PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION. January 4, 2001

Transcription

1 PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION January 4, 2001 The Plainfield Plan Commission met on Thursday, January 4, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. In attendance were Mr. Brandgard, Mr. Thibo, Mr. Matrana, Mr. McPhail, Mr. Cavanaugh, Mr. Ward and Mr. Haase. ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM Mr. Carlucci administered the roll call. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Thibo made a motion to approve the minutes of the December 4, 2000 Plan Commission Meeting as submitted. Second by Mr. Matrana. Motion carried. OATH OF TESTIMONY Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Testimony. Mr. Haase reviewed the Guidelines Governing the Conduct of Public Hearings. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Mr. Carlucci said at this time I will accept a motion for the Chairman of the Plainfield Plan Commission for the year Ward. Mr. McPhail made a motion to nominate Mr. Mitchell Haase. Second by Mr. Mr. Carlucci asked, do I have a motion to close the nominations? Mr. McPhail made a motion to close the nominations. Matrana. Roll call vote called. Second by Mr. Mr. Thibo - yes Mr. Matrana - yes Mr. McPhail - yes Mr. Brandgard - yes Mr. Cavanaugh - yes Mr. Ward - yes Mr. Haase - yes 7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried. Mr. Carlucci said at this time I will accept a motion for the Vice Chairman of the Plainfield Plan Commission for the year Mr. McPhail made a motion to nominate Mr. Kevin Cavanaugh. Second by Mr. Matrana. Mr. Carlucci asked, do we have a motion to close the nominations? Mr. Brandgard made a motion to close the nominations. Thibo. Second by Mr. Mr. Carlucci said for the year 2001 Mr. Cavanaugh has been nominated for Vice Chairman of the Plainfield Plan Commission. Roll call vote called. Mr. Thibo - yes Mr. Matrana - yes Mr. McPhail - yes Mr. Brandgard - yes Mr. Cavanaugh - yes!1

2 Mr. Ward - yes Mr. Haase - yes 7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried. Mr. Carlucci said every year we appoint a citizen member of the Plainfield Plan Commission to the Board of Zoning Appeals. That appointment for the year 2000 was Mr. Haase. Do I have a motion to appoint a member of the Plainfield Plan Commission to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the year 2001? Mr. Matrana made a motion to nominate Mr. Mitchell Haase to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the year Second by Mr. McPhail. Roll call vote called. Mr. Thibo - yes Mr. Matrana - yes Mr. McPhail - yes Mr. Brandgard - yes Mr. Cavanaugh - yes Mr. Ward - yes Mr. Haase - yes 7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried. Mr. Carlucci said we have one last item. We have a member of the Design Review Committee who for approximately four months is out of Town. Our rules permit the Plan Commission to appoint a member in his place for that time period. It has been recommended that Mr. Mike Isaacs be appointed to that position. Mr. Higbee said the only thing that I would add to that is that under the rules you can appoint the alternate for a year just like the other appointments that you make. We might as well do that because there may be times when we know that somebody else is going to be absent. Not only could Mr. Isaacs help us in the short-term but maybe for the rest of the year from time to time. If anyone hasn=t met him, I would like to introduce Mr. Mike Isaacs. Mr. Haase said being here you must be more than willing to accept this position. Mr. Isaacs said yes. Mr. Haase said at this time the Chair will ask for a motion to accept Mr. Isaacs. Mr. McPhail made a motion to appoint Mr. Isaacs as an alternate appointment to the Design Review Committee for a period of one year. Second by Mr. Cavanaugh. Roll call vote called. Mr. Thibo - yes Mr. Matrana - yes Mr. McPhail - yes Mr. Brandgard - yes Mr. Cavanaugh - yes Mr. Ward - yes Mr. Haase - yes 7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS Mr. Haase said we have one petition for a public hearing tonight. It is RZ , Fasone rezoning. Mr. Higbee said before I get into that somebody was just reminding me, and this might have been an oversight in what we just did, but Mr. Carlucci is it true that we need to name a DRC member, as well, from the Plan Commission?!2

3 Mr. Carlucci said yes. Mr. Haase said before we begin the public hearing we have one member from the Plan Commission that sits on the Design Review Committee as a non-voting member. Last year that was Mr. Cavanaugh. The Chair would then accept a motion to nominate someone to sit on that position. Mr. McPhail made a motion to nominate Mr. Cavanaugh. Brandgard. Roll call vote called. Second by Mr. Thibo - yes Mr. Matrana - yes Mr. McPhail - yes Mr. Brandgard - yes Mr. Cavanaugh - yes Mr. Ward - yes Mr. Haase - yes 7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried. Mr. Higbee said RZ is the rezoning request by James and Melanie Fasone for a Zone Map Change of acres from Agricultural to General Commercial. This would be a parcel that is in our relatively new annexation area on East Main Street. It is located near the intersection of Old National Road and Main Street. This is a straight rezoning. There is no plat accompanying it at this time as you sometimes would see with a rezoning. We don=t have information on file yet that would allow us to determine whether a plat would be required. But a plat is not being requested at this time so we can make that determination in the future if need be. There has not been proposed at this point and time any immediate development other than what already exists on the site. The Comprehensive Plan recommends General Commercial development for this site and on all sides of this site. So, the zoning request is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Town Engineer and Mr. McGillem have indicated that in the future, when we go through Development Plan Approval, should there be any additional development at this site, that it would be likely that an access permit would be required. Also, that sewer and water is available nearby the site. There is one thing that I go to the effort of pointing out a couple of times in the Staff Report. The plat is not being requested and we don=t have the legal paperwork on file yet to determine whether our ordinance would even require them to plat this site if they wanted to do additional development. It is unclear whether sidewalks could be invoked unless you either did it at this point and time by a zoning commitment or you decide to wait until there is some future development on the site. Then it could be done either through the platting process, if that is required or through Architectural Review, which would be required when new development occurs at this site since it is near a gateway corridor. Mr. Haase said it sounds like we have three options to require sidewalks or at least discuss them. If we do not take advantage of that tonight, we still have that option at a later date. Mr. Higbee said, at the minimum, there is Architectural Review coming up and we are not sure about the platting. Mr. Haase asked, does the petitioner have anything to add to what Mr. Higbee has said? Mr. Jim Fasone said I=m the owner of the property and I think Mr. Higbee did a very ample job. The State of Indiana has been using that as a basic staging area for the construction of U.S. 40. So, we are anxious for that to get completed but nothing is going to be changed at the site. Mr. Haase asked, is there anyone else in the audience who would care to speak on this matter tonight? Being none, we will close the public portion of this hearing and the Chair will entertain a motion to act on this rezoning request.!3

4 Mr. Cavanaugh said I have one comment in regards to sidewalks. I think with the current use and development work in that area it might be the better choice to wait to consider the sidewalk issue as more work is considered on that property instead of attaching it to any motion that we might make this evening. Mr. Brandgard said I was going to make the same comment. Normally we handle that during the platting portion or when we take action when there is going to be something built on the property and not during the rezoning. But I think the understanding is that we require the sidewalks and highly encourage sidewalks to be placed throughout the Town. But with that I think it would be more appropriate at the next step than it is at this one. Mr. Haase said I agree with both of you. Mr. Cavanaugh made a motion to move to certify the zone map amendment request of RZ as filed by James C. and Melanie S. Fasone to the Town Council with a favorable recommendation subject to the following commitments being provided and recorded on the Commission=s Exhibit AA@ Statement of Commitments form within three days of the approval of this request. And that there be no specific commitments at this time. Second by Mr. McPhail. Roll call vote called. Mr. Thibo - yes Mr. Matrana - yes Mr. McPhail - yes Mr. Brandgard - yes Mr. Cavanaugh - yes Mr. Ward - yes Mr. Haase - yes 7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried. OLD BUSINESS/NEW BUSINESS ZONING COMPLIANCE Mr. Kilmer said the first item that I would like to bring to the Board=s attention this evening involves the Walgreen=s property. The property is located on East Main Street, specifically the fence that has been constructed surrounding the retention pond. This item was first brought to the Plan Commission=s attention at your December meeting. The Commission directed that Mr. Michael House basically present the fence for review at the next DRC meeting. That occurred on December 12. The DRC looked at the proposal and I had a discussion with Mr. House. At that time the DRC recommended that the fence be approved as it is. Mr. House in that discussion with the DRC requested that he come and meet with the Plan Commission so that he could at least present the thought process and what all occurred in the placement of the fence. So, at this time I will turn it over to Michael House. Mr. Michael House said thank you for letting me come and speak again. As I stated to the DRC, my thinking in putting the retention pond out there was because we were a little concerned ourselves on security and safety. We had been approached over the development by the day care facility with their general concerns on a retention facility on the premises in general. Not being an ordinance we didn=t even think twice and we just said let=s put up a fence and, as I stated before, being from Kentucky and being around horse fencing, etc. that came to mind and that is how we ended up with that particular fence. We thought it looked appealing. We actually went to the Walgreen Company and said that we are doing this and they concurred that they liked it also. So, we went ahead and did it without giving it a second thought of having to come back and going in front of everybody. I apologize again for not thinking ahead and realizing that I should have come through and gotten all of the approvals. Mr. Haase said the safety is a concern for everybody and we appreciate that thought being given. Nobody wants any unfortunate accidents. Part of it is it was so white and stark. That is probably what drew the attention to it more than anything, not being from Kentucky and being used to that type of fence. We discussed it and I think it probably got mixed reviews from the!4

5 Board Members, some did and some didn=t like it. After a few months it has probably become more of a mute point than it was in the beginning. But having presented an entire plan and landscaping, etc. and all of a sudden this white bright fence pops up, we asked if that was on the plans and we didn=t think so. Those are our thoughts behind that. We are just wanting to make sure that what is presented to us is what the Town gets. Mr. House said I understand and that is why I apologized. It was an after thought for security and it wasn=t for any other reason. We think at some point and time liability rests in your own individual hands. And what that does is basically say that this is an area perimeter, stay out of it. That is what we were trying to do instead of putting something up like a chain link fence that probably would not look nearly as nice in our eyes. We tried to make it all blend. I just wanted to make sure that everybody knew that I was sorry that I did not come back through and it was not intentional. Mr. Thibo asked, can the kids still craw through that fence? Mr. House said I=m sure that they could. It is more of a point to say stay out of the area. We think anybody with any common sense would stay away from a pond. We hope at least parents are training their kids in these days to stay out of it. So, we just tried to put added security around it by doing that. We have talked about putting some little signs on it that say no swimming and no fishing, etc. too just as additional care. The Walgreen Company is very sensitive to the issue itself. Mr. Higbee said that kind of sign might not be regulated. Mr. House said the four-inch posts is what we are talking about. Mr. Haase said I think it was probably a move with all of the best efforts and thoughts that were involved with it. Mr. House said it was done with all the best intentions. I=m just sorry if I put the Board in a position like this because there is no ordinance. Maybe I have helped in bringing something up that needs to be discussed in the future. I know it=s not the right way to do it but, hopefully, that is where it will end up. Mr. Kilmer said the next item for discussion would be the Schaad=s Pub. The topic is signage, non-compliance. Schaad=s is located at 2376 E. Main Street. I originally met with the manager of Schaad=s, Mr. Stan Jenkins, at the end of October. At that time they had three banners up. I included a photo of that and highlighted the three different banners that were in place at that time. They were struggling with, obviously, advertising. With the problem of U.S. 40 construction inhabiting traffic, they were trying to get people aware of where they were and what was going on. But we made them aware that the banners were not a permitted item. As time went by, on December 5 it was noted that there were still two banners in place. A violation letter was sent out requiring them to remove the two banners within 10 days. That did not occur on December 20. One banner was still remaining and there is a photo of that banner and to date that banner is still up, the one that just reads Schaad=s Pub and Eatery. We requested them to comply with the ordinance within a specified period or they would be invited to meet with you. They did not so the invitation was issued. I=m not sure if Mr. Jenkins or another representative of Schaad=s is here this evening. Cafe? Mr. Carlucci asked, are they just using that to cover Diana=s Sports Mr. Kilmer said that is correct. Mr. McPhail said they have been there since October and they don=t have a proper sign. Mr. Haase asked, how long have they been in ownership of that? Mr. Kilmer said the banners were up well before the October 31st meeting. They had been up for awhile, which prompted the face to face meeting.!5

6 Mr. Haase said we could probably say roughly October 1 or prior to that. Mr. Kilmer said that is correct. Mr. Haase said they have refused to come into total compliance and in access of 90 days they don=t have a legal conforming sign. They also took possession of the building and the business when they, obviously, knew that the road construction was going on. And it had to be in a hampered position when they had to be looking at that business prior to purchasing it for some time. Which also in reading some of your information here they were requesting a sign be left up until the road construction was completed. Mr. Kilmer said one thing that they were wanting was a small temporary sign, similar to what the Plainfield Veterinary is utilizing. It is a sign roughly about the size of this podium that simply identifies the business and either has an arrow or says enter with an arrow, no more and no less. Mr. Haase said I think those are necessary for any or all of those businesses along there as long as both sides of the road aren=t opened. I would probably think that we need not to say, Auntil the construction is completed.@ I wouldn=t use that term especially with this project. I think it would be once both sides are operational. Once both sides are operational construction may not be finished out there but the need for that entrance sign is no longer necessary. So, I would be careful how we use that word Acompleted.@ Mr. Kilmer said they have requested that and we have relayed to them that type of sign would be permitted but they still have not done anything about placing one out there. What the status of that is I=m unaware. Mr. Haase asked, they don=t have the entrance sign out there? Mr. Kilmer said that is correct, they do not. Mr. Haase asked, do they just have the one banner? Mr. Kilmer said that is correct. Mr. Thibo asked, didn=t they have a noise problem out there at one time? Mr. Kilmer said I have only heard of that but I was not involved in that complaint. I understand that went more through the police department. Mr. Matrana asked, when you talked to them, did they give you any idea that they were going to get a permanent sign to cover up the banner? Mr. Kilmer said no. Mr. Brandgard said I can understand when a business changes hands and they change the name, you may put something up temporarily. But 90 days is a little long for this type of sign to go on. Normally you would expect a business owner to have plans to put the proper signage up. They removed two of the banners but they left the one up that is non-complying with our ordinance unless they get a temporary permit from us or something that would allow it. That hasn=t been done or requested. Obviously, you have not had any response from the last letter. Mr. Haase said 90 days with the way that business is going on in this part of the Indianapolis area is not excessively long to wait for a sign. I think this is just a painted board with external illumination. That is probably a 30-day process. If they were going for a internally illuminated sign, it could take days through the process of design, manufacturing and then installation. The sign companies are relatively busy right now so it can be hard to get things done. But, there again, days is probably about the maximum time that it should take I think to get something like that put together. Mr. Brandgard said when I look at the first picture that shows all three!6

7 banners, it appears to me that the sign on the pole says Schaad=s III and that looks like a back-lighted type sign. If they can get that up, they ought to be able to get the one up on the building. Mr. Haase said I would have to agree with that. I have to say that I don=t appreciate them not doing either what they are asked to do by ordinance or coming tonight to participate in the meeting, as requested. Mr. Brandgard said I think that bothers me more than anything else, the fact that no correspondence has occurred where they would try to explain why they haven=t done it. Or at least not coming in. Mr. Haase said at this point and time we probably have a couple of options. We can send them another letter requesting them to remove it. There is probably no reason to do that since they haven=t responded well to the other one. Of course, then we can get into a fining situation. How would that letter work? Mr. Kilmer said since they have been notified of the violation, the next step could be issuing a citation. That citation could carry with it for the first time a $50.00 fine. They would then in that citation letter be notified that they have 10 days to correct the situation. That does not remove the $50.00 fine. They have 10 days to either correct it or file for a variance to permit for this type of sign. If they file for a variance, the fines are stayed, meaning no more than $ If they fail to respond in any way, a second citation is issued 10 days after that and the amount could be, at your discretion, increased up to $ at that point. So, the total with two citations would be accumulative of $ That sequence could continue each 10-day process the amount could be increased. Mr. McPhail said we need to revise that and put a few more dollars in there. Mr. Daniel said we are working on that. Mr. McPhail said when people totally ignore you, about the only thing that I know to do is try to make a financial burden on them enough that they will quit ignoring us. Fifty dollars is not a lot and $ is not a lot to a lot of people but I certainly think we need to use every ounce of muscle that we have at this point to get them to comply. Mr. Kilmer said in a worse case scenario the fines could escalate all the way to an individual citation carrying with it a $2, fine. But it is going to be a long period of time before that amount is reached. Mr. Cavanaugh asked, what kind of support do you need to be able to issue the consecutive citations? Mr. Kilmer said I just need the direction from the Board. Mr. Cavanaugh asked, for each occurrence or in general? Mr. Daniel said you can make a motion to institute the fine process and authorize him to continue escalating the fine without coming back for further action from the Board. Mr. Ward asked, is Mr. Jenkins on the premises? Mr. Kilmer said he was the on-site manager. Mr. Ward said I was wondering if he was an out-of-the State owner. Mr. Kilmer said he is the manager and he indicated to me that the ownership is based in Indianapolis. Mr. Haase said with all of that in mind I think the Chair would look favorable upon a motion to go ahead and give Mr. Kilmer all the backing that he needs.!7

8 Mr. Cavanaugh made a motion that he go ahead and initiate the notification of the fine process through Mr. Kilmer=s position and get that started until they comply. Second by Mr. Matrana. Mr. Thibo - yes Mr. Matrana - yes Mr. McPhail - yes Mr. Brandgard - yes Mr. Cavanaugh - yes Mr. Ward - yes Mr. Haase - yes 7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried. Mr. Kilmer said the next item on the agenda is the Sports Center located off of Gladden Road. There are two items that I want to bring to the Board=s attention. One would be a violation item and the second being more of a discussion topic. The first being the landscape being in violation. When this was originally approved back on July 6, 1998, the landscaping plan was included in the Development Plan Approval, which called for perimeter landscaping and foundation landscaping. During a Certificate of Occupancy inspection held in July that inspection identified that no perimeter landscaping had been installed. The foundation plantings along the north side of the building had not been installed. At that point a letter was sent to Mr. Lance Rhoades later in July identifying this item. A similar site plan that I provided to you was also included in that letter requesting that this item needed to be addressed in some manner. In September Staff met with Mr. Jeff Banning of Banning Engineering. He represented the Sports Center at that time and he indicated that they had given the intention that the plantings would be installed this past fall planting season. We have been out there since the snow has fallen and no plantings have taken place. So, we just need to get a better handle on when these are actually going to be installed. The second item, that being more of a discussion topic, involves the availability of parking for the facility. There is a concern about the amount provided and that it might not be adequate for the amount of usage that is occurring. Staff has noted especially in the evenings and on weekends that it is a common occurrence that there is parking out on Gladden Road. Unfortunately, Gladden Road was not designed for parking on the sides. The parking that was constructed for the facility varies from what was approved with the Development Plan. They actually provide more parking than what was originally approved. That is a matter that I think that we can address and maybe we, as Staff, can deal with from an improvement location standpoint, something along the line of a permit. But we need some direction from you as to the amount of parking provided. We have received a phone call from adjacent business owners that they are experiencing some parking in their parking lots from patrons of the Sports Center. They want to know how we are going to handle this? Those are the two items of discussion, the landscaping and the parking. I believe Mr. Rhoades is here this evening. At this point I will let him speak. Mr. Lance Rhoades said I disagree a little bit with the comment that what we did didn=t agree with our plan. The original plan we submitted was different but I think it only provided for 140 parking spaces. We came here to the TAC meeting in June and there was concern from the TAC Committee, as far as parking, at that point and time. So, we discussed it and I provided the Board with my responses to the TAC comments and we had a discussion on that. I apologize because I don=t have a lot of copies here but I have a couple of copies if you want to pass it around and look at it real quick. One thing that I had put in there was my explanation why I thought 140 spots was enough. We had a lot of discussions on that. The original comments from the TAC Committee was I needed 240 spots to meet the compliance with the ordinances. At the end of the conversation we agreed to go ahead and do the 240 spots. The sketch that we had, which was supplied by Banning Engineering, was more in this format, which is pretty much the format that we have now. In fact, the only thing that we did do is added some additional spaces down on the bottom. I can pass this around. This is the actual parking that was done due to that meeting. That has 245 spaces, which is more than what the ordinances require. It is in the TAC meetings that we had one spot for every 250 square feet for!8

9 indoor facilities. We met what was asked of us. Originally we didn=t plan on it. I think you have the landscape plan, which he referred to earlier. This is the parking plan that we had talked about. It has the parking running down the side. It is hard to see because they don=t have the actual lines in there. With this parking lot we only had 140 spaces. We added extra 25 up front, which was marked for future expansion. At the time I thought we approved the future expansion but then I talked to Mr. Belcher this year and that really wasn=t approved. It was future expansion so we still have to come back for a variance if we are going to do parking in that area. My comment is we met what was requested and what the Town ordinance says. I agree that people are parking out front. All of the times that I have been out there, which is almost every day when there are people out front, there are still parking spaces in the back. The big problem is people are too lazy to park in the back and walk up to the door. I don=t know what to tell you to do. It is really frustrating because we are operating a fitness center here and people are complaining because they have to walk. They have to walk two blocks to get in and they are here to exercise. It is okay to get on the treadmill and run for two miles but they don=t want to walk two blocks to get to the facility. It is the same with our neighbors across the street. People park there because it is closer than going to the back of the lot. So, I don=t think it is the lack of parking but it is just people are kind of naturally lazy. You can do what you want as far as that road but I think if there is concern with people parking on the road, put some Ano parking@ signs out there. I really don=t want them parking out front either. I don=t think it looks good. I get people parking in my driveway and blocking my driveway because they don=t want to drive around back. When the snow hit, it was tough getting cars through there. I park in the back and there are always spaces opened back there. I=ve never been out there when there is not a spot opened other than a week ago when we had the snowfall and the guy that did our parking lot took the whole last row of parking. That did cause me a problem because we had a tournament that weekend. Other than that case I think we have adequate parking. It is just how you handle people parking on the road. Jumping from there to the landscape plan we did get the letter in June to do the landscaping. I talked to Jeff Banning and part of the reason that we were talking to Mr. Banning is because we were looking at the parking situation. As far as going ahead and doing the variance and getting the parking up front, the parking up front would cause problems with our landscaping. We didn=t want to put the landscaping in the front perimeter, in front of the building, and come back and do a parking lot and tear all of it back out. I still had a problem with the swale on the east side of the building for the perimeter. We have a temporary drain in there. I know Premier Properties has not finished the retention pond behind us. They have done a temporary retention pond. So, my swale there is kind of a temporary swale until they get that done. I have problems doing the landscaping on that side. The west side right from there we have a pile of dirt, which is not the Town=s problem but my problem. But I have a pile of dirt that is left over from construction that we are going to spread on the back field so that we can eventually put some soccer fields out there. We didn=t get that done this fall with the weather. We need to do that in the spring. The problem is I have the bids out. We put the bids out right after the letter. I got the bids from three different companies and we have selected who we are going to use. In fact, I=m having lunch next week with the tree whole seller to go over some of the trees. The problem is I have a lot of places that I can=t put them yet until we get the problems straightened out. We are still planning on doing that. I didn=t want the Town to think that we were ignoring them but we just had a lot of things to work around where we are trying not to do double work and put a tree in and tear it back out. Does anybody have any questions on either issues that I can answer now? Mr. McPhail asked, do you have any plans at all to try to add any parking? Mr. Rhoades said we were talking about doing the front parking lot because the fitness people wanted to be closer. But if we do that, I can=t guarantee the sports people aren=t going to park in that parking lot either. So, we would be in the same situation no matter what. I can say that this is reserved for fitness and we have no way to monitor that just those people park there.!9

10 Mr. Haase asked, how many staff do you have there at any given time? Mr. Rhoades said the maximum would be 12. A lot of them are kids that can=t drive anyway. As far as permanent staff, we have four managers and one assistant manager. Everybody else are pretty much part-time help. Mr. Haase said so at any given time you probably have eight cars out there. Mr Rhoades said yes, at the most. Mr. Haase asked, is there a way to put parking on the west side of the building? Mr. Rhoades said we probably could. The problem is how are you going to hook it into the parking lot. If we are going to add parking, it would probably make more sense to add farther south. We looked at doing the front part but we have to get a variance to do that because of the property line. If we do that, we don=t gain that many spots with the amount of money that we have to spend for curbs and sidewalks, etc. After talking with Banning Engineering and looking at the costs of that I don=t think it is feasible. Mr. Haase said if we would add in those future soccer fields, you are going to need a whole lot more parking. Mr. Rhoades said not really because that is opposite our normal season. We are busy during the bad weather times. Basically September through March is our busy time where when we start doing outdoor soccer, it really doesn=t kick in until about April. It is pretty much over by September when the indoor activities start. Mr. Haase asked, don=t your indoor activities run all year? Mr. Rhoades said yes but it is not near as heavy. Pretty much during the summer and spring it is just the adult leagues. So, we are down probably a fourth of the teams that we normally have. Mr. Haase asked, are you anticipating adding more parking to the south? Mr. Rhoades said not at this time. When the problem first arose, we thought we would and then we started looking at it. That is when we started reviewing spots opened. At this point if you go back there, even when we are busy, there are always spots back there. Our peak time is on the hour and that is when it is the worst. Even then I have never been out there when I haven=t been able to find a parking space. There are still cars up front on the road but when you go back there, there are spots opened. Mr. Brandgard asked, do we have it posted Ano parking?@ Mr. Belcher said we would have to amend the ordinance for that. Mr. Brandgard said I=m coming from the standpoint that it is a shame on us if we are criticizing people for parking there when we don=t have it posted Ano parking.@ We need to address that. I think the rest of the parking, unless I=m hearing things wrong, it sounds to me that you have more spaces than what we originally required. With that said, that may or may not be adequate. I live on a corner cul-de-sac and I look out my window and I kind of laugh as I see people walking through the yard that were obviously out running or out playing sports, etc., rather than walk around and use the sidewalk. They are out exercising but they have to cut through the yards because it is shorter rather than going the other way. That is the same issue that you have with people parking across the street. I don=t know the answer to that one. It depends on those property owners posting it Ano parking@ except for patrons and then enforcing that. Mr. Rhoades said the insulation place next door put signs up and we worked with them. We are trying to help them keep people out of there also. I don=t want people parking out front either because they pull up into the grass.!10

11 When it is wet, they tear the grass up. I have been amazed where people try to park right now. It is just so that they can get closer to the door. Mr. Brandgard said on the parking side I=m kind of at a loss at the moment other than to encourage you to try to deal with the parking that you have out there. I think it sounds to me like he has met everything that we have required. Although, as the business expands, when I look at soccer fields back here, I have some concern over adequacy of parking. That may be addressed when you come in to do that. I=m more concerned with the landscaping, as long as that has been there, and the landscaping hasn=t happened. Mr. Rhoades said it is the perimeter landscaping and the front part of the building. We have done some landscaping on the other part of the building where we knew nothing was going to change. We did go ahead and do that. It has been up for quite some time. Mr. Brandgard asked, when can we expect to see it? Mr. Rhoades said we are fighting weather. If we don=t do it in the spring, we don=t want to do it in the mid part of the summer. Mr. Haase said I would think that you would be able to have landscaping in by May 1. Mr. Rhoades said I have no problem with May 1. I already have the bids on what needs to go in and we have already picked who is going to do it. Originally, we thought we were going to do it in October and then we were still fighting with the parking issue. That was a big concern because that is where a lot of the plantings are along the front of the building in front of the parking lot there. We couldn=t complete that until we knew for sure we were going to do the parking. Then all of a sudden we got behind the weather. We let it slip by and it is our fault. We plan on doing it and I don=t have a problem putting it in by a May 1 deadline as long as the weather cooperates. Mr. Haase said I think May 1 ought to be adequate to get decent enough weather for somebody to plant some trees and put that type of landscaping in. Mr. Brandgard said why don=t we give them six months. Mr. Haase said that would basically be until July 1, Mr. Brandgard said sometimes we have a very wet spring and you can=t plant then either very well without drowning the plants out. We have concern from the standpoint of parking in the street and parking on other people=s property. Part of that the Town has to deal with. The other property owners have to deal with it. The other half is, as a business owner, you have to deal with it because they are your patrons. Mr. McPhail said you could post some notices that adjoining property owners are complaining. We will get an ordinance to stop the street parking. Mr. Rhoades said we have made announcements but they don=t move it until they are ready to move it. It is really frustrating. Mr. Cavanaugh said I would like to have Mr. Higbee comment on what review process Mr. Rhoades could expect for the future soccer fields and if you have an idea of the parking requirements for something like that. Mr. Higbee said I haven=t actually reviewed that. It would be based on probably some kind of square footage number if you went off the ordinance. In reality it might make more sense to have them explain some kind of plan of operation of what the actual use is going to be and base it on that. Mr. Haase said this says one parking space for outdoor recreation for every 600 square feet. Mr. Higbee said that is the kind of language an ordinance would typically have but my experience with those kinds of facilities is that may not really explain what actually happens at the event. So, it is better to get a plan of!11

12 operation from a petitioner and work out something that explains what the situation is going to be when you have the peak number of teams and the peak number of people attending there and figure out what the actual parking need is. It may be very different, either higher or lower than that number would be. So, I would say that it is just a process of negotiating and the Town accepting what they think is reasonable. It was 1998 when this was originally approved, which was before my time. But it appeared to me from when I originally reviewed some of the problems with this earlier last year, that this was built in a different place than the Development Plan. Although the number of spaces is in the ballpark of what was originally agreed upon. So, I just want to point out that whether it is the soccer fields that go in or an additional parking we will need to go back through those processes with you when you decide to add additional parking. Mr. Rhoades said the plan was updated when we were at the TAC meeting. Mr. Higbee said I=m not sure what happened because I wasn=t here then but apparently it didn=t get carried forward all the way through the process. So, it would probably be slightly different the way that we would execute it. Mr. Haase said just for your information, and correct me if I state this wrong, but the TAC meeting is a Town=s helpful way to assist a petitioner to follow the ordinances that exist in the Town. It is not an approval of anything or a final approval of anything. It is merely helping you guide that boat down those rough waters that all of the legal ordinances create. Going through TAC is actually just the first step before a public hearing and the Plan Commission to get the full approval. You could actually go to TAC and say I want to do this and TAC would say that you can=t do that according to the ordinance. You could say that you want a variance or a waiver and you could go forward from that without TAC=s blessing. Mr. Higbee said that is true and the only exception to that would be if you, the Plan Commission, decide you want to authorize TAC to work out a plan. But only then can we say yes or no to a plan if you authorize us to. Mr. Carlucci said this really has to come back here, no matter what, if he expands the fields because the expansion hasn=t been approved and it is next to a residential area. Mr. Higbee said it is my understanding that would be kicked in because of the proximity to residential. Mr. Carlucci said it would then require another public hearing. Mr. McPhail said, if my memory serves me right, we jumped through hoops to get this project approved anyway. There were time constraints and it had a different project approved and this came through real quick. Maybe with all of that rushing some of the records didn=t get updated and kept together, I don=t know. But I do remember that we really pushed this thing through. Mr. Cavanaugh said I wanted to make a point that we know there is an issue with the parking regardless of how people choose to use it. As we would increase the use of this area, then the parking is going to continue to be a consideration. We need to all look at it together pretty closely to make sure that everyone gets the best utilization. Mr. Rhoades said I agree and I don=t have a problem with that. But I guess I was a little frustrated because the original plan was really 140 spaces and when we met, we went with what was suggested to us from the Town. They wanted 240 so we went back and did what was requested of us so I felt like all along we tried to work with everybody doing what was needed. Mr. Cavanaugh said I have a pretty good understanding of some of the traffic out there. When my kids were participating in some of the different leagues, you can have an extremely busy night when your building is packed with people, and there are still spaces available. I agree one-hundred percent that people will fight to get closer to the door. Mr. Haase said to summarize things here and so that everybody knows what!12

13 is going on, the landscaping has been given a six-month or basically until July 1, 2001 to get put in and put into compliance. If there are any changes in any of the parking spaces out there, that would require another public hearing to come before the Plan Commission. Other than the landscaping being done by the first of July there is nothing else that is going to be done with any of the parking issues. Thank=s for coming in. Mr. Kilmer said the next item I would like to bring to your attention is signage non-compliance at Little Dave=s Everything Store. I know that Mr. Dave Monday is here this evening. A little bit of background the store is located at Old National Road. This is basically where old U.S. 40 and new U.S. 40 come together. A letter was originally sent to Mr. Monday back in the middle of November addressing a ground sign that had been placed. Unfortunately, the letter was returned due to an undeliverable address. It was then hand delivered in early December. The letter identified a banner, a portable sign and an unapproved ground sign that needed to be removed. On December 14 Mr. Monday called and stated that the banner and portable sign would be removed. But he had received permission from the State approximately six years prior for the placement of the ground sign. It has been verified by the Staff that the banner and the portable sign have been removed but the ground sign is still in place. I have included a photo of that sign for your reference also. Mr. Monday called earlier today and said that he had been in touch with the State and is hoping to acquire some information for your review so at this time I will turn it over to him and let you converse. Mr. Monday said my father, Mr. Dave Monday Sr., is the one who called. We had the sign up for approximately six years. We took the sign down right when the road construction started because the grass land is at an angle and that is what they had to cut through. They had to work through there with the side road and on U.S. 40 so we took the sign down. I also moved to a different location. They straightened the road so that we could at least put the sign back up. My father put the sign back up for the Paper Peddler business that is right in front of me. It is the same address and the same location. Paper Peddler got a permit for a sign to put on front of their building so we went ahead and put our sign back on the road where it sits now. It is State property. I can=t say if my father got permission on the sign six years ago. He is the one that made the sign for me. But they are mailing me an application and I will do anything that I=m allowed to do to make it so that the sign is right. But, like I said, it has been up for almost seven years now. In March it will be seven years. Mr. Brandgard said six years ago that area was not in the Town. If the sign was in the State right-of-way, obviously, you would have to get permission from the State to put it there. But it still, at that time, would have to comply with the County Sign Ordinance. Just because the State gives you permission to put it there you still come under, at that point, the County and now it would be the Town=s Sign Ordinance. So, I think what we would look for is, if it is in the State, we need to see that you did get permission from the State to put it there. The other thing is do you have anything from the County that approved that sign? Mr. Monday said no. Any of the signs that I have had in the past, even at my old store, I have put up an Aopen banner@ right when I opened or if I=m having a spring sale. Then if I would get a notice, I would take it down normally the same day or the next day the note was given to me. I have also had them on the pennants or the pennant flag signs. The only thing that I don=t agree with is I think everybody in Town has had them at one time or another, including car lots. I believe that every car lot in Plainfield has pennants up. But, like I said, I took those down. I took my open sign down. I took my sale sign down. I have taken everything down except for the one that is in the ground. Mr. Haase asked, do you have a sign on your business building? Mr. Monday said yes. I got a permit for that at the time. But my building offsets so far back off of U.S. 40 compared to where my old location was. Actually, at my old location I didn=t need the sign but we had it. Now that I need the sign I can=t have it. Mr. Haase asked, how long has this sign been reconstructed?!13

14 Mr. Monday said probably about three months. Mr. McPhail said our ordinance states that any non-conforming sign, once they are taken down, anything that goes back up has to be conforming to our ordinance. So, the minute you took that sign down it then became necessary for you to meet the current ordinance. Mr. Haase said it is the same situation that Clark Gas Station came under. They had a sign that they had to have removed because the State widened the intersection right out here. They went to put up two more signs and they had to come into conformance with the ordinances of the Town even though they took down a large double pole sign. I guess that is the situation that we have here right now. Even though that sign was taken down due to construction of the road the sign that gets put back up has to be put into compliance with the Town ordinance. If you want to put up a non-complying sign, you can file for a variance with the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Monday said I put the signs with the stakes with the arrow that said Little Dave=s Everything Store with an arrow, the size of a yard sale sign. And I got a note that it had to be taken down. So, I figured if I couldn=t have that sign and I can=t have a sign that says open, then I had no problems six years with this sign so I put it back up. That was what my thinking was. Mr. Haase said I understand your thought process. You have been in a difficult thing. You have been out of the Town and now you are in the Town. You have been out of construction and now you are still in construction. Mr. Monday said when they took the road out, they said that they were going to block that road off for a few days. And it has been three years since that road has been gone. So, we were thinking and figuring that they are going to come in and grade it out and they are going to landscape it and then we can put our sign back up and they never did that. I don=t even believe that they have seeded the lot yet. So, I said let=s put the sign up because if we can=t have a little sign that has arrows due to road construction, then we haven=t had any problems with this sign for six years so let=s put it back up. you? Mr. Carlucci said the old sign that you had, did they buy that sign from Mr. Monday said no. time? Mr. Carlucci asked, so you just had it on their right-of-way all of this Mr. Monday said yes. Mr. Carlucci said I don=t remember that sign being there where it is right now even six years ago. Mr. Monday said it was a different shape of sign. It was exactly behind the mailboxes. My father just bought the property and the buildings and we put the sign on it right when we purchased the lot. Mr. Carlucci asked, how far is this sign from your building? Mr. Brandgard said it is a pretty good distance. Mr. Carlucci asked, so you said the road came right through that sign? Mr. Monday said no. It is approximately from this wall to this wall from my driveway. It is right across the street from my driveway. Mr. Carlucci said I remember you had a Agoing out of business@ sale when you were down there. And then you moved over to the Westwood Mobile Home Park and had signs out there. And then you moved back again. Mr. Monday said when we moved the first time, when we had the Agoing out of business@ sale and we moved right where Westwood is, Paper Peddler also took!14

15 over the sign. now? Mr. Haase asked, when did you move from Westwood out to where you are Mr. Monday said it has been approximately a year ago. Mr. Haase asked, how long has your property been in the Town limits? Mr. Carlucci said it has been more than two years. Mr. Haase said so when you moved back there, you were actually in the Town of Plainfield. The first time that you were out there you probably were not in the Town of Plainfield. Since the time that you left and came back that property has been annexed into the Town and it came into the Town limits of Plainfield. So, at that time the ordinances of the Town would apply. I understand your thought process and it is all very confusing. I won=t disagree with you. But being that you are in the Town you are going to need to research what the ordinances are and what the requirements are for your business to operate and for your signs to be put up and work within those. Mr. Monday asked, is there anywhere that I=m allowed to put a sign? Are we allowed to put it in the front grass part of our property? Mr. Haase said I think there are a lot of places that you could probably have a sign and a sign could be made to work. One thing that you could probably do is get the three businesses that are out there to go together to have a sign. Mr. Higbee said that would be my suggestion too. I also want to point out that the variance option would particularly be important if you were going to try to put it back in the area that it is in now because that is not even on premise and an off premise sign is not permitted. Also the type of sign isn=t permitted either. I can=t predict what the BZA would do but I would think that would be a challenge. But putting something on site like the integrated center sign for different uses might be a better bet. Mr. Haase said I believe if you came down and spent an hour or two with Mr. Kilmer or Mr. Higbee, they could pretty much show you on your property where you could put a sign and give you the areas that it could go. I=m sure they could tell you what size sign and what type of sign would be permitted there under the Town ordinances. Mr. Monday said Mr. Kilmer and I get along and any time he tells me to take down a banner or a flag, I say I=m sorry and I take it down. This is just one that I have had a problem with so that is why I=m here tonight. Mr. Haase said I don=t think you are alone in the Town as I look through the non-compliance issues here. I don=t think you are the only one and I appreciate you showing up tonight and talking with us. In all honesty I think if you spent an hour or two with Mr. Higbee or Mr. Kilmer, they could direct you as to where your signs could be located. They might even meet you out at your place. I don=t want to speak for them but sometimes on site is the best thing to do and show you almost the exact area you could put it. Mr. Monday said I know that my time is up on my sign. I understand that because I had the 10 days. I didn=t want to get fined and I didn=t want to do anything illegal. That is why we called to see when we could come and speak about it. How long do I have to get the sign down? Mr. McPhail said I would suggest that we give him days to come up with a plan. Let him leave that sign there for the next days to come up with a plan for a conforming sign working with Staff to get that done. Mr. Carlucci said that makes an assumption that something can be done there. First of all the one problem is Paper Peddler already has a pencil sign out there, which takes up a ground sign. Mr. McPhail said he needs some time to figure out what he needs to do.!15