it is on the Plainfield side. This community will be an impact on our schools. It will be an impact on all sorts of traffic that goes in and out of that community. Really that is another good question; why does his development sign have to be a marker in Plainfield out at U.S. 40; that is a good question. But I would like to know if we can have an ordinance put forth that limits these kinds of developments having alcohol commercialization in the middle of a residential community? That is my question to you among a whole bunch of other questions. This development is going to be a crowded community.
Ms. Rhonda Miles at 8425 South SR267 said I'm in agreement with Mrs. Abner for an ordinance not to allow an alcoholic beverage establishment. I remind you again of all the problems caused by alcohol; of all the killings; child abuse and neglect and the welfare to support alcoholic in families and the moral decay. And also Amos 5:14-15 “Seek good, and not evil, that you may live: and so the Lord, the God of hosts, shall be with you, as ye have spoken. Hate the evil, and love the good'……
Ms. Whicker said with no one else coming forward would the petitioner care to address the concerns of the public.
Mr. Jeff Banning with Banning Engineering at 821 Columbia Drive, Suite 101, Plainfield said most of the comments were engineering related. The first thing that I wanted to point out to Ms. Whicker I think we have some documents on Mr. James' presentation that are older. If you look, I think you should have one of these or had one of these in the past. I think the exhibits actually shows the correct layout. I think that is just a carryover when we were going through the process so I apologize for that. Also, there is another exhibit that I would like Mr. James to show, which is the County road landscaping exhibit that Mrs. Abner talked about. That exhibit also is rather old. You should have copies in your packet that shows an exhibit similar to this that eliminates that picture. This is landscaping through our development only and then there is another exhibit in there that shows landscaping proposed along the Elks on the west side of CR500 and does not show on that east side of CR500. So, I apologize for the wrong exhibits up there but I believe you do have the correct exhibits in all of your packets.
There were a couple of things that Ms. Flynn addressed with respect to drainage, the old interurban and trees. She is talking about in this general vicinity here. I believe her house must be right here or close to that. This old interurban here is currently, as you can see in the yellow, is still slated to be common area. That area is still within an easement and South Construction Corporation I think holds an easement over that, which has been turned over to PSI and then Cinergy and now Duke. So, there are limited things that we can do through that easement area. As much as control has it tree wise we are going to continue to keep those trees. That is really dependent on what the utility company wants to do. So, I just want you to know that. Throughout our ordinance we have tried to save trees as much as we can especially on the perimeters of the site. So, that we do not affect other property owners. We are going to do that in this case, like I said, as it is allowable through the possible restrictions through Duke Energy. There is also, what I would consider a significant, drainage issue mainly with respect to our property on the north side of the old interurban. That is currently going through the design process. We are either going to enclose that in storm pipe or redo the ditch. We will be bringing that through to the Staff from a design standpoint hopefully in the next several weeks. That will finalize what we actually do through that area but I promise you that it will be better than what it is currently. The old gravel rail bed is also going to be utilized. We will be putting a lift station in this area here and we would like to utilize that gravel bed as an access to that lift station also. Then we are also slated to put sanitary sewer within this easement area as well. That will eventually become a utility for the Elks if they choose to tie onto the sanitary sewer. So, that is what is happening in that area.
Lady from the audience said (inaudible).
Mr. Banning said not necessarily in the ditch, in that area, in that easement somewhere. So, that is what is going to be happening in that area.
(Inaudible).
Mr. Banning said the bridge; you are talking about the bridge down here where the creek outlets we don't plan on messing with that. That will stay there. That is our drainage outlet for basically two-thirds; maybe three-fourths of the entire development. That is where our drainage goes to. That eventually crosses under U.S. 40 and becomes the west property line of Sugar Grove to the south. So, that is what we are proposing to do there.
I know we have talked several times with Ms. Tatum in the past. I know that you don't have your septic issues resolved yet.
Ms. Tatum said I don't think I will.
Mr. Banning said maybe one of these days.
Ms. Tatum said (inaudible).
Mr. Banning said from a traffic light standpoint I think I have talked to you about that in the past. Currently it is not warranted for a traffic light. INDOT controls that. I think Mr. McGillem can speak to that. We have heard this multiple times. We would love to have a signal there I think.
Mr. McGillem said there will be a traffic signal there as soon as INDOT will allow us to put one there.
Mr. Banning said the Elks sign will be basically to the west of your property where the Elks Tree Golf Course sign is located. That is where we are proposing to put a sign for this development. It will incorporate the development as well as the golf course.
(Inaudible).
Mr. Banning said it is more of a directional sign to get us down to U.S. 40 up to the development.
(Inaudible).
Mr. Banning said I don't know; that is what we have proposed within our ordinance and that is what we have agreed to with the Elks Golf Course.
Then Ms. Potts owns the property to the west and I'm relatively familiar with that in this area here. The only place that we really abut your property is right here. I believe you do own this right here. You talked about putting a mound in and so forth. As you can see, this is all wooded currently. There is maybe a small area up here that we might want to look at. It looks like your property is all wooded adjoining our property. I know you talked about construction debris. I think that is one of those situations the developer and the builder will definitely have to stay on top of that here. I think with the trees here I don't see that being a huge issue. I know we are going to have to get in there and probably keep things clean but that is a construction issue. I'm going to commit for the developer and the builder that they will maintain that and I know the Town has ordinances that they can get their staff out there to make sure that it is taken care of as well. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to put a mound here because of the woods. Like I said we can look at it up in this area here but I'm not sure it makes a whole lot of sense there as well because of all of the wooded area but we will look at that for you.
(Inaudible).
Mr. Banning said that is just common area. That is all woods right now. This is all common area to the development and all woods.
Mr. James said she asked a question about the livestock fence.
Mr. Banning said she is right. I think as property owners, I think there is a sharing agreement between property owners. I have talked to the developer and they are okay with that. Just so Mrs. Potts knows this area here probably won't be developed for several years. I want to get her phone number. We will work with you on those particular items. I think that she had brought up.
Then I talked about what Mrs. Abner had to say about the landscaping and I think from the standpoint of the school impact, which she had brought up, we have talked to the Plainfield Schools and we have talked with the Mill Creek Schools and both superintendents and assistant superintendents and they are familiar and aware of this project. They have no problem with it. As a matter of fact, in a lot of ways they are embracing this with open arms because there will not be children in there. That is my direct discussions with them.
A lot of the other issues that were brought up, traffic, the development issues, those are going to occur and we know that. From a significant standpoint because of what we are doing on this development it will most likely be less from a traffic standpoint than a typical development.
I know you mentioned the alcoholic sales and I know Ms. Miles mentioned that. Here again that was a zoning issue. I think we are beyond that. The last reading of the PUD ordinance will be coming up soon so I'm not going to address that and I think I have answered all of the questions that were brought up and I would be happy to answer any other questions if you would like or expand on what I just stated. But on behalf of the developers unless they have anything else to say we ask for approval of this development.
Ms. Whicker said the matter is now closed to the public and I will open it up for discussion from the board or a possible motion.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion that the Plan Commission approves PP-07-002 as filed by Bay Development Corporation requesting approval of a Primary Plat pending to be known as Oak Tree creating 828 lots on 266 acres upon finding that:
1. Adequate provisions have been made for regulation of minimum lot width, minimum lot depth and minimum lot area.
2. Adequate provisions have been made for the widths, grades, curves and coordination of subdivisions public ways with current and planned public ways.
3. Adequate provisions have been made for the extension of water, sewer and other municipal services.
And that such approval shall be subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the Town Standards, including but not limited to: Plainfield Ordinance 1-96 regarding Floodplain Management; Plainfield Ordinance Nos. 4-94 and 3-86 regarding Sewage Works; Plainfield Ordinance No. 17-97 regarding Drainage; Plainfield Ordinance No. 19-97 regarding Municipal Waterworks and Plainfield Ordinance No. 18-97 regarding Access Permits.
2. Compliance with the standards and specifications of the Plainfield Subdivision Control Ordinance.
3. Subject to approval of the requested modification to the Development Standards Table in Section 5 of the PUD Ordinance by Town Council to allow the reduction in the rear yard setback from 20' to 15' when the 4' garage bump-out is applied to the largest home model in Area “C.
4. Subject to adoption of the Oak Tree PUD Ordinance by the Town Council and annexation into the Town of Plainfield.
5. Substantial compliance with the trail/path plan, landscaping plan and sign concepts file dated May 29, 2007.
6. The Town of Plainfield shall have the right to trim street trees within dedicated rights-of-way and shall be detailed in either the HOA covenants or the PUD ordinance.
Second by Mr. McPhail. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Satterfield – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Gibbs – absent
6-ayes, 0-opposed, 1-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. James said in reference to condition number three it was pointed out that the language is different than the footnote number seven of the development standards. So, I guess we should word that condition to reflect the footnote in the standards' statement. We will take the language in footnote seven and insert that into condition number three.
Ms. Whicker said that would only occur in Area “C, is that correct?
Mr. James said that is correct. It is the same meaning; it is the language is just a little bit different.
Ms. Whicker said it is our understanding that it is still just the possibility would be Area “C.
Mr. Banning said definitely Area “C. We want the motion and the ordinance to be the same so we don't have any confusion down the road. I'm sorry about that; I missed that until going through that.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to amend condition three in the previous motion to reflect the wording that is in footnote seven of Table 1. The wording should be “rear yard setbacks can be reduced to 15 feet when the front yard setback is required to be increased to 30 feet in order to meet the lot width requirement as measured to the front setback line. Second by Mr. McPhail. Motion carried.
OLD BUSINESS/NEW BUSINESS
Mr. James said I would like to move forward to some old business. It is in regards to the Sugar Grove Farms and some vinyl siding that has been put on four model homes and one occupied home and two homes that are still under construction. Here is the Sugar Grove Farms. Here are the four models down here. This is the one occupied home and the two homes that are unoccupied but they have the vinyl siding that has been applied and they have three other homes that just have the outside wrap and they don't have the vinyl siding on yet. Our building inspector discovered this that the siding that has been put on these homes is .042 vinyl thicknesses and the PUD ordinance they committed to a vinyl siding thickness of .044. So, this was discovered and I want to hear from you and get your comments and see how we should deal with this matter to correct the situation. I have talked to Davis Homes and talked to John Lynn. I think John is here tonight. He is aware of the situation and he told me from now on they will make sure the future homes will have the correct vinyl thickness, the .044. I went out today and took some pictures. These are the model homes, the four models. Here is the one occupied home and then the two unoccupied homes that are still under construction. They have three others that have the plastic wrap but don't have the vinyl siding on them yet. With that I'm requesting a course of action.
Mr. Brandgard asked, what was the reason given for not having the proper vinyl?
Mr. James said I'm not sure if this was a change done in the field or where the mistake occurred but somewhere along the way somebody dropped the ball and got the wrong siding. Maybe Mr. Lynn can answer that question.
Mr. John Lynn said actually what happened in talking with our office they had tried to get that revised at some point and thought going forward it was going to be the .042. They had sent all of the paperwork out to our subcontractors and when everything had been ordered, it specified the .042 rather than the .044. Today we started another house and we had already started putting the .044 on there so that one is correct. All of the documentation going forward in the Sugar Grove Farms will definitely be the .044.
Ms. Whicker asked, what about those two?
Mr. Flynn said those will be .044 also. Brett actually brought it to my attention about a week or a week and a half ago. We hadn't sided anything since that point but we did start one today and it is the .044. We cleared that up. When I talked to him, I stopped all siding until we got it cleared up but it was in our office. We had made a mistake and we are sorry about that and I apologize. What I was going to ask for is if we can get a variance on the homes that we have sided. Actually, I think on the paperwork for the agenda tonight it showed six homes and actually there are seven. There were the four models and three other homes.
Mr. McPhail said I can remember hours and hours and hours of debate on this issue. The principals of Davis Homes were here when we approved this development. They made a commitment to put siding that meets the standards that they were approved for and I feel like the only way to fix it is replace it. There is no reason for it to have happened. It was a very contentious issue during the approval of this development. The developer approved it. Davis Homes approved it. They were here. We just approved another development. We are going to hold their feet to the fire. So, I think it needs to be replaced, every one of them.
Mr. Brandgard said the basic issue with that is what it looks like and how it reacts to the weather. Really both of those have to do with the ultimate owner of the property. We have one area out here that has vinyl on it and every time you have a wind storm the stuff buckles or blows off. That is a combination of probably how it was put on and also the thickness of it. The vinyl .044 if you lean on it, it flexes but not a lot. Some of the other you can push it all the way into the wall. It is an issue long-term for the homeowner.
Mr. Flynn said we have done the Paddock at Saratoga. I don't know if you have heard of any problems or situations there with that siding. I think that is the same siding. I didn't sit in on any of the committees or anything like that. I'm actually the area manager on the west side so I was unaware that there was a lot of talk regarding that. But to my knowledge from our warranty department I don't know that we have had a lot of problems with siding coming off or anything like that in Saratoga with the .042.
Mr. Banning said I spent a lot of time on that too and I didn't even know there was an issue. I guess I have a suggestion because the models have been up for awhile. I didn't know this was going to be an issue until I got here this evening but I would be curious to see what those models do if we left those. I hate to tell you this but I'm in agreement with Mr. McPhail. We went through a lot of meetings. I think the occupied houses are the ones that it is on. I think it needs to be taken off. I think the models will eventually be occupied. I would be curious to see how that looks when the time come. I'm just throwing that out as a thought when the time comes or maybe leave a couple that way. This is an issue that we have been dealing with for several years. I would be curious just to see. I'm saying ultimately I think they need to come off because that was what was committed to but I would like to see how that occurs over a period of time. Having something that is unoccupied; that it is not an actual owner; it is Davis Homes that is the owner I would assume. The other thing that I have a question on is .042-.044 the rollover nail hem was a huge issue. Is that something that is in .042?
Mr. Flynn said yes.
Mr. Banning asked, you can get a rollover nail hem?
Mr. Flynn said yes.
Mr. Banning said I think that is one of the things that we talked about and one of the reasons why we went to .044 because I didn't think we could get that rollover nail hem.
Mr. Brandgard said that is the information that we had.
Mr. Banning said at the time it sure was. That could be part of the reason. I'm not trying to make excuses for anyone but we went through a bunch of meetings and a lot of hours. There were three Plan Commission meetings at least or Town Council meetings.
Mr. Kirchoff said this project got delayed.
Mr. Banning said for months and that was the main issue.
Mr. Kirchoff said we had other projects waiting until this got resolved because it was such a hot topic.
Mr. McPhail said it is the thickness; it is the depth of the break; it is the width of the panel; the hem.
Ms. Whicker asked, why wasn't it caught?
Mr. Banning said that is what we talked about; that we were going to put in some kind of system. That was the other thing that caught me. I thought that the developer/builder/Town was all going to work together to come up with something and the vinyl siding institute. We were going to try to come together and come up with a system and I'm not sure that has happened at least based on what has happened here. I think this is going to be a huge issue. I think it is something that we need to get resolved.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, how did it get through the cracks?
Mr. Brandgard asked, how did we find it?
Mr. Flynn said it was brought to my attention that someone had told Brett I think.
Ms. Sprague said (inaudible).
Mr. Satterfield said the question is why did it take this long to find out? I think we need a little bit more information before we make a decision and find out why it took so long?
Mr. James said the thickness was not put on the plans but now we request that the thickness is put on the plans and reviewed.
Mr. Banning said I know the models have been up for quite awhile. That is why I said I think ultimately it has to come off but I don't know. This has been a question that we have had. I would be curious to see how that operates until they are re-sold. That is my suggestion.
Mr. Kirchoff said I would like a little bit more information.
Mr. Flynn said you would like more background information, is that what you said?
Mr. Kirchoff said including our internal processing why we didn't catch it.
Mr. Flynn said I have dealt with a lot of different municipalities and I don't know any that have actually brought something to check with a caliper of any kind to check the siding thickness. So, on Brett's behalf I don't know how that would be checked except from us from now on. We are making sure that is done. Even with our purchase orders. I can show you the old documentation and the new documentation that I have. It does state the .044 from now on so we will be making sure that it happens. They order all of it off the purchase order also.
Mr. Satterfield asked, did Davis Homes discover it and you reported it?
Mr. Flynn said no. I'm not sure who discovered it but someone told Brett. I didn't know that it was an issue at all. We had sided the models in three homes and Brett on one inspection I happened to see him out there and he mentioned it to me and I told him I would check on it and the very day I stopped siding from going on any other homes until we found out exactly what happened. My first call was to our main office to find out exactly what had went through with the requirements.
Mr. Satterfield said builders could be doing that all of the time and nobody would ever know it unless the builders told us, is that what you just said?
Mr. Flynn said no. Brett is the one that brought it to my attention.
Mr. Satterfield said but you are saying that was unusual. Most of the time we wouldn't know about it unless you told us you put the wrong siding on.
Mr. McGillem said Mr. Belcher is not here but this type of an item is not a normal item for a building inspector or the type of inspections that they do. You have specs and all types of items but it is not a normal item for a building inspector to verify those types of details. You have foundation, you have the front end inspection, you have the electrical, etc. There are basically four inspections that they do. So, I think this is something that we talked about at the time that we were looking at going to this requirement for the .044 that it is not normally done at that level. Whether or not you want to pull this out and create some type of verification on it then it would be in addition to the normal inspections.
Mr. McPhail said I don't want to put Brett on the spot but I'm the guy to ask him to check it. I had an inquiry to me. I drove by and looked at it. Just from the street it did not look to me that it met the specifications nor the quality that we anticipated. I asked him to check it and he came back and told me and that is how we caught it.
Mr. Satterfield said what I would like to know is if it was intentional or was it a mistake?
Mr. McPhail said I don't know. Davis is a big company. Brad Davis sat just about where Mr. McGillem is the night that we approved it. There is no question in my mind that everybody at the upper echelon at Davis Homes made a commitment to do that.
Mr. Flynn said definitely we made a mistake. That is not going to happen again whether it was intentional or not. I have been with Davis for 16 years and I don't think they would intentionally just put the wrong siding on especially knowing that if it got caught later, there is a possibility to take off whatever houses. Whatever we need to do to correct it you know that we will. Right now we are building the give away home. We are pulling a permit on 135 in Saratoga; we are building a home there. There is going to be a drawing to give that home away and that is within the next month or month and half. So, definitely I don't want to leave any kind of bad impression with Davis Homes. I think Davis is a very good company. We have done a lot of homes in a lot of different areas and I don't think they would have done it intentionally. I don't want to even insinuate that; I'm sure that they didn't. Say the estimator puts all the purchase orders together for the subdivision requirements, and that is what he did on the masters I'm assuming this part, he thought it was .042. So, he put it out on the master system on the purchase orders and just like that is what happened.
Mr. McPhail said I'm sure it just didn't get on the drawings.
Mr. Kirchoff said you have reassured us that it is just these seven.
Mr. Flynn said I'm very sure.
Mr. Kirchoff said we don't want to find out later that it is 10 or 12.
Mr. Flynn said no there are just those seven. The day that Brett said anything to me we didn't put one piece of siding on them. Today we did start another house and it is at .044. I personally went out and looked at that to make sure.
Mr. Brandgard said we have to replace the siding on those houses so that they meet the specs for two reasons. One, that is what we tell the people the spec is in Plainfield and if they buy a house, they expect to get it to the specs and the requirements of Plainfield. I guess my thought is after listening to what Mr. Banning proposed the model homes have to be changed before they are sold but at the same time if that goes on too long, somebody is going to forget to do that.
Mr. Flynn said obviously we don't want to take the siding off but if you guys tell me to take the siding off, I really wouldn't want to wait for the models because there is a good chance that it would get forgotten. So, if that is what your decision is, we will do it on all of them.
Mr. McPhail said that is what I would like to see done. It has been too big of an issue. I have told everybody after that that is what the requirements are and we are going to hold everybody with the same standards. I'm sorry. I know it's not a cheap fix but I think it needs to be re-done.
Mr. Brandgard said everybody is held to the same standard and as soon as you allow somebody not to be, then you are in trouble with everybody else and the next ones that come along.
Mr. Flynn said just taking the wrap out and pulling nails or hammering them in it could actually cause some problems as far as that; not that it is a requirement through Plainfield to put the house wrap all the way around but it is something there that it doesn't have any holes in it; there shouldn't be right now. When we go taking that off, it may be a little less than what we do now; not the siding but the house wrap. I agree with you the .044 is definitely different siding. The lap on it is thicker, which makes it sturdier.
Mr. McPhail said I have a file that you can hardly carry in this room. I have all of the samples if you want them. It has been a major issue for us. We determined that you can get a bad product in vinyl but you can also get a good product and if you install it properly, it is a good product. That is our objective is to get a good product and get it installed properly and protect the citizens that buy the homes. We have climbed a lot of mountains to get here I think. I would make my statement in a form of a motion; replace it with siding that meets the specifications; all of them. Second by Mr. Brandgard. None opposed. Motion carried.
Mr. James said we have another old business issue. This concerns the Plainfield Park out on SR267 and Cambridge Way. An ILP was denied because of the proposed location. They wanted to put up an integrated center sign. Here is SR267 and Cambridge Way and Hartford and Hadley. This was platted years ago back in the mid 90s by Equicor. They got a variance back in 1996 to construct this integrated center sign before the actual integrated center was built to help market these two lots. But it was to expire after two years if an extension was not granted so they never came back and asked for an extension and the sign was never built. So, this last month they wanted to come back and now get a sign ILP for this integrated center sign. They proposed it in this little strip right up here north of Hartford and looking at the strip we thought it couldn't meet the required setback putting the sign here so we denied it. Since I have done some research on the GIS and that strip is about 45 feet they do have enough common area to put the sign here but we have the Opus commercial integrated center that is going to be on this property to the north and they are going to want an integrated center sign probably at this same location. So, we are now going to have two integrated center signs right next to each other. Now I have talked with Equicor and they say through their covenants they have rights to put an integrated center sign on this outlot 5, which is the car wash I believe. I have seen the covenants that are recorded and they do have the rights to put a sign here without having to do a sign easement or anything like that. But we have another integrated center sign. This is the tail piece where the Hartford Marketplace is going to go right here. So, they are calling this a contiguous integrated center sign and I denied it at this location because I said it is no longer contiguous because the Town now owns this and they are going to do an integrated center in the middle of your integrated center.
I guess I want some direction on what to do with these signs. Our ordinance says if you have an integrated center that has frontage over 500 feet, you can't have a second integrated center sign but it has to be spaced at least 500 feet apart. So, my thought is we get the Opus here and I guess the Plainfield Park Equicor could have their's here and we get possibly a Hartford Marketplace sign right here. That is the best that I can come up with or deny their's based on the fact that it is no longer a contiguous integrated center.
Mr. McPhail said I don't see how they can determine that they have an integrated center.
Mr. Brandgard said I was going to ask where is the integrated center. What makes it up?
Mr. James said I told them the worst case is you have to go back and get another variance like you did back in 1996 to allow an integrated center before the center is actually built.
Mr. McPhail asked, where is their integrated center? What do they claim is the integrated center?
Mr. James said they claim that these outlots and they still have this. That is the Mann property there. This lot and this parcel back here. They claim it is still considered platted as an integrated center.
Mr. Daniel said when you look at their documents; they are entitled to that sign on Lot 5.
Mr. James said that is correct.
Mr. Brandgard said I guess at the time that we approved that they had that whole area.
Mr. James said right.
Mr. Brandgard said and they have since sold parts of it off so they have, in my mind, in effect broken up their integrated center.
Mr. James said that is what I told them.
Mr. Brandgard said I mean five lots along that front of Quaker Boulevard doesn't make an integrated center; that is five lots.
Mr. James said that is right.
Mr. Brandgard said that are not connected.
Mr. James said these two will probably not be built on because of the power line easement. This one could be maybe. This is Woodfire Grill and that is Thornton's, the car wash and White Castle.
Mr. Brandgard said they want to put that up and it doesn't say where the tenants are.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, would we allow them to go in with Opus with a shared sign?
Mr. James said they still want to mark Plainfield Park as a separate integrated center.
Mr. Daniel asked, are all those that are left those lots?
Mr. James said these two right here; this right here and then I think this one and that one. This is the Plainfield Trade Center, the Mann property right there.
Mr. McGillem said I would think the intention of an integrated center sign they would be better off if they could go together with (inaudible) because that is going to be split. (Inaudible). It is going to have to be set back actually east of Cambridge at some point and he is looking for another hotel in there, an office building so there are several entities that he is going to break that property up in. (Inaudible). Parcels and entities that are going to be back with Lee's Inn and Homewood Suites and all of the other entities back there make up an integrated center that a sign out front would make sense. But like you say when this was all put together, Equicor had everything essentially all the way through SR267 to the Fundex Duke's property on the north side of Hadley Road and Perry Road. Primo's and all of that was in the Equicor integrated center development that went in at that point and time.
Mr. James said that was my original argument that it is no longer a contiguous integrated center.
Mr. Kirchoff said I think we are in agreement.
Mr. Brandgard said I'm not sure we were any help but I think we are in agreement. Somebody is going to have to do a lot of convincing to get me to buy into that being an integrated center.
Mr. James said our next item is the St. Francis Medical Center on Dan Jones Road. They have some problems with their current ground sign right here. This is zoned OD, Office District. An Office District does not allow pylon signs but they would like to do a pylon sign because they feel the ground sign is hidden by the bushes. I don't know if it is a grey issue or not. They are not getting the exposure that they think they need off of Dan Jones and off of Main Street. So, in talking to the sign guy this afternoon this is what they would like to do. It is a pylon sign. They have over 300 feet of frontage so they can have up to 140 square feet sign surface area and that would just be this square right here. This sign as proposed is 114 square feet so it complies there and it complies with the height of only 20 feet. Columns comply but the issue is a pylon sign is not allowed in the Office District so they would need a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. I just wanted to get your feedback on that.
Mr. McPhail said I don't think it needs to be that high to be honest with you.
Mr. Brandgard said they have an issue.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, what about the sign on the right?
Ms. Whicker said it is as tall as the other.
Mr. James said it is legal non-conforming.
Mr. McPhail said it has been there for a long time. I have the same issue with the other building just south of it. They are going to come in asking for a variance too.
Ms. Whicker said there is another ground sign there; it just has less landscaping, is that correct?
Mr. James said yes.
Mr. McPhail said you can see that. The problem with the St. Francis sign is for the landscaping and the parking you can't see it.
Mr. Brandgard said plus it is pretty far back off the road too.
Mr. James said it is a 10 foot required setback off the right-of-way.
Mr. Kirchoff said they have made a major improvement in that area.
Mr. Brandgard asked, what is for sale? Do they have that building for sale?
Mr. McPhail said I think it is for lease. They have some space in there to lease. They don't have it all occupied.
Mr. Brandgard said I went by there and saw that new sign that said “for sale and wondered what they are doing.
Mr. James said that is what they are advertising right here.
Mr. Brandgard said they have a problem and we certainly want them in Town. How can we help their problem?
Mr. McPhail said the reason that they want that height is they want it seen from Main Street. That is the whole problem and they are not on Main Street. It doesn't have to be that high to be seen on Dan Jones Road. That is the issue that I have with them. I told Dan Young that from day one when he called me. I looked at it and it has been months ago. I said I think you have a problem but my problem is seeing it from Dan Jones and not seeing it from Main Street.
Mr. James said it was last year. It was last summer when he came by.
Ms. Whicker said that landscaping is obviously over and above what would be required, is that correct?
Mr. James said correct. It is just required 24 inches. That is probably three or four feet.
Mr. Daniel said (inaudible).
Mr. Brandgard said the sign they have doesn't have the same color as what this one has. It doesn't jump at you like this one does.
Mr. James said today was the first that I had seen the pylon sign. I think I talked about maybe a 10 foot tall ground sign last year.
Mr. Brandgard said changing the landscaping is costly.
Ms. Whicker asked, is there any electrical with that?
Mr. James said it might have ground lights on it; I'm not sure but it can be illuminated between midnight and 6:00 a.m.
Mr. Brandgard said I agree with you; that is 20 foot, if they put a 10 foot ground sign in there and get it away from the bushes so that you can see it and maybe go to another color so that it would stand out better. You want to call attention to the St. Francis. You don't have to have all of the services to be able to see from along way off. That is their fault.
Mr. McPhail said I think if you let them do that, you open Pandora's Box.
Mr. Brandgard said it is somewhat of a self-induced problem.
Ms. Whicker asked, if you take the columns off the bottom, what does that reduce the height to?
Mr. James said they also say it helps your line of sight by raising it up above the vehicle level.
Mr. Brandgard said if you are looking for visibility from Main Street, you are only going to get it if you are heading east. If you are heading west, you are not going to see either.
Mr. McPhail said you won't get any support from me on that.
Mr. Brandgard said that sign looks taller than what we allowed Duke to have in front of their business.
Mr. James asked, there is no street here is there?
Mr. Kirchoff said it is their entrance.
Mr. McPhail said there is a street on the north and it goes back south.
Mr. McPhail said the next street is farther south. That drive there is the north drive into the new office building.
Mr. James said raise the height up and push it back a little would help. A ground sign can only be six feet and it is six feet now. Would you support a ground sign of 10 feet or eight feet and change out the shrubs?
Ms. Whicker asked, would you be giving them the privilege to make it higher because of their landscaping or because of the ditch?
Mr. Kirchoff said because of line of sight.
Mr. McGillem asked, (inaudible).
Mr. James said I think it is right at the edge.
Mr. McGillem said it is in a landscape island within the parking.
Ms. Sprague said that is right.
Mr. McGillem said if you go to the office building and south of there, they have their sign right on their radius as I recall, right on the corner and all of their landscaping and everything is behind their sign.
Mr. Satterfield asked, what is the question?
Mr. James said would you support a variance for a ground sign?
Mr. Daniel said that would go to the BZA. This board doesn't have any authority to do anything with this.
Mr. McPhail said I think I would be more inclined if I was sitting on the BZA, to reduce the setback so they can get it closer to the road. I do think they have a problem with what they have. If you have a car in that slot, you can't see it.
Mr. James said I can give them some comments and we can work something out and take another look at the site plan and see what we can come up with.
Another issue is the Abbey-Tibby recycling bins. I had Emily look at where the recycling bins are and they have agreed to move them all back to the back of lots so they are not so prominent out along the road frontages. We kicked around the idea of amending the Zoning Ordinance to create some standards for these. Do you have any thoughts on that?
Ms. Whicker asked, how many did she see in violation that was not in the back of the lots?
Mr. James said there is one on Carr Road but we are going to get that one moved.
Mr. McPhail said I thought they were all in violation of our ordinance.
Mr. James asked, do we want to support these or create some standards for them?
Mr. Daniel said I think we have to either enforce the ordinance or amend the ordinance.
Mr. James said other issues are outdoor display for gas convenience markets; the mulch and the salt that they put out. The ordinance was amended a couple of years ago and I think the BZA thought it was amended to require Special Exceptions for these items but it wasn't; it was just to allow outdoor display of tool rentals, etc. So, we have a couple of gas stations where it has been a problem this spring. We are going to crack down on them and try to get them to move them out of the setback or maybe reduce the height of them. So, I guess my question is do you want me to look into amending the ordinance to require a Special Exception for items like these? They would have to do a Special Exception and then we could nail down a location where they are allowed on the property.
Ms. Whicker asked, would that differ depending on the property?
Mr. James said yes. Maybe it would persuade some of them not to do it or maybe not do it as much. I know one example is the Thornton's down on SR267. Is it a gas station or is it a nursery? What is the primary use?
Mr. McPhail said I think we ought to enforce the ordinance. I don't understand why these people have to sell everything in the world and set it out there. At times you can't even see around them getting in and out.
Mr. Brandgard said the convenience stores or whatever you call them are getting pretty dangerous to pull in and get gas because you can't see and people are flying in and out.
Mr. McPhail said Mr. Matrana you have to drive around them all of the time.
Mr. Matrana said I do and I wish they weren't there; the mulch especially.
Ms. Whicker said if we give them a Special Exception, then that is allowing them to continue, which is more restriction, whereas, enforcing what we currently have they may restrict it happening.
Mr. James said we can prevent them from doing it. Have we ever attempted to enforce these or what has been done in the past?
Mr. McPhail said I remember having an issue with the Marathon Station down here.
Ms. Whicker asked, what was it that they had piled up?
Mr. McPhail said I think it was mulch, about everything.
Mr. McGillem said I think the intent when we amended the ordinance, enforce is what you are talking about right now because the Marathon was the Clark Station and they had swing sets out there; all kinds of equipment set out front. That was the time that we wrote the amendment to the ordinance and the intent was not to have any displays.
Mr. McPhail said I used to call Mr. Higbee once a week on Thornton's.
Ms. Whicker asked, so do we want to send a letter reminding them of this ordinance?
Mr. James said we can get a letter out tomorrow saying it is not allowed and not a permitted use.
Ms. Whicker asked, and give them 20 days to do it?
Mr. James said yes.
The last issue is the Red Robin wall sign. They installed a yellow background plaque and it is six inches thick. The approved plan was only for one and three-quarter inches thick. We feel like with this thickness it is like a cabinet sign when it is not supposed to be. It is supposed to be a background plaque and one and three-quarter inches thick. We referred this back to the Plan Commission for review of a development plan and make the installer correct it or approve it as constructed.
Mr. McPhail said I don't have any sympathy for sign people. They will take every inch they can get.
Mr. Brandgard said the plan showed one and three-quarter inches thick so that is what it should be.
Mr. Daniel said they will have to amend it right, do you agree Mr. Brandgard?
Mr. Brandgard said yes.
Mr. James said so if they want to keep it, they have to come back to the development plan.
Mr. Daniel said right.
Mr. James said that is what we will do.
Does anybody have any comments on the monthly report or questions?
Mr. Daniel said there is a note on here that you are waiting for me to do something that I don't remember being asked to do.
Mr. James said the question was the amount to fine the builders for continuing to place weekend directional signs out?
Mr. McPhail said there has been a significant improvement. There are just a few that won't listen.
Ms. Whicker said we gave the lot at Vestal and U.S. 40 until July 1st on the banner signs and he said he was selling his property. So, that won't reappear on our report until that expires, is that correct?
Mr. James said that is correct.
Ms. Whicker said I don't see any signs of that changing hands.
Mr. McPhail said the only thing I see is he has the “for rent sign out there but he doesn't answer phone calls so he is not trying to rent it. He won't answer any inquiries on that “for rent sign.
Ms. Whicker said I think that is one that we definitely need to follow-up on that when it expires.
Mr. McPhail said he told us he had a deal for that whole corner.
Mr. Brandgard said Ms. Abner was in here asking us to look at a 2,500 foot ordinance from a place that dispenses alcohol. She came in at the Town Council meeting last Tuesday and asked that we direct the Plan Commission to do this and come up for a ordinance for this. All I'm doing is passing along her request to consider and look at that.
Ms. Whicker said at the Town Council meeting she mentioned an ordinance that it wouldn't be within so many feet of a children's play area whereas tonight it was a residence.
Mr. Daniel said 2,500 feet of a play area you probably can't find a place in Town.
Mr. James said I wanted to respond to her that our Zoning Ordinance restricts the sale of alcohol now. You can't do it in a residential zone; you can only do it in the Commercial District.
Mr. Brandgard said this is not a commercial establishment.
Mr. James said this is a mixed use PUD.
Mr. Daniel said (inaudible).
Ms. Whicker asked, what about the current liquor stores on U.S. 40. Those are close to residences.
Mr. Brandgard said those could be grandfathered.
Mr. McPhail said you can't legislate human behavior.
Mr. Brandgard said people look for any reason to not have something done, which is not the real reason they are after.
Ms. Whicker said when they pull building inspections, they inspect the foundation, the front end inspection and electrical. Is the fourth the final occupancy? Am I understanding correctly that the inspections does not detail the vinyl siding?
Mr. McPhail said that is correct.
Ms. Whicker said with the electrical the siding wouldn't even be there so if you do a final occupancy like those model homes, they wouldn't have been granted a final occupancy until it sells, is that correct?
Mr. McGillem said (inaudible). It is not a normal thing to look at and you are pretty much looking at scheduling an additional inspection to catch it beforehand.
Ms. Whicker said, which is definitely a higher labor cost.
Mr. Brandgard said there are two ways we can handle that. One is before you issue the occupancy permit they have to certify that the vinyl meets their specs. Then we can spot check what they are doing and what they are using; you don't have to check every house.
Mr. McPhail said I think it should be on their prints when they submit their prints.
Mr. McGillem said (inaudible). I think the certification is something that we had talked about early on but we didn't get something put together in getting the certification for the siding. (Inaudible).
Mr. James said we talked about getting the installer certified.
Mr. McPhail said they have agreed to that. We didn't have any certified installer at Sugar Grove but we do have it at Oak Tree. So, that is another step that we have to get taken care of. When I asked Brett about it, it wasn't 24 hours and he came back and said it's not .044.
Mr. Daniel said (inaudible).
Mr. McGillem said it is not the building inspector's responsibility to certify to that homeowner that he has everything that is within the specs.
Mr. Satterfield said but somebody has to certify to us what we put in the plan; we approve the plan. I mean what is the use to do it if we don't have somebody to check it.
Mr. Daniel said (inaudible). I just think you have to be careful that the residents of the Town don't get the idea if I don't get the house I bought, I can sue the Town. You don't want to ever get yourself in that position where they think the Town is going to guarantee that they build the house on those specs. We guarantee the State codes (inaudible).
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to adjourn. Second by Mr. Brandgard. Motion carried.
