The Plainfield Plan Commission met on Monday, July 6, 2009. In attendance were Mr. Brandgard, Mr. Dunkin, Mr. Kirchoff and Mr. Satterfield.
ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM
Mr. Carlucci administered the Roll Call.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Dunkin made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 1, 2009 Plainfield Plan Commission meeting as submitted. Second by Mr. Kirchoff. Motion carried.
OATH OF TESTIMONY
Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Testimony. I would also point out at this time that this is a seven member commission. We have four members present tonight. To take any action either for or against a petition requires a majority vote of the full board, which means four votes. So, as you can see, we only have four members present, which means any action on any petition or motion or any business tonight would require a unanimous vote by the four members who are present. So, if any petitioner at this time would like to ask the commission to continue their petition tonight so that they can come back when more members of the commission are present, this is your opportunity to do so.
Mr. Satterfield asked, are there any questions from the petitioners? Hearing none we will continue.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mr. Satterfield reviewed the Guidelines Governing the Conduct of Public Hearings.
Ms. Sprague said the first petition on the agenda is for the Sheffield Apartments. There is a rezone and two development plans. They have requested to have that continued again. They will need to re-notice that in the paper and send out new certified letters at this time in order to do that.
Mr. Carlucci asked, do they just want to continue it for 30 days?
Ms. Sprague said I think until August.
Mr. Brandgard made a motion to continue RZ-09-002, DP-09-004 and DP-09-005, Wellington Park Partners until the August Plan Commission meeting. Second by Mr. Kirchoff. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Dunkin – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Satterfield – yes
Mr. McPhail – absent
Mr. Gibbs – absent
4-ayes, 0-opposed, 2-absent. Motion carried.
Ms. Sprague said the other petition we have tonight is DP-09-007 with Core States Group. They are planning to rebuild the Hardee’s. It is zoned General Commercial and primarily surrounded by General Commercial although there is some Office District to the north. The rear of those buildings faces this lot for your reference.
The site plan complies. They have a bailout lane just based on the design of the site so that they don’t have to worry about that. There is plenty of stacking before any ordering occurs and they have plenty of parking. The building itself is actually going to get smaller, which will allow them to put in landscaping as the ordinance now requires and they will have less asphalt. I have north pointing to the right just so that it would fit on the screen better. They propose putting in a drive that looks like it will come out on the north side of the Sunshine Café. They will have to get an easement agreed with the Sunshine Café owner and the tenants out there but as it stands the site plan looks fine.
Their landscaping plan looks good. DRC did have a few recommendations for plant substitutions. They have made those and other than that that looks fine as well.
It shows you what the elevations will look like. They only had to have the brick on three sides. It was not required to have 20% in the rear and those all comply.
You can see the stars a little bit better on these drawings. This rear star that used to have colored yellow the DRC requested that they not do that and they have complied with that request as well.
And then there are a few things that happened since DRC. When they came to DRC, they proposed cement units as the trash enclosure. DRC requested that they put brick veneer on there and they have done that. As I mentioned, the landscaping plans have been altered.
The Gateway Corridor; the only other questions that we still have at this point are mainly about their signs. The Gateway Corridor Ordinance requires that individual letter signs be used for new construction. They are proposing box signs and there was some question in my mind whether or not the signs that they proposed are logo signs because logo signs are allowed as box signs. So, I just wanted to confirm with you guys whether you agree with that or if you don’t think they are logo signs, and then they would require a waiver to that Gateway Corridor requirement.
Also, they are requesting a waiver to continue to use the existing pole sign. I don’t believe the pole sign would have to come down to do the construction but since basically the whole building would be new we felt that they would at least need to get the waiver for that. If they do get the waiver granted, they plan to reface the sign, which does not require a permit and possibly put in a surround for the pole just so that it gives a little more visual.
This is their wall sign. There is the Hardee’s part and then the red burrito part. I took a screen shot from their website and this is their Hardee’s logo. Personally I believe it looks like a logo to me and also they have the red burrito logo down here. So, the question is whether one or both of those look like they are logos and would be acceptable as box signs.
Then this is the pole sign. The existing is on the left and the middle shows what it would look like just with the new face and then on the right with the proposed pole cover. I went and looked over the pole cover or the pole surround area and it looks like they might need to either reduce that or make it into brick depending on how wide that cover is in order for it to not count towards the sign area. So, as it stands those are the issues and I know that the petitioner is here if you have any questions.
Mr. Patrick Bennett said I’m with Core States Group. We are the civil engineer of record on the project. I’m the licensed civil engineer in charge of our portion of the project. I want to thank Jill and Joe James for their help throughout this project. We have worked diligently over the past two months to prepare a project that will be beneficial both to the owner as well as the city. They feel that they are improving the existing site that is obviously a bit dated and needs a fresher look. And we have worked with city staff throughout the past two months to work through miscellaneous issues whether it is landscaping or trash enclosure materials or lot lighting or what have you to resolve all of the Staff’s qualms. We are in complete agreement with Staff’s recommendations on our Staff Report with one exception and that would be the freestanding pole sign. It is our belief and understanding that it is within our right to maintain that sign primarily due to the fact that we are an existing business. We are not going to be closing our business beyond six months and we are not altering the sign in any way other than the reface as part of this construction. Hardee’s believes that this existing pole sign is a viable part of their project and in order for them to produce a viable feasible project it needs to be part of it. We feel that we have been very amenable to Staff recommendations and changes to our original prototype design and proposed layout and with your approval we are eager to move forward with construction and operation of the new facility. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Brandgard said (inaudible).
Mr. Bennett said the depth of the overall box itself? About nine inches, eight to nine inches I believe. While I’m thinking about that I also have a material board with me if anyone would like to see the proposed materials.
(Inaudible).
Mr. Bennett said the stars on the side it’s less than two inches. The stars on the side of the building do not project; they are etched into the finish of the building.
Mr. Brandgard said (inaudible).
Mr. Bennett said I agree; I will do my best.
Mr. Brandgard said especially as you look around and you are seeing less and less (inaudible).
Mr. Bennett said I understand. For the most part fast food restaurant business is an impulse business and the sooner that you can get your potential audience’s attention the better. I won’t say there won’t be any way that they wouldn’t see our facility but obviously with the pole sign there is much more prominence. Someone coming off Interstate 70 traveling up SR267 and having them have that choice of turning left or right if they turn right, they can see Long John Silvers but maybe not necessarily Hardee’s. It might be a quicker decision for them to turn right and hit that Long John Silvers and get back on the highway. The same thing for the folks that are just driving down the road with two or three kids in the back and everybody is making noise and everybody is hungry and they have to make a relatively quick decision on where they are going to be going. It is important to our client that they could get as much advertisement and let people know that they are there.
Mr. Brandgard said (inaudible).
Mr. Bennett said I would disagree with you.
Mr. Brandgard said I’m just being honest; I just want to understand. I have a problem with (inaudible).
Mr. Bennett said I appreciate that. I don’t think, if I can be honest, taking this one sign down is going to drastically improve the site lines of this main street through Plainfield. I obviously drove the site to come to the meeting tonight and specifically looked for our sign from the next major intersection and could see our sign. Yes I might see a corner of the building. I might see part of these proposed signs but they are not going to jump out at me especially at night like a pole sign would.
Mr. Satterfield said Jill the Town is saying the pole sign will be nonconforming, is that correct?
Ms. Sprague said (inaudible).
Mr. Satterfield said and Mr. Bennett you said you do not interpret it that way.
Mr. Bennett said that is correct.
Ms. Sprague said normally we would request that a pole sign be removed at least if the business is closed for six months. In this case they are going to be closed for a hundred days or that is the plan. So, the site itself wouldn’t be empty for the whole nonconforming requirement. We might be doing the waiver just to be on the safe side or it’s part of the Gateway Corridor standards. What is allowed now is a ground sign and obviously it’s legal nonconforming just because it is a pole sign as compared to what the ordinance allows.
Mr. Carlucci asked, I think I saw one on 86th Street near the St. Vincents Hospital, that area up there.
Mr. Bennett asked, is that east or west of 86th?
Mr. Carlucci said west. Are you familiar with that area?
Mr. Bennett said somewhat; are you asking if it is the same sign or what is your question?
Mr. Carlucci said I was just curious because it looks like the same unit that you are proposing here.
(Inaudible).
Mr. Carlucci said I thought it was on 86th Street.
Mr. Bennett asked, is it a pole sign or a monument?
Mr. Carlucci said I’m just asking if anyone can tell me if they have seen this unit. If you haven’t, there is no point in me bringing it up. Apparently nobody has. Are you familiar with that?
Mr. Bennett said I can’t say I have. I may have seen it; we have done some random projects around town.
Mr. Carlucci said because I was just going to ask that question about the sign on that building compared to what you are proposing here.
Mr. Bennett said I cannot answer that question.
Mr. Satterfield said I guess my question is is it a mute point if the sign does not have to be taken down?
Mr. Carlucci said well there are two waivers here.
Mr. Satterfield said but does he have to ask for a waiver? I’m just confused I guess.
Mr. Bennett said I think the planner’s intent was just to cover the basis that we obtain a waiver so that if somewhere down the line if someone had a problem with it, there would be paperwork in place specifically granting it.
Mr. Carlucci said I think the BZA already granted a waiver on the second (inaudible).
Mr. Bennett said yes sir.
Mr. Carlucci said so you have a second menu board. (Inaudible).
Ms. Sprague said (inaudible).
Mr. Carlucci said and they want to maintain this one. Maybe Mel could shed some light on that. If there is a six month requirement for losing that legal nonconforming use, I’m assuming they will get this done before six months. Is there an issue with that pole sign or not?
Mr. Daniel said no there is not. It is a preexisting nonconforming use as long as they haven’t vacated the use for six months and they do not move the sign or bring it down or anything. It will continue as a preexisting nonconforming use.
Mr. Carlucci said so that answers that question. So, really they don’t need a waiver because (inaudible).
Mr. Daniel said I agree I don’t think they need a waiver.
Mr. Carlucci said (inaudible). You’ve already been at the BZA and got an additional menu board. That was interesting because there were two out there anyway but you know how that is. But there was already an additional menu board. (Inaudible). They are asking to maintain their existing sign; that is now a mute point. So, the other one is the last one has to do with the block letters are not correct on the building. So, far you have two for three and the unit is smaller than the original, is that correct?
Mr. Bennett said yes sir.
Mr. Carlucci said I have been here 21 years but people can remember when this was the only fast food restaurant chain on U.S. 40 for quite a long time. Burger Chef was there before that. It was actually Burger Chef before it became a Hardee’s. (Inaudible). The last issue to be resolved here seems to be the wall signage. Is that correct?
Mr. Satterfield asked, are there any other discussions or questions from the board?
Mr. Brandgard asked, what are we doing (inaudible).
Mr. Bennett said our preference is the third, the one farther to the right and it came down to the interpretation depending on what the gentleman said this evening. If you say no you can’t put the shroud on you have to leave it as it is, does your face change, we would leave it alone but in an effort to make it a little more aesthetically pleasing we would prefer to do the cover on the base.
Mr. Brandgard said (inaudible).
Mr. Satterfield asked, is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak in favor of the petition? Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? Is there any further discussion from the board? I will entertain a motion at this time.
Mr. Kirchoff said the only question I would have in relationship to the sign do we need to differentiate which one of the options we are approving, number three?
Mr. Daniel said I think you should because the preexisting nonconforming use relates to one and two so I think it should be indicated in the motion with option three with the pole cover as being approved by the Plan Commission.
Mr. Kirchoff said on page five of five how should it read?
(Inaudible).
Mr. Kirchoff said we can scratch number two.
(Inaudible).
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion that the Plan Commission approve DP-09-007 as filed by Core States Croup requesting approval of a Development Plan for a reconstructed Hardee’s Restaurant at 1630 E. Main Street 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 and 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 installation of a box sign along a Gateway Corridor the Plan Commission finds that:
1. The proposed development represents an innovative use of building sign which will enhance the use of value of area properties.
2. The proposed development is consistent with and compatible with other development located along the Gateway Corridor.
3. The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
And regarding a waiver to allow the reuse of an existing pole sign along a Gateway Corridor the Plan Commission finds that:
1. The proposed development represents an innovative use of building sign which will enhance the use of value of area properties.
2. The proposed development is consistent with and compatible with other development located along the Gateway Corridor.
3. The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
And that such approval be subject to the following conditions:
1. Substantial compliance with the photometric plan and lighting cut sheets, the building elevations, trash enclosure details and the site and landscaping plans file dated June 19, 2009.
2. Substantial compliance with the sign plan file dated June 19, 2009.
3. That the existing pole sign be modified in accordance with recommendation number three, which includes the option pole cover.
Second by Mr. Brandgard. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Dunkin – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Satterfield – yes
Mr. Gibbs – absent
Mr. McPhail - absent
4-ayes, 0-opposed, 2-absent. Motion carried.
Ms. Sprague said the next public hearing part for the meeting tonight was for some text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Number TA-09-001. Those included:
Amend Article 4.1 – Accessory uses to prevent accessory structures from locating in front of the primary use structure.
Amend Article 5.5 – Gateway Corridor standards to require that all buildings or structures within 600’ of a Gateway Corridor or Residential District that are vacant for a period of six (6) months or more must comply with current development requirements of Article 5.5.C. in order to allow a reuse of the building.
Amend Article 5.5 – Gateway Corridor standards to prevent certain uses with the Gateway corridor Overlay District.
Amend Article 7.4.E.; Incidental Signs – increase height of incidental directional signs from 4’ to 7’ in Industrial Districts.
Amend Article 7.4.E.; Incidental Signs – allow two menu boards instead of one in NR, OD and GC Districts. Menu boards are 48 sf and 7 ft. tall.
Hardee’s is not the first time that we have had a request for a pre-menu sign.
Amend Article 9.1; Legal nonconforming uses to require that all buildings or structures within 600’ of a Gateway Corridor or Residential District that are vacant for a period of six (60) months ore more must comply with current development requirements of Article 5.5.C. in order to allow a reuse of the building.
This is another one of those if the building is vacant for more than six months that they would have to agree to get rid of their legal nonconforming status.
Amend Article 13.2.; Definitions – add definitions for Antique Mall, Discount Retailer and Flea Market.
We talked about these last month and they have been noticed in the paper this time. So, it’s open for any discussion.
Mr. Satterfield asked, are there any questions from the board? This is a public hearing so if there is anyone in the audience that would like to address the board in regards to these amendments, please come forward at this time. Hearing none I will entertain a motion.
Mr. Dunkin made a motion to forward to the Plainfield Town Council TA-09-001: proposal to amend the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance as described above with a favorable recommendation. Second by Mr. Kirchoff. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Dunkin – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Satterfield – yes
Mr. McPhail – absent
Mr. Gibbs – absent
4-ayes, 0-opposed, 2-absent. Motion carried.
OLD BUSINESS/NEW BUSINESS
Ms. Sprague said we have had some residents from Sugar Grove come in. They recently discovered that there is a plan to put trails behind some of their homes or next to some of their homes and they were unaware of that at the time that they purchased their lots. They have had some issues with that. I believe the locations of the trails were approved at the primary plat stage rather than the rezoning stage. I believe there are also some trails planned through the central park area but that hasn’t been secondary platted yet. That is not exactly on the table. I think what most people are concerned about right now is around the houses that have already been built. I think obviously Davis is not out there anymore but the homes that were built by Davis some of the homes that have been built by Ryland and some of the homes that have been built by Adams and Marshall are the ones that are being affected. I know that the buyers did not know the plans. I have heard that the builders didn’t but personally I don’t know that it is true. So, we are trying to figure out what to do to mollify the residents who didn’t know about the trails that were going to go in behind their homes. I’m just trying to figure out some sort of new plan where we can put the trails in a different place or somehow connect the subdivision itself to the rest of the trail system rather than having trails that go through the subdivision.
This is the location of the trails. Most of the homes here have been built by Adams and Marshall and I think a couple of these have been approved. Several of these have been built, if not all of them, and the same goes with these homes here. The trail would go along here and this is up in between two of the Adams and Marshall lots. And then it comes down and connects up here between some more Adams and Marshall lots although those have not been built yet and then right next to this house and this guy’s house has been built. I will show you the photos in a second.
This is photo one; these are Adams and Marshall Homes and the streets out here and it is a pretty narrow location for them to build a trail without either having to tear down trees or something.
This one is very, very close to that guy’s side lot and that’s the other end of the trail. So, I think we are here just to have a discussion.
Mr. Carlucci asked, are these part of the preliminary plan?
Mr. Sprague said primary plan yes. It is on the landscaping plan of the primary plan.
Mr. Carlucci said (inaudible).
Mr. Kirchoff asked, who is to construct these trails?
Mr. Sprague said I think the developer.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. Brandgard said to me this is not part of the Town trail system. (Inaudible).
Ms. Sprague said it is part of the Subdivision Control requirement that they put in trails or sidewalks and it is a commitment as well in their rezone. I know Mr. Bandini is here. He has a presentation for you.
Mr. Carlucci said before that I don’t think this Plan Commission (inaudible) those trails.
Ms. Sprague said it was just to have a discussion.
Mr. Carlucci said secondly I can appreciate his concerns about (inaudible). There is a development right next to the Vandalia Trail that (inaudible) south of the Vandalia Trail and west of Saratoga but we did build that connection (inaudible). (Inaudible) side track and it takes you right into that neighborhood. The reason was so that these would be just as close as these neighbors would be here but again that was a (inaudible) verses a developer trail. So, what I hope to hear is that there is some other alternative on the sidewalks.
Mr. Brandgard said (inaudible). This is something (inaudible) we are going to hear what you want to say (inaudible) developer out here (inaudible) different plan for us (inaudible).
Ms. Sprague said also this isn’t technically a public hearing. There is no decision right now just so that everyone knows that.
Mr. Bandini said my wife, Jackie and I live at 5080 Appaloosa Court. We have lived in the Adams and Marshall Forest Creek Village development since November of 2007. The development is about one-half mile west of the Saratoga Parkway. It is almost immediately across the street from the Eagles and there are several residents still with us tonight who are as concerned about this situation as I am. So, I wanted to ask before we started if I could pool the audience. Is that permissible? I would like to know if there is anyone here representing Republic Development?
(Inaudible) said yes.
Mr. Bandini asked, is there anyone here representing Adams and Marshall? M/I Homes? Ryland Homes? Sugar Grove Homeowners Association? Okay thank you. I was previously on a board of homeowners several years ago where we had issues with the utility and there were sleepers in the audience during the presentation so I apologize for that. This is a very interesting situation because as you have indicated, these paths or these trails are not part of the Town’s overall plan; they are probably a developer issue. In the course of the last two months I have contacted the town and planning people, Joe James and Jill. I have spoken to Tim Belcher in the engineering group, I guess that is his position. I have sent registered letters to our builder with a response and to the Sugar Grove Homeowners Association with no response and to the Republic Development with no response. So, I’m trying to go through the process to find out what is the process and the answers that I seem to get at least casually is that everybody is pointing the finger at the other guy. So, in order to get the attention of someone I got on the agenda tonight through the help of Mr. James. I would like to go through this as a neighbor and as a resident of the Town and show you kind of what we are dealing with here and let you be aware of the situation.
I’m only going to talk about the Forest Creek side; I’m not going to speak for Ryland or for M/I. But these paths were unknown to us until May of this year. There was a Banning Engineering plat that is dated 2006 that Joe provided to me several months ago when we became aware of this and the only reason that we became aware of this is when there was some engineering stakes that were driven in the ground and one of the neighbors went outside and said what are you doing? And they said well we are going to put these paths in so what is this? The paths are drawn lines on paper and we will go through that in a little bit; you’ve already seen a preliminary plat on that and they look great on paper but when you got into the reality of where they are and the proximity of where the path is going to be with respect to not only property lines but to the homes themselves I think common sense will tell you that it is probably not going to work.
A question I would have, and I have some supportive evidence here, is that none of these paths were depicted on any of the builder’s sales or promotional information. I know that is not your issue but you know it is concerning to me as a purchaser who purchased a property for a particular reason and purpose only to find out a year and a half into this process that you have something else here.
This is the plat that was shown earlier and I would like to make a few comments. The alignment in blue is what you were currently shown. If you go over to the subdivision right now, the alignment that is in green is where the stakes are currently laid out for these paths. So, I don’t know. What I’m concerned about primarily is the Appaloosa Court region, which is right here. This is my lot. This is my neighbor, Mr. Gibson, these are the neighbors, Pierce’s and Lisa’s lot is right here next to this trailhead. Now these are depicted trailheads here, here, here and here and these two lots here have yet to be constructed. These lots from the corner to this lot here they have been constructed and the Greg’s occupy this lot. They couldn’t be here tonight; they are out of Town.
Interestingly enough at noon today I had a call from Republic after a month of silence and they said oh, by the way are you going to be at the meeting tonight? Well yes I am going to be at the meeting tonight and they said well yeah we’ve talked about this and we think we can sit down with the homeowners and we can realign these paths. And you are going to see some photos here in a minute and my position is that the realignment of the paths, at least in this area, is really not feasible. This is the promotional sales information that Adams and Marshall has. It was taken off their website. It is very current. You can see the common areas that are depicted here and here but nowhere else. I drew the path centerlines and alignments in here to show you how this will affect our properties going through these woods.
This is Sugar Grove Farms; this is within the last 30 days I obtained this from their sales office and again that we see that lakes and amenities areas are shown but there are no pathways shown. I don’t have anything from Ryland but I talked to the representative from Ryland and he told me that basically Ryland had no clue that these pathways were going in and didn’t know where they were going in.
I have some aerial shots here that show Appaloosa Court. This is my residence. This is the Gibson residence, this is the Pierce residence here and Lisa’s residence is here. The approximate paths come up with what we will call the berm on the pond and go back through the woods and then circle around and come back to the trailhead and then there is another artery that cuts off and goes up through the woods this way. Another shot is of the berm along the lake here and up through what is actually a creek bottom. This is not really what you’re seeing. I’ve some shots of that as well. So, you are going up through this creek area here and then you are going and winding back around and coming out here and over here and then the new alignment is here coming out to here and not as depicted on the plan.
One of the points that I would like to make is that installation of these paths is going to increase homeowners cost because of the maintenance that will result in higher assessment. If you study the cost value, you have to ask yourself who is going to benefit from this? There are sidewalks that are there, the paths, although they are nice to have are really going to be a cut through from one side to the other. I think that the developer would probably be better off putting his money into the community center, the pool and the clubhouse for the greater benefit of everybody in these three developments.
These are common area examples that were taken from the Indiana Government website and my point in showing these to you is that these paths are in large open areas. They aren’t confined, they aren’t restricted. The proximity of buildings, except for the lower right here, which is probably some type of commercial or retail operation, you are basically in wide open spaces.
I indicated before that the area that we are talking about is in a creek bottom and this creek bottom floods and the centerline and the right-of-way of this path is going to be within a few feet of this creek bottom and when this thing goes over, the paths are going to be unusable. I’m not an engineer but if you walk that ground, the material is soft, you are going to have washouts, there’s going to be repairs required and with the density of the trees, and my wife can attest to this, there are mosquitoes and vermin present down there and if you have single-families from Ryland walking their children down these paths, you are going to have some health hazards there.
The pathways are going to cut through the back yards of some of us on Appaloosa Court and I’ve got some approximate alignments. This is the view from my deck out into where the right-of-way would be. This is probably about 30 feet. I would say it is going to be within 10 feet of my property line although I don’t have an accurate survey on that. Another shot of the approximate alignment behind Mr. Gibson’s house going down behind my house and off to the lake and then it would veer off to the left.
These paths will take away our privacy, our security and our quality of life. It is going to destroy and illuminate the purpose of our purchase. I mean we purchased these homes and these lots for a specific reason and that was for privacy, for safety, for security and for the beauty that we have back there. And now we face the possibility of having a thoroughfare back there with people from three different developments transient the area not to mention the increased risk due to security and crime that could exist. One of the comments that was made to me is well you’ve got crime that can ingress from the street and I said yes well why make it twice as easy for a guy to get to the back of your house and then slip off into the woods at night? If the paths are put in, it’s going to require tree removal. It’s going to require heavy equipment on homeowners’ property and again we are going to have more destruction in the back. Sidewalks are in and they provide a much safer walking area for the residents and for these single-families who are walking their kids in their strollers and their dogs at night.
I just wanted you to see some different angles here. The top left is the proposed area for the community building and the community center. The top right the arrow is pointing to where the centerline marker is currently driven for the pathway. This is the view from my deck. I would guess that it is about 35 feet from the deck rail into the woods and you can see the density of the trees here. I don’t want to lose that gentlemen. I bought this lot for a specific purpose. You can see the berm along the lake where one of the right-of-ways is planned. These dots here are not dots; they are ducks. We have ducks, we have wildlife. It’s kind of nice having them around. I don’t want to see them leave. In the lower right is where I’m actually standing near the stake on the trail centerline looking up towards my residence and Mr. Gibson’s residence.
In summary I would like to point out that the paths really aren’t needed. Sidewalks are there. People can motivate and get around the subdivision very easily. If the paths were going to be put in, I think it should have been done pre-construction so that people buying these lots looking at these properties would have known and understood what they were getting. I can tell you personally that had I known that the path was there and had I seen that path there I would not have bought that lot. The installation is going to affect privacy, security. It has affected the purchase and it will affect the resale value of our homes. Homeowners’ association dues will increase for upkeep and there will be hazards to pedestrians and the health of those on the paths. Finally I don’t think they have any value to anyone. I don’t think they have any value to the Town. They are not going to be tied in to your system nor will they be of any value to the homeowners association. They could spend that money for the betterment of the community with the community house, the clubhouse, the pool, which at this date we don’t know when that is going to be constructed. That concludes my portion of this program. I would be happy to entertain any questions or comments that you might have.
Mr. Brandgard said I have just a couple of comments. I understand your concern. Behind my house I bought it because of the trees, drainage. After I did some investigation I found out Duke Energy has an easement through there and I know they are about to come through and clean the trees out because they are (inaudible). They can do that. There’s nothing I can do about it but again (inaudible) my investigation of what I needed to do before I bought it. The point I’m making is this whole area was a PUD that was brought into us for approval of different areas that are in there with this internal path system in there to connect everybody easily back to the central pool/clubhouse area even with sidewalks. Quite frankly I don’t want to get into a big discussion but (inaudible). With that said I understand your position but the thing we have to go back to is the development.
Mr. Bandini said I agree with you.
Mr. Brandgard said all the Town is going to do is at some point we are going to tell the developer where are these amenities at that you said you were going to put in?
Mr. Bandini said I agree with you and I appreciate your comments and I would like to have the developer to sit down and discuss this with us and until today at twelve o’clock noon after a registered letter was sent to the developer I had no communication. If you get out and get the lay of the land and walk it, you will understand, not only from my prospective, that the paths don’t make sense. I mean it doesn’t pass the smell test. So, I’m being told, Joe James told me, that in order to undue this process I have to have a public hearing or you have to have a public hearing or we have to go through some process.
Mr. Brandgard said that is true but the public hearing as to be by the developer because that’s where the approval lies for that whole community out there.
Mr. Bandini said so my question is does Republic Development have the authority to cancel these paths if they so choose?
Mr. Brandgard said no not without coming in here because they were presented to us and we accepted it.
Mr. Bandini said I understand that.
Mr. Satterfield said the homeowners would have to meet with the developer and if everybody is in agreement, then the developer would have to come in and ask for a change of those.
Mr. Bandini said I’m trying to get the process down because I need information.
Mr. Satterfield asked, are all of the homeowners aware of the situation?
Mr. Bandini said well I don’t know if all. Most of the affected homeowners are aware of it. I can’t state 100% of them are.
Mr. Satterfield said did some people buy in the community because they know the paths and those type things are going to be in there?
Mr. Bandini said from everyone that we’ve talked to no sir. Nobody knew about this until Carol saw the stakes being driven in about the first week of May.
Mr. Satterfield said it wasn’t an incentive to buy them?
Mr. Bandini said no sir.
Mr. Brandgard said like I say you as a group need to get back with the developer and tell the developer you don’t like this and he has to come back to the Town to modify the PUD.
Mr. Carlucci said quite honestly if you could get the developer to do that, it will save you money because the cost of having a public hearing is a lot less (inaudible).
Mr. Bandini said I agree. Gentlemen thank you for your time; I appreciate you helping us with the process. We will try to get some lines of communication open here and we’ll see if we can’t come to some resolution.
Mr. Brandgard said I’m glad you came in because that helps because I think the developer (inaudible) some action one way or the other out of the developer but I think (inaudible). I understand your frustration and I’m not going to disagree with you. Those probably should have gone in before the houses especially in that kind of area. We don’t necessarily tell the developers (inaudible).
Mr. Bandini said I agree with that.
Mr. Carlucci said (inaudible).
Mr. Brandgard said I was going to add to that; you did a great job with the charts.
Mr. Bandini said well we are very concerned. Most of these bought these because I’m retired. This is it you know.
Mr. Brandgard said that is quite frankly a very nice area.
Mr. Satterfield asked, have the associations met yet to discuss this yet?
Mr. Bandini said no sir.
Mr. Satterfield asked, is that in the plans?
Mr. Bandini said if I can get them to answer me. You send e-mails; you make phone calls; you send registered letters and it’s like zero.
Mr. Brandgard asked, is the homeowners association still controlled by the developer?
Mr. Bandini said yes sir. Thank you gentlemen.
Ms. Sprague asked, did you have any questions about this month’s monthly report? I spoke to Chip Walker this morning. He was unable to make it. He had previous plans. He only got his letter today but he did say that they are going to be submitting a permit for the new freestanding sign within the next couple of days so if that changes, then maybe he will talk to you again next month but hopefully they will give us something about that soon.
And then the other thing is a little bit related to what we were talking about with Hardee’s.
Mr. Brandgard asked, did you get a copy of this presentation?
Ms. Sprague said I didn’t keep a copy.
Mr. Bandini said I can do it electronically.
Mr. Brandgard said that would be great.
Ms. Sprague said we discovered some problems with the facade plane update that we did to the building sign ordinance I think last November. This was one of the first signs that prompted that; the kind of grayish portion of the building stands out 20 feet from the rest of it but the way the ordinance was written before I had to take basically that whole yellow box and they were allowed ten percent of that. I think if you remember correctly, the sign itself calculates to 20% or 25% of the smaller area that it’s actually on. So, it wouldn’t be permitted today but it is 10% of the whole yellow box. That is the one that is right behind Hardee’s actually.
We had complaints from some of the DRC members about the Bubbaz sign. It looks like it fills up a whole portion of what should be a tenant space except that their tenant space actually goes out a lot farther. So, it did not exceed the 80% linear width, which was another reason for changing the facade. If we counted the facade plane as ending here, then they would have been more than 80% and would have been affected by the new ordinance.
Now we come to Hardee’s; their sign is relatively small overall and it obviously doesn’t compete with the 80% linear width of the whole thing but if you just count the tower itself that they want to put it on, I think it’s twenty something percent area and then more than 80% of the width of that. Personally I think it looks fine and now I’m having trouble figuring out how we distinguish between signs that actually don’t comply with the facade plane ordinance but would be fine otherwise and then compare them to, now the Bubbaz’s was just a little bit too wide for that one section that it was one and then the dentist sign that stands out especially at night on that small area of building that they have standing out there. I don’t know if you guys have any suggestions but I haven’t been able to figure it out. Because right now basically if Hardee’s want to have the signs that they have proposed, they will need a variance.
Mr. Satterfield said on the Bubbaz sign what is the problem with that?
Ms. Sprague said technically it met the ordinance but it wouldn’t now. At the time the ordinance was written they could have 80% linear width of the width of their tenant facade. Since their tenant facade actually went all the way out here that’s only 60% but if the facade plane, which we added to the ordinance in November changed so that they can only have 80% of the linear width of this area here starting where the step down was, that would have been more like 95% linear width.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible). As I sit and look at these it seems to me that we just need to have some sense of common sense; what looks reasonable. Let’s talk about the spirit of the (inaudible). I don’t have any trouble with that at all.
Mr. Brandgard said the problem is it’s not centered.
Mr. Kirchoff said I understand.
Mr. Satterfield said the others were very obvious but that one I couldn’t………
Ms. Sprague said like the Car-X sign was a better example I think that I put in your reports. I didn’t print it in the slide show. Obviously we took care of that one in time because it was in the process of being approved so we just told them this is what is going to happen.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Ms. Sprague said no that’s a BZA issue. That’s why it wasn’t discussed here.
Mr. Kirchoff said I just think we have to be careful of (inaudible). I don’t lose a lot of sleep over signage so I don’t put a lot of energy to it. One of the reasons is I just think you have to be practical about it.
Mr. Satterfield said that’s what variances are for.
Ms. Sprague said because this one would meet the old ordinance but not the one that we just altered. I don’t think a variance would be a problem but I don’t see it on the BZA and it’s an extra cost and an extra time process for them that wouldn’t have been required before. I don’t know if there was some way to write it into the ordinance where sometimes the facade plane applies and supplies it but that doesn’t really make sense.
Mr. Brandgard said (inaudible). Where the sign is at and where that box goes that extra section goes back 30-40 feet and the roofline is not there so that’s (inaudible). That whole area is not the facade in my opinion. When you look at this and we want to have the developers do something besides the box. In other words (inaudible) and that’s what this is. In my mind I look at that whole thing as that sign façade and not just the (inaudible).
Ms. Sprague said so I guess maybe that’s how we distinguish which is which, when to use the facade plane.
Mr. Brandgard said I’m saying it from the standpoint the developer (inaudible) across there and not have the bump-out. (Inaudible). I’m going back to Bill’s comment. We need to look at what we’re doing here and make sure that it makes sense and I look to the planners to give me guidance rather than the planners looking to me for guidance.
Mr. Satterfield said that was going to be my question is after working in these situations does Staff have any recommendations or suggestions?
Ms. Sprague said the facade plane is my suggestion and it doesn’t seem to be working out so that’s where I’m stuck. Up until I came across this one I didn’t really have a problem with the facade plane issue. I think it makes sense but then when they proposed this one, it is relatively a small sign but not on the small area in where they are wanting to put it.
Mr. Brandgard said Chili’s when they were wanting to put that pepper up I look at that as part of their business logo so it should belong there even though it doesn’t fit within our sign ordinance.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Ms. Sprague said I have not done research. I know a lot of places do theirs on linear frontage and stuff. It is quite a bit different from how we do our calculations but I can still look into it. Maybe something else would work better.
Mr. Brandgard said we have other places doing the same thing. (Inaudible).
Ms. Sprague said that might be something that we will bring to you in the future.
Mr. Brandgard said (inaudible).
Ms. Sprague said the one that fits is too small.
Mr. Carlucci said (inaudible) trails. Tim and I were talking about another project in that general area (inaudible). It had to do with park impact fees and we made some suggestions to the developer (inaudible) if within five years they (inaudible). (Inaudible) funds as a way of getting this whole neighborhood connected to our trail system. That is our goal. Maybe the same thing that we can work out with the developer on this saying listen instead of building these internal trails (inaudible) specified dollar amount and we will put it in that point so at some point we can get these people hooked up to the rest of the trail system. That would be a very segregated dollar amount because (inaudible) because we’ve had people (inaudible) lived here 50 years (inaudible) because the first person that moved into Forest Creek said when are the trails going to get in? I said we are kind of working on some other areas here but that may be an alternative too is to look at that and ask where you really want the money spent. My guess is you would like a better and safer way to get to the rest of the trail system although we don’t have a specific plan. So, that may be an alternative.
Mr. Kirchoff said I considered building in Forest Creek and my main concern was it wasn’t tied to the trail system so if I was out there, I would be pushing for trails.
Mr. Satterfield said this could be another meeting.
Mr. Carlucci said when you sit down with the developer, say we may deal with it and say we will let you out of this requirement (inaudible) because we want a trail built. We want these people to get to the rest of the trail system and it’s not going to be (inaudible). It’s just another suggestion.
Mr. Colin Osborn with Republic Development said I would just like to address some of the concerns Mr. Bandini had. We are looking at other alternatives to go with this path system. We are not stuck with this path because it was shown just to be able to show that we were going to put a path through the development. We didn’t really think this was going to be an exact location. We are willing to work with the homeowners on this path. We just kind of went out there one day and put stakes in the ground to visualize how it was going to go through. It wasn’t like we put the stakes in the ground and the next day we were coming out with a bulldozer and start chopping trees down and everything. So, I would just like the commission to know that we are willing to work with the homeowners on it; it’s not that we are set in stone.
Mr. Brandgard said (inaudible).
Mr. Osborn said that is one thing. Mr. Bandini and myself have been communicating quite a bit. Yes we did receive a registered letter but yes we also have six other developments that are going also so we just did not have the time and opportunity to be able to contact Mr. Bandini but he can attest, Tim and I have talked quite often. I mean I went for a vacation and I come back Monday morning, I wasn’t in the office two hours and I had a phone call. So, Mr. Bandini knows that I do return phone calls and talk to him. Thank you.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to adjourn. Second by Mr. Brandgard. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned.
____________________________________________
Mr. Gary Satterfield, Vice President
