The Plainfield Plan Commission met on Monday, August 1, 2005. In
attendance were Mr. Matrana, Mr. McPhail, Mr. Brandgard, Ms. Whicker,
Mr. Kirchoff and Mr. Haase.
ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM
Mr. Carlucci administered the roll call.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to approve the July 7, 2005 Plan
Commission minutes as submitted. Second by Ms. Whicker. Motion
OATH OF TESTIMONY
Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Testimony.
Mr. Haase reviewed the Guidelines Governing the Conduct of Public
Hearings. We have one request for a withdrawal, RZ-05-012.
Mr. Valanzano said that is correct. I believe the only thing
that we need to have done at this stage is for the Plan Commission to
acknowledge receipt of a letter from Mr. Ben Comer requesting that the
petition be withdrawn.
Mr. Haase asked, no motion is required?
Mr. Valanzano said no, just acknowledged.
Mr. Haase said acknowledgement is granted. We have received the
letter and the petition is withdrawn. There were no legal
Mr. Valanzano said the notice was published in the newspaper by
Staff but the legal individual notices to surrounding properties never
Mr. Haase said so if there is anyone here for the Szalay Masonry,
Inc. has been withdrawn and will not reappear unless re-noticed and the
legal notifications sent. We will move onto the expedited petitions.
Mr. Valanzano said the first is the Opus North Corporation. It
is a 321,000 square foot office/warehouse building. We have
architectural and site design review and development incentives;
landscape plans; architectural plans and everything complies with the
ordinance guidelines and a recommendation from the DRC. I would ask if
the Plan Commission has any questions from the Staff with respect to
Mr. Haase said for the record I want to make sure that we are
listening to DP-05-017 and DP-05-019. Are there any questions from any
board members? Would there be any questions from anyone in the
audience on these two petitions? Being no one coming forward at this
time we need a motion and instead of reading through these motions on
these expedited petitions the motion may merely be made to approve as
recommended in the Staff Report.
Mr. Thibo – absent
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
6-ayes, 0-opposed, 1-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Haase said next on the agenda are DP-05-020 and DP-05-021,
First Industrial Development Services, Inc.
Mr. Valanzano said both of these cases are at the northeast
corner of Perry Road and Reeves Road for development of an
approximately 241,000 square foot office/warehouse building.
Development incentives are for the reduction of the front yard on Perry
Road and for the use of yards between buildings. Landscape plans have
been supplied and architectural plans have been supplied. They meet
all of the requests of the Design Review Committee. I wanted to point
out that the landscape plan is an alternate approval because of moving
around some plant materials to provide for a consistent look along the
Perry Road frontage. I would also note, for the record, that a
variance was approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals a couple of weeks
ago to provide for a reduction in the amount of space between buildings
with assurances being provided by the petitioner that the areas would
not be fenced or otherwise encumbered to impede truck maneuverability
through the area and it is under that condition that the variance to
reduce the space from 245 to 225 was approved. With that I have no
other issues with the petition.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, do we have those assurances provided?
Mr. Valanzano said those would have to be provided and approved
and recorded before we can issue a permit. That is the terms of the BZA
Mr. Haase asked, are there any questions from the board members?
Would there be anyone in the audience who has any questions or concerns
about these two public hearings? Being no one coming forward would
there be someone to give a motion to approve as recommended in the
Mr. Thibo – absent
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
6-ayes, 0-opposed, 1-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Haase said the next item will be DP-05-023 and DP-05-024,
Dick’s Sporting Goods.
Mr. Valanzano said this petition is located at 655 South Perry
Road, which is the northeast corner of Stafford and Perry. It is the
existing Dick’s distribution facility. We are talking about basically
doubling the size of that facility with a building addition to the
south. Probably the main feature of this is the addition of a 459-
trailer storage parking lot on the south side of the building. The
petitioner has architectural site design review on file and also
development incentives for reduction of a setback along Perry Road from
90 feet to 45 feet with an increase in landscaping. That would be to
match the existing setback for the vehicular car parking lot for the
office area of the building. That is the only area where setbacks
would be affected would be for car parking only and a development
incentive to orientate the loading docks out toward Stafford Road.
The petitioner has developed a landscape plan that has
significant berming along Perry Road in the vicinity of 7-10-13 feet in
height. There is an alternate landscape plan to allow for some of the
plant materials to be put up front on Stafford Road and on top of the
mound to provide for an enhanced visual barrier to the mounding. All
the mounding affect would be very similar to what Browning has at the
south end of Airtech on the west side of Airtech Parkway on the north
side of Stafford Road, if you can envision that type of berm affect
going westward along the north side of Stafford Road as you approach
Mr. Haase said just east of this property is a big building in
the Airtech Business Park. It has a large a very high mound. You
don’t notice it so much because it has a nice flow to it. This has a
large parking area. If you can imagine 459 trailers, that is a large
staging area but from Stafford Road with the mounding and landscaping
we looked at it at DRC and it is going to be very nice. You won’t
realize that vast ocean of truck trailers.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, is it the same kind of protection on Perry as
you go north?
Mr. Valanzano said it is very similar. Perry Road the grades are
a little bit different. There will be a pond. The first thing off of
Perry Road there will be a landscape strip, there will be a pond and
then there will be a mound that will probably get up to five to seven
feet in height, not quite as high, with landscaping on top of that as
Mr. Kirchoff said I can’t visualize what that looks like. That
is a huge, huge trailer parking area.
Mr. Valanzano said there is a line of sight drawing in your
packet as well. Except for the tops of the trucks that might be parked
in the very last row at the very tip everything else should be screened
especially anything that is not in that very first row of parking
Mr. Haase said it is a vastness but I think they have gone to
good means to make it acceptable as we saw at DRC.
Mr. McPhail said I think it is better than what we have on the
south side of Perry Road.
Mr. Valanzano said one final point on that is the architectural
renderings of the building have been revised a couple of times since
DRC. We have communicated via e-mail and the latest plans that you
have in your file are dated July 25th. I have polled all of DRC members
via e-mail and gotten their individual approvals for that design.
Mr. Haase asked, are there any further questions on these two
petitions? Is there any comments or questions from anyone in the
audience? Being no one coming forward the Chair would accept the
motion as printed in the Staff Report.
Mr. Thibo – absent
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
6-ayes, 0-opposed, 1-absent. Motion carried
Mr. Haase said the next one we will move to is PP-05-004 and DP-
05-022, Mid-States Engineering.
Mr. Valanzano said these petitions very well could have been
expedited. We were a little bit slow in getting the plans plus there
were so many things going on here so I just wanted to make sure those
were highlighted for the Plan Commission.
We have a primary plat. This is the Holiday Inn site. You see
at the top there are the two lines up there. Up to that first line
that all the way down to I-70 is one lot. That is Lot 14. Their
proposal is to add that little strip on the north side to the plat and
then subdivide that into two lots with the south lot being where the
Holiday Inn is, the existing building. And then the north lot being
proposed for the development of a Staybridge Suites Hotel, which would
be an 88 unit, four-story hotel building. In addition to that what is
going to happen is in working with the petitioner on this plat the
right-of-way of Cambridge Way is going to be extended as a public
street across the north side of the Holiday Inn site and the south side
of the Staybridge Suites’ site and connect to CR875, which is Clarks
Creek Road and provide for an opportunity to relieve the traffic flow
problems at Cambridge and Hadley. The traffic signal will end up being
moved to Clarks Creek Road and Hadley Road. At Cambridge Way it will
immediately get extended through there. You won’t be able to cross
through there and that will ease the traffic burden at that location
quite a bit. The cul-de-sac that you see at the end of Cambridge Way a
landscape median will be added to the middle of that and that will
become a roundabout, a traffic-calming device. It will slow the
traffic down and provide for the connection through.
In order to accomplish all of this we have the primary plat that
was just described. We have a vacation that will be before the Town
Council at some point and time in the near future to vacate the remnant
portion of Clarks Creek Road along the east side of the Holiday Inn
property to vacate a portion of some easements. On the west side of
the new lot, on the north where the Staybridge Suites are, there is a
utility easement that runs through that side. The only details that we
need to work out is to make sure where the existing utility lines are
with the secondary plat to make sure we accommodate the proper routing
of the utility easements to accommodate the utilities. At the
southeast corner of the property there is a fire hydrant that was put
there with the idea of extending Town water under I-70 to be able to
serve the south side of I-70 at some point and time in the future.
This petition has also received a Variance of Development
Standards for a setback on the north side of the new extension of
Cambridge Way. That was heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals and
approved. It will reduce the setback along the west property line
adjacent to the Chateau Thomas parking lot area. The way the variances
came about was very similar to what would have been done or could have
been done under Development Incentives but the way they came about we
couldn’t use that provision in the ordinance. They needed to be done
by variances so by the way of variance the BZA imposed basically the
same conditions that you would have looked for in terms of the
additional landscaping as if it was done as a Development Incentive.
From that point of view everything has been taken care of in terms of
what you would have seen as a Development Incentive. Then the
Development Plan for Architectural and Site Design Review, as I
indicated, is for the four-story 88-room hotel. With that summary of
the case I would ask if there are any questions from the Plan
Mr. Kirchoff asked, are we maintaining the entrance we have now
to the winery?
Mr. McGillem said no, there will be separate entrances.
Mr. Haase asked, is there anyone in the audience who has any
questions about this public hearing?
Ms. Shirley O’Conner at 3712 Lisa Lane, Plainfield asked, have we
consulted with the fire department to see how much room they need to
get a big truck through a roundabout?
Fire Marshal, Ken Foster said we worked with Mr. McGillem to help
develop the standards so that we made sure we can get all the way
Ms. O’Conner said they are building all of those hotels and they
deserve the right for protection and if you put a roundabout in that he
can’t get a truck through, it’s not good.
Mr. McGillem said they will have more protection now with this.
You are going to have a three-lane Clarks Creek Road that comes down
from Hadley. They will have protection coming from two directions now
rather than just the one direction. Plus the cul-de-sac at the current
time is designed to get to the full semi around it that is established
at this time.
Mr. Foster said we have reviewed those radiuses and we are going
to be able to use it.
Mr. Haase asked, are there any further questions? Being no one
else coming forward the Chair will accept a motion.
Mr. Thibo – absent
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
6-ayes, 0-opposed, 1-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Thibo – absent
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
6-ayes, 0-opposed, 1-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Haase said we will continue with RZ-05-011.
Mr. Valanzano said this is a petition for an annexation and
rezoning of about 6.45 acres into the Saratoga PUD. The property is
located on the north side of U.S. 40 and just west of Saratoga Parkway.
The area in Saratoga immediately to the east is zoned PUD for a retail
institution for commercial uses. The property is not in the Town of
Plainfield. At this point and time it would be annexed. The PUD to
the east is retail/institutional/commercial. The PUD designation to
the north is multi-family/institutional and commercial uses.
The preliminary plan that has been filed by the petitioner has
referenced in all of the commercial development standards of the
Saratoga PUD and has made additional references to comply with all of
the GC development standards of our current ordinance. And also to
comply with all Gateway Corridor standards of our current ordinance.
That puts it on to equal or higher footing with any commercial
development that would be in Saratoga as a result of those two
Mr. Haase said so we have a request for a rezoning on these
properties and as I always state, we do not do any zoning at the board
here but it is at the Town Council level. We only give a
recommendation to the Town Council from the Plan Commission. Is there
any questions or comments from any board members at this time on this
rezoning request? Is there anyone in the audience who has any
questions or comments on this public hearing on this zoning request?
With no one coming forward I will ask that the motion be read on this
Mr. Thibo – absent
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
6-ayes, 0-opposed, 1-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Haase said we have two public hearings that were continued
that will now be heard, a rezoning request for a primary plat. Before
we get to that I just want to express to all the members in the
audience it may look like that we just ran through a ton of public
hearings. And you may feel that we had disregard for any of the
particulars of those but between the ordinances that the Town has and
the quality of Staff of the Town employees, that goes down from the
fire department, transportation center, everybody, we do review those
two or three times at the Staff level and it comes here ready to go.
That is why we have these expedited issues and ability to do that.
When it doesn’t come in that way and there is public that has
questions, that is why we are here for you folks too tonight. So, RZ-
05-010 and PP-05-007, Saratoga Associates, LLC will now come to the
podium for a public hearing. This is a continued public hearing from
the last meeting. I will let you bring us up to speed in what we have
going on here.
Mr. Valanzano said to start off with a little bit of a chronology
of what happened after the meeting I put together a series of comments
for the petitioner that summarized the issue that I heard that were
raised by the Plan Commission. You can find those summarized in the
Staff Report in terms of what had been presented. Since that time
there have been some additional responses from the petitioner, which
I’m sure he will present to you. To summarize the identified 11
outstanding issues from the meeting they dealt with some enforcement
issues from whether or not trees had been planted in the proper
buffering or had been planted along the boundaries between Homestead
and Saratoga Place and Plainfield Manor, the maintenance of the fencing
and outstanding water issues. The petitioner has investigated those and
has found through all of the documents of the subdivision and
development that has occurred out there that the current enforcement
responsibility to make sure that the trees and the fencing are still
there and everything falls on the homeowners association and in some
cases to the individual lot owners. Saratoga Associates no longer
maintains a controlling interest and is not in a position in going on
other people’s properties. They have sent a letter to the homeowners
association, Homestead and Saratoga Place, indicating what those
problems are and asking to do something about that. That letter just
going out, obviously, we had no response from either one of those
organizations at this point and time.
Another issue that was raised had to do with the lot size and the
proper transitioning from the Plainfield Manor into the Kenwood
Subdivision. At the last Plan Commission meeting there was talk about
17,400 square foot lots and the possibility of 15,000 square foot lots
elsewhere. The petitioner is going to request for 15,000 square foot
lot minimums along Plainfield Manor and along Willow Pointe with the
11,000 square foot applicable throughout the rest of Saratoga applying
to the lots that do not abut either one of those two subdivisions.
There was also some significant discussion about the residential
design guidelines at the last meeting. Some clarification needed to be
brought forth on that. There was a lot of discussion about the basic
standards of the design guidelines verses the following of the general
design guidelines. We have received this afternoon an amended
statement from the petitioner that indicated that the basic standard,
which is the 1,700 square foot home, the one-story 85% all brick all
the way around or two-story 100% brick wrap on the first story would
apply to those lots that abut Plainfield Manor and Willow Pointe. The
more flexible portion of the residential design guidelines that doesn’t
necessarily have a square footage minimum in it and allows for the use
of other design features and other building materials would apply for
all other lots throughout the subdivision. So, the quote unquote basic
standard would apply, as presented by the petitioner, along the
abutting lots, I forget the exact lot numbers but the abutting lots,
along Plainfield Manor and Willow Pointe. The general design
guidelines would apply everywhere else.
On the tree preservation comments there has not been anything
specifically proposed in terms of wording other than a statement that
the increasing of the lots for Lots 3 and 4 would provide for a better
opportunity to preserve some of the trees that are directly south from,
I believe, Lot 38 or 39 in Plainfield Manor. There is a stand of trees
there that provide some good visual buffering at this point. But again
we do not have anything specific at this point and time.
Finally, I think one of the big issues was the connection of Lisa
Lane through the project. There was a lot of discussion whether that
should happen or not and if so, how? Staff has a preference that the
connection occur primarily for planning purposes and for public safety
issues. So, that access by the fire department and the police
department, from either direction from either subdivision, can occur
unimpeded. I understand that there has been a lot of other discussions
and options have been thrown out on the table in how to deal with this.
One of those options is to propose a hammerhead at the connection
where Kenwood would connect into the south terminus of Lisa Lane but
have a little strip through there where the roadway would not connect
at this point and time.
Another option has been to propose the alignment of a traffic
circle for a roundabout at the terminus so that it could function as a
cul-de-sac now in the Kenwood Place design. And then at some point and
time in the future, just as with the hammerhead, where either one could
be punched through in the future when the timing is right and possibly
that time might be right if and when Plainfield Manor annexes into the
Town. So, all of the issues have been thrown out on the table.
One of the things that we have looked at is the proposal of a
cul-de-sac. It was drafted as an off-centered cul-de-sac to the right.
That raised a couple of issues from our mind. One of the traffic
movements that we were most concerned about was at the southbound
movement through Lisa Lane coming through and taking up speed and
continuing on through. With the cul-de-sac offset to the right the
southbound movement would have basically a clear shot right through the
roundabout and there would be no need to slow down. It really wouldn’t
accomplish the traffic calming constantly that we wanted to do. The
first time that we got this drawing was this afternoon so I just got
the opportunity to sketch this and ask Mr. Belcher about seven o’clock
this evening if he could scan it in and put it up on the screen. I
want to thank Mr. Belcher for being able to get that done for us.
One of the things that we had talked about the last time was
trying to match up the building setback lines. If you match up the
building setback lines that come out from here to the building setback,
to protect the view on the transition between the homes of Lisa Lane
with their setback being 50 feet from the right-of-way and as you come
into Kenwood, the offset cul-de-sac the setback line was going to be
about 25 feet in front. That was a transition that didn’t seem
necessarily appropriate. Winding the cul-de-sac up where the center
point of the roundabout would be on the center point of the right-ofway
makes that transition smoother for the front yards of the homes.
What that is going to do is impact the square footage of this lot. It
may be possible to make some adjustments in this lot line and some of
these lot lines over here and maybe come back this way to pick up a few
square feet on this lot to be able to accommodate that but it would
provide a smoother transition of the front setback lines here. We
would still be able to maintain a proper transition of the setback line
One of the other things that we looked at on this was in terms of
the 911 and access in the naming of the streets if this doesn’t get
connected initially, the name of this street shouldn’t be Lisa Lane.
Otherwise you are going to have people coming in across CR350 south
trying to get to homes in Lisa Lane and they are going to be driving
through here and turning around and having to back because they can’t
get through. So, it should have a different name if this doesn’t get
connected. If at some time, 10-20 years from now, that connection is
made, having a roundabout here provides a cut-off point, a transition
point, where the addressing and the 911 system still works. We can
still basically set this up as primarily an east/west street coming
through to this point and then cut it off. If you put a hammerhead
here that would end up getting blown through, at some point in the
future, you loose that opportunity. So, for a number of planning
reasons and design reasons, if you would go with the roundabout issue
concept and having a temporary cut-off at this point, I think this type
of design should at least be given some consideration by the Plan
One of the other comments in the new filings from the petitioners
is to put a panel fence up along the south line of, at least, Lot 33
and 34, it is along the east too, to provide a cut-off through here to
help minimize any opportunity for traffic flow, either pedestrian,
bicycle or vehicular through those areas.
On a minor note, like I said, the write-up does call for a panel
fence but I have not heard of the term that they have requested. So, I
would ask that the petitioner clarify exactly what type of fencing that
is intended to there whether that is a shadow-box type fence or just a
stockade fence or exactly what they want there.
When you get into the motion, if you get to that point this
evening, I would note for you that in the rezoning motion there is an
amended primary plan filed today, which is what I was talking to and
which I believe is in the supplemental packets that Mr. Harstad put at
your seats here this evening. So, instead of June 17th you might refer
to August 1st and that would be for both the rezoning and for the file
date for the plat motion as well. And then the number of lots has been
reduced from 39 to 36. So, that is probably also a notation change.
That would be in the supplemental drawings that you received tonight.
I think that summarizes the changes and the discussions that we have
had to date and with that I would be happy to answer any questions to
the best of my ability.
Mr. Dave Harstad at 3815 River Crossing Parkway, Indianapolis
said I’m with Denison Properties. I will be as brief as possible. You
are certainly very familiar with the project. Most importantly I want
to make myself available for your questions. Just to go down Mr.
Valanzano’s list I will start with the roadway extension issue and
whether the hammerhead is the best route or the offset cul-de-sac or
the future roundabout option is the best option to go. We are
certainly open to all three. Our preference, based on what we drew, is
for the hammerhead just because of its simplicity and mainly as Mr.
Valanzano identified, the main issue is the impact that a roundabout
would have on Lot 13 but that is something that we can figure out. If
the roundabout concept is something the Plan Commission and the Town
Staff feel strongly about, we will work it out. We will figure it out.
Just to give you a little background on this hammerhead basically
this is taken from a design in Avon. It is 66 feet wide. It is 25
feet wide on the westerly side. It is 22 feet wide on the easterly
side. Mr. Foster was kind enough to come here on his day off. I
apologize for that but he has reviewed the design. He doesn’t have an
opinion one way or the other, as I understand it, as to whether it is a
hammerhead or a cul-de-sac, both from a turning point issue, both are
acceptable to the fire department.
Mr. Foster said that is correct.
Mr. Harstad said it is my understanding that Mr. McGillem has
also reviewed it and also feels, from an engineering standpoint, both
work but certainly gave the caveat that there are other issues that
come up with this roundabout idea that may be superior from a planning
prospective. I assume that is a correct representation of his
comments. So, I think that about covers it on that.
To clarify the panel fence it is just simply a solid fence. It
prevents movement back and forth. The other thing that I want to
mention is we think it is important to have a solid fence. Because the
roadway goes literally to the edge of the property line we thought it
was important to have a solid fence there for headlight purposes. I
remember being at a public hearing, I think it was for Walgreen’s,
where people were complaining about having headlights shining in their
front windows. I know that she lives right here and I want to avoid
having headlights shining in their windows. So, that is the idea
behind the solid fence.
Mr. Haase asked, what type of fence is it? Is it a shadowbox
fence? Is it a stockade fence?
Mr. Harstad said to be perfectly honest I haven’t gone that far
down the road. Perhaps it is best to simply leave it to Staff
Mr. Haase said I think that is fine.
Mr. Harstad said but I think a solid fence is the main thrust of
what we are trying to accomplish.
Mr. Haase said a privacy fence.
Mr. Harstad said yes.
Ms. Whicker asked, five feet?
Mr. Harstad said we were thinking five feet. That was the number
that we were kicking around.
Regarding buffering at the last meeting these lots here were an
issue due to their narrowness and their ability to save these trees.
Kristy Cooper is here tonight. She lives adjacent. We added about 18
feet to this lot here to give us a better chance of preserving those
trees. We are required by the original zoning commitments to have the
five trees per 100 feet along the common boundary with Plainfield
Manor. We will agree in addition to that, and I apologize that it did
not make it into the revised statement of preliminary plan, to extend
that, as you suggested the last time Mr. Chairman, along the common
boundary of Willow Pointe.
I did a lot of driving since the last meeting and a lot of people
who are marketing houses around here and in Central Indiana in general.
In driving through Willow Pointe there is no question it is a very high
quality subdivision and we want, to the extent possible, have a nice
buffer. So, we have made an effort to have these five lots here even
larger than 15,000 feet. These lots here in Willow Pointe are 17,400,
a little bit larger, but by and large throughout Willow Pointe they are
about 17,000 feet and the lots that we have drawn with the hammerhead
design all meet. If we go to a revised cul-de-sac or if we go with the
cul-de-sac originally proposed, those lots 14 and 15 may lose a little
bit. But we did think it was important to really focus on having a good
buffer, a good transition to the rest of the subdivision.
Home quality; Mr. Valanzano summarized our thoughts exactly and
we think that the guidelines that the Town has are going to create a
terrific product for this neighborhood. To the extent that there are
any concerns about other subdivisions in Saratoga none of those were in
place and approved when your guidelines were in place. Yorktown
immediately adjacent over here has sort of a hybrid but this will be
the first subdivision in Saratoga, which complies with these
residential design guidelines and I think you will be happy with the
Mr. Haase said the 85% brick on a one-story house and 100% on the
first floor of a two-story house that is kind of a basic commitment
that you are committing to here on those outer lots that join into
Plainfield Manor and Willow Pointe, is that correct?
Mr. Harstad said that is correct.
Mr. Haase said would you show me all of the lots or give me the
Mr. Harstad said it is Lot 3; 4; 5; 6; 7 and 13; 14; 15; 16 and
17 so it’s 10 lots.
Just a brief comment about drainage. Banning since our last
meeting has done a drainage study and in their opinion direct discharge
of storm water into the 48-inch pipe in the Vandalia Trail is
acceptable and there is capacity for that. I have not gotten
confirmation from Mr. Belcher if that is acceptable but Banning has
conducted a study that says there is sufficient capacity without any
On the issue of lot size I have some things in your packet. First
of all you will see a page that has highlights on it. That is just our
original zoning commitments for Saratoga for 1994 and as Mr. Valanzano
correctly pointed out, when Saratoga was first master planned the
minimum lot size for the entire subdivision was 11,000 square feet.
There weren’t any subdivisions where there was a large lot requirement.
Certainly some were built with larger lots but the least dense zoning
requirement was residential two to three in a couple of different
places. Also, in there I have a picture of the home, just to give you
an idea of lot sizes. This is a 10,400 square foot lot that is in
Fairfield Woods. It has 70-foot of frontage. Virtually all of the
lots in Kenwood are at least 85. Eight-five seems to be, to
generalize, about the number of most of the lots at Kenwood in
Saratoga. This house will fit on there easily and have seven and a
half feet on either side.
Then lastly included in the package are some examples from
Homestead and Fairfield Woods, which show some lot sizes. The ones in
Homestead show that the lot sizes between Homestead and Plainfield
Manor range from 12,000, and a couple that are in the 20,000 range, but
by and large they are in about the 12,000-13,000-14,000 range. If you
have questions about the lot sizes, we are open for questions but that
summarizes our petition and we thank you for considering it for the
Mr. Haase said I’m going to read over this preliminary plan and
let the board look over the materials that were handed out prior to the
meeting and then we will open up the public portion of the meeting. Is
there anyone here to speak on this public hearing and have any
questions on this petition?
Ms. Petronella Shirels at 3556 Lisa Lane said I’m the owner of
Lot 22. I don’t know when they solved my water problem but they did
and I just came out here to tell you all thank you very much.
Mr. Haase said I hope we did. I don’t know if anything was done.
Ms. Shirels said I went out to look and they have put the PC
elbow on it and a PC valve pipe on it and it goes straight in the
ground. I don’t know where it goes from there.
Mr. Haase asked, is there a discharge regulation?
Ms. Shirels said I think they all are like that.
Mr. Belcher said no.
Mr. Haase said these are evidently sump pumps from crawl spaces
Mr. Belcher said (inaudible).
Mr. Haase said prior we have had no discharge regulations on sump
Mr. Belcher said it’s not real clear.
Mr. Haase said we just know we can’t go to the front yard.
Mr. Belcher said yes. Sidewalks and streets we’ve got problems
with that. They freeze in the winter.
Mr. Haase said I hope we have your problem solved.
Ms. Shirels said you have. Thank you so much. I don’t know who
did it but it is done.
Ms. Kristy Cooper at 3696 Lisa Lane said I have four things to
address. First I would like to reiterate, as a neighbor and all my
neighbors in the Plainfield Manor we like the roundabout idea. We know
someday that we will probably be annexed into Plainfield. When that
issue arises, they will be able to connect at that time the hammerhead.
I don’t like that and I don’t think any of my neighbors like that. The
roundabout would mean to us probably the best solution. We are
concerned, of course, about our children. That is our main reason that
we would like for it to be not connected at this time.
Secondly, the lot sizes, at the last meeting it was stated that
they would like to see 17,000 square foot lots. I’m really concerned.
To be a person living in Kenwood to have a 1,600 or 1,500 square foot
lot and a 11,000 square foot right across from you is a little bit of a
difference. Saying we are going to follow one provision on one side
with building standards and one on the other side I don’t understand
how that can work. With the thing that there is going to be able to be
a brick building on one side of the street and a siding home on the
other side of the street, what difference is that? I’m not clear on
Mr. Haase said it has been done in some other communities where
new communities come against older communities. It is saying that
there are different building standards for the lots that line up on the
outside and touch Lisa Lane and Willow Pointe as opposed to the
internal lots. Mr. Valanzano is there a certain amount of brick that
these internal lots will have to have on them or there is not?
Mr. Valanzano said that is an option that is one of the features
that they can use to qualify for credits under the other options but
does not have to have brick on the other lots.
Ms. Cooper said so there are many other things that they can
choose from such as shutters and more windows and other things to not
have to use brick. I don’t like that. I don’t think any of the other
neighbors do. It is definitely going to affect our ability to sell our
all brick homes and 85% or 50% brick on one side of the street and no
siding because most people, given the option, it is the amount of cost.
They will probably chose and go with shutters or windows and not the
brick because it is more costly. I’m concerned they are going to have
a mix-match of homes looking so differently in that addition. I also
would like to see the lots a little bigger on the square footage.
Eleven thousand square feet on the original design of the south side of
Kenwood we were wanting to see those a little bit bigger.
Also, the residential design guidelines that we were just
discussing about the brick I read through that and I’m not clear on
whether that means brick as in solid brick or there are those things
out there that you can do a brick wrap with it that are not a solid
brick. Can we get clarification on that whether that can be allowed or
not because we would like for it to be solid brick.
Mr. Haase said it is my understanding that it will be what I call
Ms. Cooper said I don’t think it is clearly stated that it has to
be real brick.
Mr. Valanzano said it just talks about brick wrap. The question
that Ms. Cooper has, as she mentioned to me earlier, does the brick
wrap mean a thin siding material verses the house being wrapped with
bricks. I said my impression was it has to be wrapped with bricks but
it can be clarified here for the record.
Mr. Haase said terminology for a brick wrap just means that it
goes all the way around. It is not an indication of a lesser material.
In fact, when we set forth those building guidelines, solid brick, as
your home is built out of, that is the type of wrap brick that would be
used. That is the standard of the Town.
Ms. Cooper said on the boundary fence and the trees it is nice
that they are going to put the boundary fence for the headlights. I
agree with that. That is always going to be an issue with people
turning around in the roundabout, if that is what is built there. As
far as the trees go, I’m a little concerned that now that it has fallen
to the homeowners and homeowners association to enforce the planting of
the trees if it is not done properly when the homes are built, it is
kind of like passing the buck in my opinion. Who is accountable here?
We are told that trees will be planted. Here there are three lots that
abut right up against in Plainfield Manor Lots 38; 39 and 40. Lot 40
is a very diagonal lot. There are three lots from Saratoga Place right
up against its fence. There are no trees planted there. There is one
small tree that is probably in the easement but there are no trees
planted in the boundary and that is clearly a Plainfield Manor lot.
So, if Kenwood, if someone fails to plant the trees and doesn’t get
done, now in Saratoga we are going to be fighting with the homeowners
association and ask the homeowners that probably don’t have the money
to plant trees. We are a little concerned that something is going to
split through the cracks and going to be passed onto someone else and
not followed through with.
Mr. Haase said obviously some things fall through the cracks but
we try to follow up on them. I think we are going to follow up on
things that have not been done prior and I think we will watch this
Mr. Valanzano asked, is this the area that you are talking about?
Ms. Cooper said yes. That is my home on the right.
Mr. Valanzano asked, would you point to the area that you are
Ms. Cooper said this is my home here. This home here, this
diagonal lot, this one here and this one here and there is another one,
I thought there were three, maybe there are two, they are big lots,
there are not trees planted there. This easement here I believe you
will see there is one tree here and a little one there. That is all the
buffer there is and it is clearly a straight view into my home as well.
So, here you can see the trees that were planted here. There is a clear
buffer for most of the area from this point on down Lisa Lane but there
are no trees planted there. At the last meeting I shared my concerns
and the pictures of the trees not being planted.
Mr. Haase said there doesn’t appear to be any trees. I don’t
know if they had been planted and died. I’m leaving that up to Staff
Ms. Cooper said I guess my main concern is I know it is nothing
that anybody can fix right here but my concern is for the new housing
addition of Kenwood to prevent this. I don’t understand how it can be
a homeowner’s responsibility to plant a tree when they pay one hundred
plus thousand dollars for a home when it is stated right now here
before it has ever been built that they be planted.
Mr. Haase said I believe it is the homeowners association and the
covenants that they sign into when they buy the property is how that is
taken care of. It is nothing that we do in the planning process but it
would be in the covenants. Dave don’t you agree with that?
Mr. Harstad said that is right.
Mr. Haase said it is in those covenants and when they buy a lot
that borders onto this, it is stated in that agreement when they
Mr. Harstad said correct. Ten years – 50 years from now
Ms. Cooper said regarding the square foot minimum of being 17,400
square feet is that not still keeping in with the two-four units or
dwellings per acre that was done at Kenwood? We believe now it is a
three unit per acre and 17,000 square foot lots would make it a two. I
noticed reading through here that it said, this is a letter from Dave
Harstad to Mr. Valanzano on July 26, asking for the 17,400 square foot
lots as not in keeping with the agreements that were made in the last
10 years but it is because 17,400 square foot lots would allow for two
dwellings per acre.
Mr. Haase said I will have him answer that after we have some
Mr. Michael Beck at 708 Christian Ct. in the Willow Pointe
Subdivision said I live on Lot 28 and my in-laws are in Lot 29 so I’m
responsible for that one too. I had one question to add onto the ones
that she had. In the covenants for putting the trees in what kind of
time frame are the people given in those covenants?
Mr. Haase said I believe the trees go in at the time the
development is built before the lots are sold. So, those trees are
supposed to go in by the developer. So, therefore, they should be in
place before the lots are sold or at least before they are built upon.
So, it is not up to the homeowner to put them in initially. It’s only
for the homeowners to maintain them should they fail to survive or the
homeowners association however it is written. We will ask the
questions and he will get to the answers. We will let everybody come
up and speak and let him respond.
Mr. Beck said I wasn’t here for the last meeting, my wife was but
I know there was mention of possibly putting a small berm in. The one
that I’m concerned with is between Willow Pointe and 14; 15; 16 and 17
where the trees will be planted to help break up between the two
Mr. Haase said I don’t remember anything about a berm.
Ms. Jill Vietor at 3736 Lisa Lane said my home is the home on the
left. It is the last home on Lisa Lane and I have a couple of
questions. Could you explain to me exactly what a hammerhead gate is?
Is it a moveable gate or is it a locked gate?
Mr. Haase said come up here and I will show you. The road deadends
into a tee basically. If there was a gate there, it has nothing
to do with the hammerhead.
Ms. Vietor said it’s a barrier though.
Mr. Haase said yes. The hammerhead isn’t but the gate is.
Ms. Vietor asked, whose responsibility would it be to maintain
this barrier from going from Lisa Lane to Grant Avenue? The other
question that I wanted to bring up is I have an issue with the panel
fence. I appreciate the thought process of the headlights because my
home would be directly involved with the cul-de-sac, which I would much
prefer. But I was thinking perhaps of an earthen type barrier similar
to the ones in Willow Pointe along Vestal Road just north of the
roundabout. I don’t know if you know what I’m talking about but it is
very pleasing to the eye. There is some panel; some evergreen; some
earthen mound type barrier. I think it is a much more pleasing affect
than a paneled fence or even a picket fence or box fence or whatever. I
would ask that perhaps it could be given some consideration along those
lots there that abut up to the Kenwood.
Mr. Carlucci said I think the brick wall that was put in at
Willow Pointe that you are talking about was put in as part of redoing
that road. I think the homeowners themselves put up the panels.
Ms. Vietor said but the earthen barriers themselves with the
evergreens on top is a very pleasing affect. You get the privacy but
yet it is very pleasing to the eye and not so harsh. The other
question that I have for the panel is I never really understood what
the opposition to the dual entrance to Kenwood would be, having an in
and an out similar to the Claymont addition. In fact, every other
addition in Saratoga instead of the conflict over whether we connect
Lisa Lane or not I never understood why we couldn’t have an in and an
out and a roundabout and not connect Lisa Lane at any point and time.
Mr. Haase said as far as the connection to Lisa Lane, right at
the moment I don’t know if there is any intent to connect Lisa Lane to
this development and I don’t think the developer wanted to do it to
begin with because he just wants to develop that property. As far as
the dual entrances, we just want to plan well to keep traffic access
onto Saratoga Parkway down to a minimum so that you have less traffic
accidents going in and out. But the way that it is designed now there
is only one entrance and there is no connection to Lisa Lane. It would
be best if it would have but it doesn’t require a second.
Ms. Jennifer Cottrell at 3720 Lisa Lane said I had a question to
see whether they have resolved the drainage issues with the County
whether or not our drainage is going to be allowed to hook into the
storm drains that will go along the back utility easement of the
property? I know that is a County issue but we were very concerned
about whether or not it was going to be taken care of because I have
had two $800.00 repairs on my carpet, etc. because the standing water
was over 18 inches deep out there. So, I would like to make sure that
issue has been addressed and that it will connect and be taken care of.
Mr. Haase said I’m going to ask our Town Engineer. I don’t think
there has probably been anything addressed with that.
Mr. Belcher said there is nothing that would address it directly.
Not that it couldn’t be connected. There is nothing that this project
is required to do other than to plan to accept water. Any water that
naturally comes from Lisa Lane area to this area has to be
accommodated. That is in here. There is no physical pipe going from
this subdivision to that subdivision to make that connection. It
doesn’t mean that if it gets approved, the County couldn’t come and do
that and we would work with them to do it. There might be an easement
required between the two. The low point of the street that floods and
maybe this piping there would have to be a connector pipe built. But
this pipe would be in position to be utilized for that but it is not
Mr. Haase said but it is not a requirement for this subdivision
to happen. Being that it is not in the Town the Town is not going to
take that on, it would be the County.
Ms. Cottrell said I understand that. Right now there is a
drainage in the street that connects to a house at 3712 and that does
go to the field drainage piping, which is in poor shape right now. It
is part of the problem that it can’t drain out in the fields right now
with the way that it presently is. There is a large hole in the back
of Mr. O’Conner’s yard that the County has covered with a street sign
in the back of his yard. So, that is why I was curious whether or not
it was going to connect because we have been told that connected into
the field tile that is currently in that field. So, even though it is
connected and drains poorly is it going to become worse by the
Mr. Belcher said I would think that the answer to that is if it
already comes to the field tile, the field tile will be reconstructed
completely or removed and reconnected to the new piping. So, they have
to accommodate that. They have to accept that water. So, if there is
already a connecting pipe no matter how bad of a condition it is in, it
will probably be better than what is out there.
Mr. Haase said they can’t cut it off and just block it off. I
don’t think they would have to improve what is at Lisa Lane.
Ms. Cottrell said I wouldn’t accept the Town to pay for something
like that but as long as it can continue on the path that it was on,
like you said, if it does and it is hooked up, it would be improved so
that would be great. That would take care of that issue.
I notice that they address the issue of the tree preservation by
deepening Lots 4 and 5. My home is in Lot 35 and I still don’t know if
they can do anything about it but I have a large stand of mature trees
and they had mentioned that those lots three through eight were also
deeper. I didn’t know if that was going to accommodate for any
preservation of those trees also. They are right on the line.
Also, there was a question about the barrier fence back through
there. As others have brought up, the fence was not maintained through
Saratoga by the neighborhood association. I also agree with Jill
Vietor that some type of a dirt mound through there would not only be
more attractive in the long term but it is going to take care of a
maintenance issue. It is not going to be falling apart like the split
rail fence currently back there in disrepair. I think it would be
better and it would be a good buffer and the trees could be planted up
on that and that would cause a good buffer between the two
Mr. Eddie O’Conner at 3712 Lisa Lane, Plainfield Manor said
basically I just have a couple of questions. The fencing that you
talked about putting up who will maintain that fence for one thing?
And the other thing that I had was the two drains that come across the
back of our property is actually in Saratoga’s property. Are you
saying they would connect those two into the main line?
Mr. Belcher said all I can tell you is there is water that
already comes from Lisa Lane.
Mr. O’Conner said there is one tile there and like she said I
have a big illumine tube in my back yard and it’s about that deep with
three six-inch tiles coming into them. They are not connected together
or anything. One comes in and one goes out and then the other one
comes across. They never found it but there is another tile out there
too, a black tile.
Mr. Belcher said anything that is coming from Lisa Lane to the
south and ends up into the field that is being looked at now. Anything
coming south has to continue south and most likely if the current
piping is in poor shape because of farming over it and cracks, that
would be replaced and made much better. That is all I can tell you
because I don’t know enough about your problem out there. If any water
is headed south, they have to accommodate it.
Mr. O’Conner said that is what I was wondering. From thereon out
they would be connecting everything together.
Mr. Belcher said they would not go up to Lisa Lane and they
wouldn’t go through anybody’s yard but anything that got back to those
lots they would be accepted.
Ms. Shirley O’Conner at Lot 36, Plainfield Manor said I have a
question and it maybe jumping the gun and maybe it will never happen
but what do we do or Willow Pointe or the rest of neighbors with the
new addition going in if someone files bankruptcy, they leave, the
house falls in disrepair and the trees die and the fence falls down?
Who is responsible for fixing it up when they are no longer there?
Mr. Haase said it is a good question but it really is something
that we can’t address. That is just the way of life.
Mr. McPhail asked, what if it happens in your neighborhood?
Ms. O’Conner said the neighbors tend to take care of it. There
are three or four of us that mow each other’s yards. We help take care
of our trees. I mean there have been times when several of us have
been working 48 hours a week and our yards are always mowed because the
neighbors take care of it. Or if we go on vacation or somebody is sick
and in the hospital, the yards are maintained and the mail is always
taken care of. We just don’t want to have to look at it if there is
nobody to complain to.
Mr. Haase said I understand but the Town has certain standards
that the lots have to be kept mowed and maintained. There are certain
issues with that. There is still people to complain to if they go in
disrepair. I’m talking about an exaggerated disrepair from a
bankruptcy and not having been lived in for 3-5 years. I understand
your question and I appreciate it but those contingencies we can’t
unfortunately plan for.
Ms. Shirels said about the fence; I went to the meeting and
Saratoga promised us that they would plant a berm, like a small hill or
whatever you call it, and put trees on it. We ended up with a split
rail fence that is in a total of disrepair. It did go through the
whole Lisa Lane so if they are going to put something on the end of
Lisa Lane, a berm, can we have that in writing?
Mr. Haase said if they were going to put a berm, that might
happen. The only trouble I get into with a berm, and I don’t know what
the meeting was because I wasn’t there, but when you get to putting
these berms in, then you run into water flow and water flow
restrictions, which is exactly what you really don’t want to have
Ms. Shirels said we live below sea level and I know what water
is. We have water problems like they do here and it has never been
addressed. I’ve been there 30 years. It just has never been
addressed. Water has always been a problem there especially in the
back where they talk about this cul-de-sac.
Mr. Haase asked, for 30 years?
Ms. Shirels said yes. I was the first one to build a house
there. I would rather see what this lady said, a berm with trees that
are very nice looking because this is the reason that we moved there
because it was country. If they want to build something, that is fine
but at least follow through with what they promise. After that
happened I tried to find out who I could contact and everybody threw
Mr. Haase said I can ask our Town Staff to review what was in the
minutes and what was supposed to be behind those houses. If it was a
berm and if it was in writing, we can enforce that. I have a hunch it
is not in writing and I don’t remember a berm and all I know are the
commitments that the Saratoga people placed before the board the night
that we voted on it.
Ms. Shirels said it was not a split rail fence.
Mr. Haase said we will review those commitments. I’m going to
ask for comments because if everybody is done, I’m going to let the
petitioner clarify all the questions that were asked but we are not
going to open this back up for more questions again tonight after this.
So, if you have a question or comment, please state so now. Being no
one coming forward we will ask for Mr. Harstad to come forward and
respond to the questions that have been raised this evening. Be sure
and address every question.
Mr. Harstad said I will do my best and if I don’t, please let me
know. There were several questions about the fence. As far as who
maintains it, that will be the responsibility for the Kenwood at
Saratoga, the owners association after it is built and the improvements
are turned over to the association. So, going forward that will be
their responsibility. I think it is important to have a physical
barrier between the two subdivisions. So, I think that our preference
is definitely for a panel fence rather than a berm.
You also mentioned possible drainage problems caused by a berm. I
certainly can’t say that will definitely happen but I would prefer not
to get into it and handle it with a fence. I think that is all the
questions regarding the fence.
There were some questions about the quality of this alternate
standard, not the basic standard but the alternate standard.
Plainfield Manor is a wonderful subdivision. Prior to doing this I
spent a lot of time driving up and down Lisa Lane and since our last
public meeting I have done it numerous times since. We could debate
this all night and I don’t think we should do that. I strongly believe
that basic standard or alternate standard the quality of homes in
Kenwood will be just as high, if not higher, than Plainfield Manor.
That is just my opinion but that is the way that we feel about that.
The comments about the trees along the common boundary I think
the previous proposed motion mentioned trees on Lots 35 and 36. I think
if we just extend that to Lots 35 to 39, to the best of our ability, we
will preserve existing vegetation abutting Plainfield Manor, Lots 35
through 39. We could address the question about the stand of pine trees
there that is currently existing.
There were a couple of questions about drainage and I have
nothing to add to Mr. Belcher’s comments. We will not be building any
storm water facilities on Lisa Lane or in Plainfield Manor but
everything that comes to us we will take care of and we think it will
probably be a better drainage situation out there after Kenwood is in
Mr. Haase said you will be putting storm sewers in.
Mr. Harstad said that is correct. I believe that was all the
Mr. Kirchoff said there were comments about a roundabout
preference, lot sizes and a gate.
Mr. Harstad said roundabout preferences, as I said before, our
preference is for a hammerhead, however, it is something that it sounds
as if Staff would prefer the roundabout concept. We will work that out
if that is what the commission prefers.
Lot size, I refer back to my earlier comments, we have worked
really hard to provide a good buffer. It is R-2 along the common
boundary of Plainfield Manor and Willow Pointe. In Willow Pointe in
particular we made the lot sizes essentially equal. Plainfield Manor
is on septic and well and we are never going to be that size. Fifteen
thousand square lots are good size lots and we think that those will be
a nice buffer between the smaller, 11,000 square foot lots. I think
that was it for the comments. Were there any other issues that came
Mr. Valanzano said I think it was Mr. Beck, if I got the name
right, who asked about a clarification on who plants the trees and
there was a question about that. I think there is a possibility that
they could either be planted by the developer when they do the major
subdivision preparation or it could be passed on to the homebuilders at
the time the home is constructed. It may be appropriate to get a
clarification and pin it down so the neighbors, one way or another,
whether it will be passed onto the homebuilder or whether it will be
done by the subdivision developer.
Mr. Haase said I think it will be done by the subdivision
Mr. Harstad said we prefer to have the flexibility to have the
builder do that.
Mr. Haase said I don’t personally feel you should have that
flexibility. It is just like putting in a road. I think you should
put in those trees at the time the development goes in.
Mr. Harstad said the issue is, and I’m not trying to get out of
it, with your Town, for example, we simply sold the ground directly to
Ryland. They did the land development and they are going to be the
builder. We don’t have a contract with anyone and rather than do a lot
takedown we may simply sell the land with the improvements attached to
Mr. Haase said that is okay but whoever develops the land.
Mr. Valanzano said the developer is not the petitioner.
Mr. Haase said maybe it is a terminology here.
Mr. Valanzano said the developer files for the plat and provides
the bonds that puts in the water and sewer and the street whether that
is you or someone else.
Mr. Haase said that is my thoughts as opposed to say you did this
and then you go forth and put in the streets, sewers and water and
everything and then you sell the lots one and a time. Then when those
lots are sold one at a time the homebuilder would put in those trees.
We want those trees to be put in at the time of development of the
Mr. Carlucci said Mr. McNaught is going to have to post
performance bonds. He may turn over that construction to the builder
or the developer of the lots. The way that we could do it is make a
requirement to put money in there with the value of the trees and say
we are going to put a dollar amount for the trees as far as the
performance bond. That bond gets released once we know the trees are
Mr. Haase said anytime any development occurs on this parcel, any
of it is going to go to all of it. You are not going to put in part of
a roadway. You are going to put in all of the roadway, whoever does
it. At that time all the improvements need to be done to the outer
perimeter of the property.
Mr. Harstad said not being an expert in construction I don’t know
if there will be construction activity during the homebuilding phase
that would disrupt those trees. Obviously, it is not right on the
Mr. Haase said I guess you would just have to move them and put
Mr. Brandgard said one problem that I see with this discussion is
when you build a house, you have to do your final grading, which goes
from the lot line back to the house. When that is done, is when you put
the trees in, not before.
Mr. Haase said but they are not going to be lower. I can’t see
the perimeter final grading changing. That would be the point that you
would go to on your final grade I would think. You wouldn’t be raising
it or even really lowering it.
Mr. Kirchoff said it seems to be a continuing issue. We talk
about fencing verses trees. We need to have “a” party responsible and
I think we are all saying the same thing. I’m not sure how we work
Mr. McPhail said I think you bond it and then you go back to the
developer if it doesn’t get done.
Mr. Kirchoff said we have a subdivision south of Town that they
are still coming in and talking about things that didn’t get done. We
just need to find a way to protect ourselves and them.
Mr. Haase said to make sure it gets done.
Mr. Kirchoff said that’s all we are saying. Who that is I don’t
know but I think Mr. Carlucci’s comment about some kind of bond to make
sure it gets covered would be good.
Mr. Daniel said if they don’t do it, the bonding company will.
Mr. Kirchoff said that is right.
Mr. Harstad said we certainly understand the desire to have this
and I think the way to do it is to agree the site developer will
provide bonding for installing trees. And then you know it gets done
and you avoid these issues with the final grading and the construction
issues that I’m not an expert on.
Mr. Haase said the bonding on that fencing too. Would that fall
into that same category?
Mr. Harstad said I think that makes sense.
Mr. Valanzano said one of the other things that I wanted to point
out does the subdivision end with a hammerhead or a cul-de-sac to
connect through or do we have two entrances? The design that Mr.
Harstad has here there if this isn’t connected at all, the Subdivision
Control Ordinance requires that there be provided a entrance to at
least the point of the first intersection. So, that once you get back
to this point you can have a separate entrance. If there is an
accident that blocks one way, a fire truck or emergency vehicle can get
in. If this is not provided, Mr. McGillem and I just put our heads
together and I wanted to point out that is probably going to have to be
redesigned into a divided entry to provide for the two ways in. It is
very similar to what the original design had before we had talked about
making this connection through. That was something that kind of got
lost in all of the discussions that we focused on at this end. When
this discussion was shown on the plans, that no longer needed to be a
divided entry. But with that connection not going in at this time it
probably needs to go back on the drawing board.
Mr. Kirchoff said I thought we were going to make the connection,
we just weren’t going to have it opened and make it available for a
fire truck to get through.
Mr. Haase said that was one of the options but I don’t think we
are headed that direction.
Mr. Valanzano said depending on whatever you decide I just wanted
to put that issue on the table for you.
And then I think some direction from the Plan Commission to
finalize the fencing issue. I think I heard the decision to put fencing
along that line as opposed to using berming and landscaping but just
for the record whenever you do get around to making motions, I would
appreciate that bit of detail.
Mr. Harstad said regarding the boulevard entrance we are
certainly opened to doing that. My only request is that it extend no
longer than 50 feet from the edge of the boundary with Saratoga
Parkway. The reason for that is a practical one. We are going to have
to get a driveway into lot number one. Fifty feet is roughly half way
down here and rather than having these people do a "U" turn I would
like for them to be able to make it into their driveway.
Mr. Haase said you could go farther than that if you made a
crossover. You can make the entire dual entrance if you allowed a
crossover for that driveway. I don’t think it has to be a solid
Mr. McGillem said a crossover can be put in but it has to go to
the first street though or you might as well leave the dual entrance.
Mr. Haase said but there could be a crossover for that driveway.
Mr. Harstad said as long as you are amendable to us having a
break in that boulevard, we can accommodate that.
Mr. Haase said I don’t have a problem with a break in that
boulevard. Mr. Valanzano, of the comments and guarantees that the
developer has made on a rezoning motion has anything changed on that?
Mr. Valanzano said yes. First of all the preliminary plan date
would be updated to August 1, 2005. That would be the document that
you have in front of you this evening. On number one I believe the lot
areas are a bit different than what I have listed in there. The lot
area would be for any lot abutting Plainfield Manor and Willow Pointe
shall not be less than 15,000 square feet, is what their proposal is as
presented tonight. Then whatever is after that in italics is no longer
an item of what they are talking about. Under point number two,
existing vegetation abutting Plainfield Manor Lots 35 through 39 as
opposed to 38 and 39. I believe the rest of that is most likely in
Mr. Haase said refresh me with what you said on the minimum lot
size to minimum lot area for any lot abutting Plainfield Manor and
Willow Pointe shall not be less than 15,000.
Mr. Valanzano said period. On number three that one has to be
reworded. Actually, number three, as Mr. Harstad described it this
evening, is already incorporated into the document dated August 1st that
I referred to in the preliminary plan. So, if you are comfortable with
what Mr. Harstad presented, in terms of the basic standards for these
lots around the north perimeter and then either standard applicable to
the rest of the lots, then you don’t need to have item number three in
at all because he has already incorporated that into the document. So,
it will be part of the zoning no matter what. I think number four
Mr. Harstad agreed to, as is, which is the landscape screening of the
five trees per hundred feet. It is already in there now for Plainfield
Manor and he has agreed verbally to extend it along Willow Pointe. So,
number four would be as is.
Mr. Haase asked, is there any reason to mention that fencing in
here and the bonding issue with both the fencing and the trees?
Mr. Valanzano said that would probably be more appropriate to do
as part of the subdivision part of it because it is kind of tied in
with the street and development approval. I might also ask at that
point and time that the homeowners association’s documentation clearly
state that it will be the homeowners association’s responsibility at
all times to maintain that fencing in good repair. So, that there is no
question. I know your documents pretty much get there anyway. You
just might want to doublecheck that wording. Are there any other
questions in terms of the rezoning aspect of this right now?
Ms. Whicker said on item number one of the proposed motion it was
spoken that the petitioner was going to have a minimum of 17,000 square
feet abutting Willow Pointe. It is my understanding that we are saying
15,000 because of the cul-de-sac reduces those two lots?
Mr. Valanzano said Mr. Harstad have you committed or agreed to
17,000 for all these or was that only in the hammerhead design?
Mr. Harstad said correct.
Mr. Valanzano said that is only in the hammerhead design.
Ms. Whicker said I don’t see that on our update, item number
three of page one of nine; lot number minimum lot size, where they had
taken the two Plainfield Commons and Willow Pointe and divided those
into two separate.
Mr. Valanzano said on page one that was comments that I had
presented for consideration based on comments here the last time. The
response is we will do 15,000 square feet along the north tier, lots
three through seven and 13 through 17.
Mr. Haase asked, Mr. Harstad is there anything else that you
would like to address?
Mr. Harstad said no.
Mr. Haase said we will now close the public portion of this
hearing and the chair would accept a motion to act on this rezoning.
We will take these separately. We have RZ-05-010, Saratoga Associates,
LLC rezoning request and PP-05-007.
Mr. Kirchoff said I have a couple of questions or comments before
that. I counted up lot sizes. Out of the 36 lots we only have five
lots with 17,000 square foot or greater. You have six lots that are
15,000 to 17,000. You have 25 to 36 lots that are still basically the
standard 11,000-12,000 square feet. So, I don’t see a significant
improvement from where our concerns were the last time. And of those
18 half of them are still back to where we were. I agree with some of
the comments out here. They only committed to meet our residential
design guidelines on those lots adjoining two subdivisions. That is
what they are saying.
Mr. McPhail said what they said is they would meet the basic
guidelines but they would meet the alternate design guidelines. The
basic guidelines say if you build a 1,700 square foot minimum with 85%
brick with a certain size garage, it meets the basic standard and you
don’t have to look at the rest of the building guidelines. If you
don’t want to meet that, then you have to go to all of these other
choices by using alternate building materials with bump-outs and
shutters and architectural features, a certain quality of vinyl and
those types of things. And what he said he will meet them. He will
meet the basic on the perimeters and he will meet the residential
guidelines beyond the basic, which is the second tier. That’s not what
he said the last time. The last time he said he would meet the basic
on all of them.
Mr. Kirchoff said and that is where I thought we were. I have a
concern that we will have solely vinyl houses in all the lots except
those on the perimeter and that causes me some concern.
Mr. McPhail said that is what he is saying yes.
Mr. Kirchoff said I can’t support it. People that were here the
last time verbalized it very well. I thought the petitioner had heard
those concerns. I don’t see that we are to where we asked him to be.
Mr. McPhail said I have a couple of comments I want to make also.
I take this very seriously and I’ve been out there six or seven times
and tried to view that. One of the things, when we talk about building
quality, and I will agree that most of the homes on Lisa Lane are
brick, but there are a large number of those homes that have out
buildings, either detached garages or barns or whatever, and they are
certainly not brick buildings. So, they have a mix of building
materials within their building lots. I would not treat that mix any
different there than I would on a home because they are permanent
buildings and there is quite a mix there. I find it a little bit
strange in trying to support an all-brick product when the people that
are asking for an all-brick product, really don’t have that. I don’t
mean that to be negative but they have large lots and very deep lots
and they are on well and septic, all of those. When we look at our
residential zoning, our R-2, which Willow Pointe is R-2, almost every
custom home subdivision that we have are zoned R-2. Those are 15,000
square foot minimum lots. For 15,000 they meet it. You probably have
some 15,000 square foot lots in Willow Pointe. So, to say that we have
to match 17,000 or 18,000 thousand I can’t justify it when we have
sewer and water and all of those things. We have an R-1, which is a
large lot because in an R-1 you normally don’t have the utilities and
you need the room for the septic and those type of things. We go to an
R-3, which is a 10,000 square foot lot, which is the next step down and
there is a lot of R-3 in Saratoga and other places.
Another comment who is going to maintain these things?
Obviously, the homeowners are responsible for that. Does that mean it
is going to be done properly? Not necessarily. I live in a
subdivision where we have had to sue a fellow homeowner because they
weren’t meeting the covenants. My guess is those folks on Lisa Lane
don’t have any protection. If one of their neighbors fails to take care
of their property, what enforcement do they have to do that? It may
not be the best in the world but it is the best we have in today’s
world to have the homeowners association to be responsible to maintain
those common areas and different things. We don’t have that in some of
the older subdivisions and if we have one homeowner, how do you enforce
And the berms, somebody has requested berms. We have one
subdivision that put a berm in and all they did was ruined the
backyards of those homes. I don’t think any of these folks here want
the berm in their yard. So, I can’t support berms between property
owners because I think it is a drainage problem and somebody has to
maintain them and the only subdivision that I know of that we had those
put in they were a mistake believe it or not.
Mr. Brandgard said I agree.
Mr. McPhail said that is just some of the things, as I have gone
through this. I understand that they have a concern about their
lifestyle changing. Even in talking about these trees the trees are on
somebody else’s property. They are not on your property. I know you
don’t want to lose them and I understand that but still they are not
yours. I think we ought to preserve every tree we can.
The thru traffic; I thought about that a lot and I think there
will be a day that we don’t have it tied together. I hope not but I
can tell you one thing for 10 years we thought it was going to be a
school and I guarantee you that I would never ever vote to put a school
there without connecting Lisa Lane and having a second entrance. So, I
think if you had gotten the school, you would have had traffic on your
road whether you wanted it or not because I could not in good conscious
ever allow a school go in there and not have a separate access. I just
felt that I needed to make those comments.
Mr. Haase said with no other comments we will address the
rezoning issue first. So, we need a motion for some kind of
recommendation for the Town Council.
The minimum lot area for any lot abutting Plainfield Manor
and Willow Pointe shall not be less than 15,000 square
Existing vegetation abutting Plainfield Manor Lots 35; 36;
37; 38 and 39 shall be preserved to the extent feasible, in
lieu of otherwise required screening, giving consideration
to final drainage plans and location of a building pad plus
10’. Within the remaining tree area all healthy trees
shall be preserved and otherwise required screening shall
be installed in the case of removal of the existing trees.
Landscape screening of five trees per 100’, with a minimum
of three of those trees being evergreen, shall be provided
along the east property line abutting Willow Pointe.
5-ayes, 1-opposed, 1-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Haase said the motion for a favorable recommendation has been
approved and sent forward to the Town Council. When will that rezoning
Mr. Carlucci said it will be heard when we have all the documents
that we need to bring them to the Town Council. We have a Council
meeting this coming Monday but that doesn’t necessarily mean we can
have it there.
Mr. Haase said we are not sure exactly the date that will go
before the Town Council. Usually I can inform you but I can’t tonight.
Mr. Valanzano said anticipating your next question of what do we
need to do in terms of the primary plat motion again the primary plat
would be as filed August 1, 2005. There should probably be an
indication in there of the Plan Commission’s preference of whether it
is the one showing the cul-de-sac, roundabout or the one that shows the
hammerhead. Actually, if you look at condition number six, it already
talks about the design shall be amended to provide for the cul-de-sac
traffic circle to be developed. So, number six addresses that if you
kept it that way. If you wanted to go with the hammerhead, you would
have to make changes there.
Ms. Whicker asked, is there anyway on number six that we should
designate the fact that it would be centered instead of offset?
Mr. McPhail said I would like to see it brought back to this
commission before we approve it.
Mr. Haase asked, the cul-de-sac?
Mr. McPhail said the cul-de-sac, the entrance, there are a couple
of issues there. I have some real concerns and I want to make sure it
is lined up. I want to see what those lots end up being square footage
Mr. Haase said so you would make a motion to continue PP-05-007.
Mr. McPhail said I would make that motion. Second by Mr.
Mr. Haase said a motion has been made to continue to the
September meeting, which would be the Thursday following Labor Day, the
8th of September. So, we have a motion to continue and a second. All
those in favor respond by saying aye. None opposed. Motion carried.
If the petitioner needs any further clarification, they can contact
Staff. I would like to thank everybody for coming and I would like to
thank everybody for their actions tonight and their comments and
OLD BUSINESS/NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Haase said Mr. Valanzano has a couple of quick comments that
he would like to make about some unopposed ordinance updates.
I have an update for you on one of the enforcement items that you
keep questioning about, Abbey-Tibby recycling. I had a discussion with
the regional manager for Abbey-Tibby in Central Indiana. He also had
one of the marketing guys from Texas who was in town as well so I was
able to meet with both of those gentlemen. Basically the problem is
that these brightly colored containers are sitting out on the street.
It is not so much the idea with the problem of the idea or concept of
recycling but we regulate trash containers, we regulate the
architectural aspects of so many things to have these brightly colored
containers being put up right on the street and is contrary to what we
have been working on. If you could find good locations on the property
where there is still a line of sight visibility but not out front, we
probably have something that we can work with.
Mr. Haase said no. They are nothing but a dumpster. They ought
to be treated as a dumpster and it ought to be put in the same
enclosure as a dumpster.
Mr. Valanzano said we talked about those possibilities.
Mr. Haase said that is all there is to it.
Mr. Valanzano said what I anticipate them doing is the bottom
line is they are trying to pick one of their sites and file it as a
test variance and see how the board reacts to it. And from there kind
of decide whether they are going to be welcomed in Town or not welcomed
in Town or whether the restrictions opposed on them by the Board of
Zoning Appeals are going to be such that they don’t think they can
operate and they can make their decision from there. If they get a
really good reception, they might ask for some leeway on filings for
future cases because they say their revenue stream is so low they
really can’t afford the filing fees for all of them. I said I can’t
address any of those issues, if you want to bring them up before the
board, feel free but I can’t do anything for you on that. I just
wanted to let you know that I expect them to be filing by mid August or
September to the BZA for at least one site that they are to pick out of
the three that they have.
Mr. Kirchoff said you might want to drop past the United
Methodist Church. They have moved them to the back. I don’t know if
they did any fencing or anything but they announced yesterday at church
that they are not where they were and they gave us credit for asking
that be done, which I thought was interesting and they moved them to
the back corner but I didn’t pay any attention to where they were.
Mr. Brandgard said I tend to look at those the same way we did
the newspaper kiosk. They grew up all over Town.
Mr. Haase said that is the first thing that came up in my mind,
they are operating a business in a residential district. That is about
all that it is.
Mr. McPhail asked, why doesn’t everybody use our curbside
Ms. Whicker said because they want to give a donation to whatever
charitable institution is recycling.
Mr. Kirchoff said we got a check the other day for $200.00.
Mr. Haase said the revenue stream isn’t all that small.
Ms. Whicker said if you put it on the curbside, nobody gets
Mr. Haase said if they got $200.00, their revenue stream is
Mr. Valanzano said they claim the fact that they are in Town
actually helps municipalities who have their own recycling program
because they raise the awareness of recycling in places that they are
Mr. Haase said just a note that LaFamiglia is opened again.
Mr. Brandgard said Saturday night I was at an event and someone
asked to speak with me on a Town matter. Their issue is at 1520
Stanley Road, and it is item number #05027 on the activity sheet, the
grass needs to be cut.
Mr. Carlucci said we have been following this. We aren’t going to
get any reaction from the real estate agent or the bank so we are going
to send a letter to the last homeowner. As soon as that time runs out,
we will mow the grass. We know that they are gone but we still have to
follow our ordinance.
Mr. Kirchoff said I was told Thursday that there was going to be
a buyer on Thursday so you might want to check with Bud Green to see if
that went through. Not only does the yard need to be mowed but there
are thistles out there and weeds that are unbelievable.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to adjourn. Second by Mr. McPhail.