Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We're all ready. Yes, we are ready. Good evening everyone and welcome to the town of McCandless Planning Commission for February 3rd, 2026. Uh the first item we need to address is the approval of our last meeting January 6th minutes. Are there any comments, questions, edits from anybody on the minutes? I like I just appreciate the detail that was put in particularly by the capid discussion really well. Yeah, much better than in the past. Yeah, very very notable. Good. Good for the minutes. Thank you. All right. Can I have a motion uh to approve the January 6 minutes? So moved,

Sean. So moved. Second. Second. Second from Shelley. I think it came from uh all in favor. Opposed? None. So, the approval of the January 6 minutes. Now, in business, um, Glazier Drive subdivision plan number five, amendment number eight, mortgage subdivision. Uh, we've seen this before. Yeah.

Jimmy Spudi on behalf of Dr. Horton, the builder. Uh, you're familiar with the process that we've gone through in the last few buildings. Uh, progression on the sales has picked up and they are unofficially officially sold out. So, in this case, we've added the two buildings that have not been started yet to this plan. So, we don't have to try to rush in here to get something done in a closing. So, uh this will be hopefully our last submission to you with regards to uh this um development. We're proposing five units out of the building that's under construction. That's the building that backs up closest to where we're at right now. And then there's two four-unit buildings that have not been started, but are also represented on this plan. Uh again, no none of these units um all these units were accounted for in the original approval and we're just formalizing their lot lines based on the building construction and location of the party lot.

So from the standpoint of the residential, you would be built out with this application. Well, this will establish all the lots that are to be built, right? Uh there's still buildings to be built, but this will establish the the party walls, so you won't need I won't need to come back again. Typically, we've done them based on asbuilt construction because of the pace of the sales. We've worked it out with the builder. Well, we will submitt more lots that will be built. Not as part not as part of my task. I I can't answer that. I do not know that because the commercial was still out question. Yeah, I I that's beyond my scope.

I ask about it every time. I wish we could get some sort of an answer as to what's going to happen on the commercial side. So after the meeting that we had last time, uh there's somebody in the building here that is not here anymore. Uh who was Lucas? Lucas. Uh after that meeting, the last meeting, I had sent Lucas in an email with the developer saying that I expressed your concern about what was going to happen with the commercial that they should communicate and basically said, I might, you know, it doesn't involve me, but there are questions being asked. I don't know if that had ever materialized. You haven't seen that? I guess um I haven't spoken to the to that specific developer uh since that meeting though. And the developer that developed these lots and that developer are two different entities.

Right. No, I I I know it's that's the problem. It's we we can't seem to get and and we are just reviewing the application that was submitted for PLC 26.

Absolutely. I know. Uh so uh is there any public comment concerning uh what's happening in this on Blazer Drive? Anything from the commission? Hearing none. Okay. Uh, so, uh, I need a motion to recommend the town council approve PLC 26-05, which is the Blazer Drive subdivision plan number five, amendment number eight, mortgage subdivision, as submitted by Sperd land surveying. I like the annunciation. That's good. Give it a try. You made me sound important. It sounded like it was. So moved.

So moved. Second. Second. Second from Sean. All in favor? I I opposed. None opposed. Thank you very much. As a matter of um procedure, previously we had taken signed plans to Gateway. Gateway would bring them over. I believe that's changed. Um yeah, so typically you'll you'll drop off the plans for municipal signature. We'll we'll get it coordinated with Gateway and then we will release the plan to you. Okay. They'll be here tomorrow. Okay. Thank you.

Have a good one. Next item of new business, uh, PLC26-06, the Ridge Plan of Lots, revision number one, lot line revision block lot 1071E80 and a presentation. Welcome. Give your name and

Yes, sir. I don't have this honor. I'll just talk super loud. My name is John Wright over with LSSE. Uh, we're here tonight. Um the plan in front of you has got just a simple highlight for you. Um basically actually Mr. Sperduty is one of the folks that found it when they got ready to start selling the lots and back checked. There was just an error in typing on one of the lots. So it was 5 ft too long uh for lot one. So the plan in front of you uh LSSC where we're kind of handling on our own to come in front of you folks to get the plan to fix that state and make sure it's correct doesn't affect any of the other adjacent properties. So that's basically it. I know wish I had more for you, but that that's what it's just to fix that error. Can I just ask to understand? Yes, ma'am.

The lot line itself is not changing. There was a numerical measurement on the lot line's going to change because it is it is 5 foot off. Yeah. Yeah. That that's why we have to do a new plan and we have to do do other things within that. Yes. Yep. Seems like pretty simple. Yep. We appreciate having it in front of you. Mhm. Does does this impact the property that had the tree issue back there? Yeah, this is this is the property. I actually did the tree survey on that back there, but it's uh it's literally just the imaginary line that's on there. So, yeah.

Do we have any idea how the folks who follow behind the part of my skills that I can if it's a question you want me to forward over to the next meeting, I can I can help you out. Yeah, there there was no discussion on it as I recall now that you bring it up. Yeah. Um we were going to keep some trees, correct? Yep. Okay. Does this lot line move mean that we are not going to keep those trees? No. No. That won't it won't have that effect on the Okay. So, it's moving the lot line, but the tree issue which was the issue as I understand that people wanted to retain the trees. Correct. Those trees will be retained

to They got me a good good answer on this one. So, to my knowledge, the moving of this property line has nothing to do with the grading. So, the grading was changed to make sure that we were taking care of the trees back there. They had almost like a little park area. They were playing with their kids with a zip line, I think, is what they had back there. So, um but in terms of the trees, I can't make I can't tell you right off the bat that this property line's going to have anything impact to that, but the the grading that was associated was pulled back off of there. Either way, if those trees aren't on this property line, they're not getting touched, they're still on the property line, they won't be touched based on our previous. And I can I can clarify too, just from perspective of process, uh the you know, the the ridge plan revision, this this revision is just to the lot line. So,

nothing changes in the previous approval um other than just the imaginary lot line for lot one which is being revised through this application. Yeah. So there's no grading change that on what was approved for Yeah. There's that there's a still a previously granted approval for the ridge development. This is just a revision to this lot line. Yeah. Okay. Um it's not the issue, but I'm going to ask it anyway. What's what's the development plan? How when are homes going to start going? I see one uh foundation I think. Yeah. No, that that's a great question. That's not you. That's on me. No. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I did I did all the engineering and the the the layout of the plan, but in terms of uh the developer, I think it's Infinity Homes, correct? Is building out there.

Yeah, I think that's who you got the contract. Best I can tell, you can't really see much from the road, but there is at least one foundation, I think, going up. Yeah, I believe you're correct on that. Yeah, that might be the display home or something. I don't know. Correct. Okay. All right. Um, is there any public comment concerning this five foot change on the ridge? Anything from the commission? Kelly, you your comment letter didn't have any concerns, sir. Correct. Yeah, we did not have any concerns with the plan. Um, usually we recommend if there's any comments from Alageney County that those be taken into consideration at the discretion of the town. And I can note that we did um receive comments from Aleni County at 3:00 today.

Yes, that's the county has been backed up this this whole year of of all their their plans. uh any of the comments that are on there have been added to the planning commission folder so that they all can be reviewed. The comments are minor um and generally whenever Alageney County does uh give reviews, they'll typically comment um on you know vagies to the the zoning ordinance because they are looking at every zoning ordinance in municipal or in the the county. Correct. Yeah. So yeah, if you see anything forward, I could get it back to you tomorrow if you find something. So yeah. Okay. I just a general comment. Yes, sir. Right. So last year we saw the run. We had the rain the spring and all runoff that that came from. Right. But now we have snow. Right.

So we get a combination of rain and snow. It's are there any steps have been made to do better mitigation than last year? Like I said I would have to apologize. It's that Len Smith is out of their hand. The only thing our our job uh we do have a role in terms of the MPDS observations. So anytime they do any critical items we have to be on site and do that. We were there for the ponds. Um, in terms of that, best thing to do would be call Maria or send me down a conservation district. They'll get up and take care of anything. So, I have to really apologize. I wish I could help. Well, last year they were under construction and they had silk fences and everything up. So, it was got blown. You're established the slopes now. You have Yeah. To to my Yeah. Again, to to my knowledge, the slopes are established now.

I was and I can speak to this too. I was out there doing a punch list a few weeks ago. Walk the full development. Um the rear hillside that was u the big slope uh where some trees were removed that is fully stabilized now. Um where there are some disturbed areas still underway. There is still some silt sock in place there. Um and then all of the inlets within the roadway system are still they're being directed to the basin um itself as well. So the roadway runoff should be um still be going to the basin in the sediment phase. So, um, now that it's an established site, uh, if there is runoff, it it shouldn't be to the same degree, um, now that there's, you know, no exposed dirt on that back hillside.

Yeah, we had lots lots of developments got crushed in the spring. Yeah. Yeah. But now we got snow. Yeah. Remember what it used to be like. So, yeah, we got two melts at some point. So, melt and freeze and melt. Yeah, we have two under construction right now. Our absolute night. So, yeah. Well, two weeks from now it's going to rain. So, snow and rain are really bad. Appreciate that. But thank you. All right. Thank you. Any other comments? All right. Uh, we need a motion to recommend town council approve PLC 26-06, the Ridge Plan of Lots, revision number one, lot revision as submitted by the Ridge Pittsburgh LP. Such motion. Did we do public comment?

Yeah. Okay. I missed it. Sorry. It was so there was so much with the additional caveat or contingency that the believe the comment we made on the original approval that the town is not taking a position into whatever property rights dispute may have been ongoing between this development and the adjoining land owner. This approval is not us saying who wins or who loses in any fashion. I think that there was a a bankruptcy issue at some point in our original approval. I think you know like doing the same they want to reinstate it. I think that's a fair fair comment.

So the approval is subject to uh no no implication one way or the other as to the potential property owner dispute missing that lot line. Okay. Uh so moved by Brendan second. I'll second. Second Mark. All in favor? I I opposed. None. Thank you. Appreciate you guys. Thank you very much. Good to be in front of you. So, I appreciate you guys for the Yeah. Yeah.

Old business. Um again, how do you want to Sure. You just want to state what? I can state uh the town received um on February 2nd um roughly around 3:00 the town received a tableabling request from McCandless Dental Care for item PLC 2604 to the March planning commission meeting. Um and Anna can you confirm that we have to accept that request from the applicant also allow time for public anyone did on the speak. sense. Okay. Well, one quick question on on the tableing. This is going to hold any of the dates.

Yeah. What tableabling does is essentially that that MPC timeline is going to push back, right? Is that's all that this table they've just pushed their timeline back and they haven't forced our hand. Correct. They're requesting more time to adequately address engineering comments from the town engineer. So there is no presentation as was just stated but is there any public comment from anyone? I believe we'd have to do we would we make a request to table prior to any comment or fine. Okay, you can continue then. Uh any public comment ladies? No. All right. Um then let's have we have to approve this uh tableling.

It would be an acceptance. There be a motion to accept the for PLC26-04 Macandless dental care preliminary and final land development walk/lot 944 C342. So moved. Second. Second from Sheldon. All in favor? I I opposed. No opposition. It is tabled. Uh the next item on the agenda is the sign ordinance review. I know we've talked a little bit about this last time uh but uh anything more we want to

Sure I can kind of give a uh overview um there are copies of the draft sign ordinance if you don't have a if anybody has a copy um on front desk there um after taking the comments um and the discussion from the last planning commission meeting talent staff has put together a draft ordinance for our review uh our being the planning commission's review. Um the difference between what was presented and what is included within this ordinance. There's two differences um from what was presented and what was included. The first would be and I will direct you to the I'm sorry the um section one 305130 F under abandoned sign removal. This is um essentially a we would allow the the town to say that if a business is advertising and that business terminates that it gives the town um basically the legal means to require that they remove the uh advertising of that business that's no longer um on site within 60 days of the termination of the business.

We did discuss that the last time

that was not it was not added. So this was formally added. Um and then the other uh basically what was removed from from this was the on premise sign regulations. Um after discussion with um you know with the planning commission and from some public comment um we decided to take a look at the on premise um sign regulations um whenever we look at the actual zoning ordinance because through that discussion there may be a um you know we may be looking at the zoning map. So, we didn't want to adjust on premise regulations if we're possibly going to be adjusting some of the um you know the zoning regulations for the MN district. Um so rather than and that was kind of the highlight of the on premise discussion. So rather than adjust that um we are just going to basically take this draft ordinance as a cleanup and then addressing what was discussed uh on the off- premise sign um you know protection issue that we discussed uh at length last meeting.

It's being kicked down the road essentially for other bigger considerations. We're pushing it down the road so that we can make more of a Yep. comprehensive comprehensive and educated decision on how did I do that? Maybe it's me. Sorry. You're fine. Um,

I know he's talking. I I've I had a question for Matt which I communicated to him by uh text or email today um which he clarified but I I still have a question and it's a follow-up in the table which is in 135.150 offremise sign regulation B and then the table follows under item number five it says maximum length 60 ft What signs are these signs that are up on the building could be 60 ft wide?

This this is for offremise sign regulations. So these are billboards. These are just off premise. So if you have a parcel that is advertising something that is not on that lot is an off- premise sign. Okay. But if there's a 60 ft is big. If it's 60 feet wide, how tall does it have to be to still meet the square footage requirements? It's going to have to be pretty darn skinny. And and I I can't picture a 60 foot wide off- premise sign. That's that's a that's a big set. 64. No, it's monument. That would be um 64 feet, right? square feet is that's only

it would be would be but that 60 feet would be the the length of the sign for um for I'm assuming that would be for you know the maximum would be for a pole sign. I mean you're still that's that's that is something that is in the current sign regulation uh and is not being adjusted. Um if it's something that we'd have to Well, I just don't understand it. I I let me if if it needs to be adjusted maybe we should. I' I'm picturing a one of these uh digital signs that is 60 ft wide which is huge and I'm trying to picture what else this could be addressing. Yeah. Let me let me just confirm

this goes beyond digital. This is just I I used it maybe that's but even any sign even a static sign 60t wide is that's wider than this room is it? Yeah. Let me I'm going to pull up.

All right, let's see. Yeah, it would be a three foot high 200 ft. Yeah, I don't know. There may be something that it applies to, but I can't picture what it would be.

And that's and that's something I can I can look into. It's not um I can say this, you know, being in this town working as a zilling officer for the last 7 months, uh we haven't ran into an issue with where I've max length has come into play. Um I would say that at least in terms of, you know, the requirements for the signs, uh that max area for signs, like that would always trump, um you know, a length. Um but I you know as I wasn't part of the you know adoption of this code I can't necessarily speak and I just looked in in the uh the actual definitions um and it doesn't look like max length is

defined defined um which some things are defined in this code and some things are not um let me length is not defined but area it's sign area Yes, the sign area makes sense. Uh yeah, length is almost redundant because being in that business, what everybody looks at is sign height. Yeah.

And area. I can say I have never in in my entire career of reviewing sign permits and applications, I've never once looked at a sign and reviewed a maximum length and and had to make a I can't even remember in my the previous codes I've worked in having a max length. Um I guess I guess what we're saying is technically with how it's written, someone could could submit a 60 foot wide sign that's three and a half feet tall. Yeah, that technically meets the area max length and max sign height requirements, which I don't I don't know that's ever going to happen, but that it's something I don't think it's something we want. Uh

yeah, and and I'm I'm curious to I don't the only one that has a maximum length. Everything else is NA. I don't remember talking about that when we maybe there's maybe there's na in in the chart or the other districts for length. I think it's worth looking at um Matt maybe other zoning codes. Yeah, I mean I can tell you I have and I don't I I maximum length I have not I think it almost could be deleted. Yeah, it it almost sounds like it to me, but yeah, I I I thought maybe there's something I'm just not imagining and I tried to imagine everything possible.

Kelly, do you do you have any recollection? I know you were weren't probably part of that, but anything that you could No, I don't unfortunately. That's right. I think it might have been an oversight and and you know that could I mean this could be one of those items where you know we're thinking about it now and this is something that we could you know they might have had thought about this in a different scenario whenever they adopted this and now we're looking at it and it doesn't make make sense and that could be something that we we clean up. Um I'll say at the very minimum uh this has been this the approved zoning code for the signs for since 2023. So I I I'll say

there hasn't been any issues. I don't perceive I don't perceive any business owner coming in with a 3ft by 60 foot I I don't either sign it it seems so ridiculous to me the thing to do would be to take it out but I don't know what is involved in taking it out.

Yeah because the other thing is I don't even if you're thinking about a 60 foot length sign and we're talking a pole sign only. I don't even know how that would be possible to construct that as a structure like a six like 60 feet of of length and then you single a single pole because you can't have multiple structural beans beams with the pole sign. Um but I mean we can I mean I definitely can review it. I would say that at least in terms of if you want my professional opinion, I don't see a this being a detriment to the town. But if you, you know, as we've discussed it tonight, I definitely think that we could consider it for for removal and possible cleanup.

That would be my recommendation and you can if whatever we run into to try to make that happen, I don't know. But uh if something doesn't make sense, I don't see the reason to keep it in. And is it possible to like if if you know let's say there was something that needed tenited but the planning commission felt that there was enough here to make a motion to council. Is that something that actually just about to um so if the commission agrees and there's a consensus that you are recommending approval aside from the removal of that 60 ft max home length you can make that recommendation to council and then town council will review that recommendation and they have the ability to remove that 60 ft. Oh okay.

So that's you you were able to do that. Great. Obviously that gets messy if you have a lot of changes. If you would be on other things, but that's not an issue. And that's kind of we are I mean at the end of the day, this is the planning commission. This is where these type of reviews would occur so that whenever it gets to the town council, they can make you know an adequate decision on what the they are the broad body. It appears intentional by the way it's written here, but she was not part of this and I don't know why. So, Tom Council, they might have some insight as to why that's there and some understanding and so

and I and I can I can do within in the meantime I can do research in in my director report when this would get brought to town council can include information that I can find if I can find any about the maximum length and how that relates and what the intention of that was so that they can make you know the best possible decision. Okay. All right. So what's our next administrative to to move that we accept and uh recommend approval of this sign ordinance? You want to add that with that condition the 60 ft being considered for another point. I would. Yeah, definitely comments. I hate to do this.

I'm sitting here. 130 130 5.1 F the abandoned sign. Well, my concern is activities. You remember the signs advertising places of business which terminate operation shall be removed within 60 days of such termination. I don't have that. But if there's a disjunctive or signed advertising activities which terminate operation shall be removed or signs advertising places of business whose activities change. I mean you could conceivably have an activity location. They no longer do that but they still conduct other business operations. and I could read that to require the removal of a sign even if something else they might want to advertise for continues on and it's not just a defunct local.

So, um I I I totally understand where you're coming from there. I in terms of the wording um I think I this was taken from a neighboring municipality maybe the verbiage um bolstering this to I mean what this the intention of this is for an on-remise sign if you're saying I have a McDonald's and that McDonald's goes out of business I want them to be forced to remove the big M that says McDonald's they can't remove the structure of their building but anything that is a is a symbol to that on premise that's what that removal is supposed to be so it's the business Yeah, it's that

right. And so if I think that I do think that reading it with that mindset that there this could be worded adjusted to to essentially if we could put the wording of of onremise signs and essentially say you know on premise signs something along the lines of that saying that you know an on-remise sign that ceases operations of business must terminate within 60 days. That's the intent of the ordinance. um if that if I don't know if from what I'm understanding that you're saying is that you were reading it as someone this could be overbearing from what we're intending correct

yeah so I have two comments there the first of which is if we just hypothetically say that or activities is deleted say signs advertising places and business which terminate activity shall be within 60 days of such termination I'm okay with that the question that I have however is that this abandoned sign removal is is a general requirement which would apply to on premise and off- premise right yeah anything that's permitted

so then you get into this parade of horriles that we have a billboard an offremise sign which advertises somewhere that terminates operations it contemplates the whole sign being a vote you kind of get a ridiculousness He was advertising to this place. The place went out of business. Now, do we have to take the whole billboard down because it once advertised for this? No, but you changed the face. Yeah, the face would need to be changed. But no, we can't require them to structure, right? But like it doesn't say just change the face. It says the sign. And so my concern is the sign theoretically on a billboard the face is

basically the sign the fa there's a the structure and then the the the sign. So I think I mean I think what what you're basically saying is it needs to clarify that we're saying that the the advertising portion of your sign is the messaging of of your sign

is what we're what we're having be removed. and and and I I do agree that that activities section um I I think that that is convoluted as well. So my recommendation would be that we remove like you said the that or activities and and can basically adjust this to essentially the onremise signs and then written to um you know for to be for the advertising of the sign. So we could reward that to I don't off the top of my head I don't know the word

here. So yeah this is a so this would be just for basically an onremise sign um because it's advertising the place of of a business. So when we look at cleaning up we can address the fact that a billboard is no longer operational because they don't have a face on it. Yeah. And I think like I mean that's this is more like what this is is that if a business ends if a business if a business ceases operations we need to have some type of action. Yeah. We do not have no and and I'm not saying that you are but I think that yes I agree we can we can look at that in the future but I do think that

you know we can make an adjustment to this prior to the motion. So we have to adjust. Do we need to have the adjustment verbatim verbage or is it something along the lines of for this one? I would recommend verbatimage of the removal of activities from that section and then I would state I I think you could clarify too whether or not it makes sense to remove the entire max length like since it's not and rather than just saying get rid of this because it's NA everywhere else. So remove that requirement. So I would be specific. Take the whole line out.

Yeah, I understand that. What what I'm more concerned of is for the abandoned sign removal. Can we could I mean would it would you think that would fit to have something that says signs advertising on premise on or on premise signs because we should we should just list on premise signs. Um I I'm trying to I'm just trying to think. Say on premise signs advertising places of business which terminate operations shall be removed within 60 days of termination. So just add on premise at the start. Yep. Cross out four activities and then I think that probably solves all the problems that I was. Yes.

So everyone's in consensus about the word. We don't need the motion to specifically say MA what the two commissions are as long as it's clear to everybody. Yeah. But thank you because that does clarify how it should be written. Exactly.

So move that it be recommended to the town council with those two amendments as we've discussed. We have a motion. Does it have to say who is responsible for removing the sign or is it understood that the property hold it? It would be an it would be an enforcement thing. Yeah, it would be a notice of violation property owner proper party to serve a notice violation. So, we have a motion. We have a second. Second. Was that Sean?

Yeah. Second from Sean. All in favor with those two uh edits that we've been discussing this last few minutes. I I I opposed. No opposition. So, okay. Looks like you have a little work to do, Matt, to get that straight. That's right. That's right. That's That's why we review it to make it the right way. That's why you have multiple people reviewing it because people look at it from a different perspective. Thank you. Uh, okay. Next item is just general public comment. Uh, but I don't see any general public. So, uh, looks like

looks like we don't have any general public comment. And I need a motion to adjurnn. Whoops. No. Okay. Is there a motion to adjurnn? So moved. Still moved from Shelley. Second. Second. Second from Mark. All in favor? I I opposed. Hearing none, we are adjourned. You have a comment, Mr. Brendan?