Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Everybody ready? Good evening everyone. Welcome to the first meeting of the new year. This is dated January 6, 2026. Our first meeting for the planning commission. We have several items, but first we have an administrative process to go through. So, if you'll bear with us for one second, we have to uh reestablish the positions of chair and vice chair. So, we need a nomination for our chair. Uh, and we'll start with that. Nominate Dan. Nomination for Dan Cordon. Uh, second. Second. Seconded. Any other nominations for chair? All in favor?

I. Opposed? None. Um, second item is the nomination for vice chair. Um, currently Ann Clark. Do we need a nomination for the vice chair? I'll nominate. Second for an second. Second. All in favor? I opposed. All right. We're back. I voted for myself. You can vote for yourself. Um, if you don't believe in yourself.

All right. Uh, that's out of the way. Thank you everyone for letting us tend to. Um, now we have some new business. Oh, we have to approve the minutes, I'm sorry, of the last meeting which was uh we didn't have a December meeting, but we had a November meeting. Uh, are there any changes at its uh comments on the minutes for the November meeting? Hearing none. Can I have a motion to approve the minutes for November? So moved. Seconded. Second. Second from Sean. Um, all in favor of approving the minutes.

I opposed. Minutes are approved. Now we're on to new business. Uh the first item is Old Perry Highway Town Homes Subdivision Plan Mortgage Subdivision block lot 1071 E96. Um I know what this is. Is there a presentation? The presentation. Please state your name and go ahead.

Don P representing Pool Construction. Uh we're here for get the planning commission approval for a mortgage subdivision of a 3-unit town home built on Old Perry Highway. We've uh recently received a letter from Gateway outlining some of their comments. Um Hampton Tech has responded to their comments uh in writing which is in your at your desk there. any any of their uh comments have been addressed. Um there were some min minor uh issues that they had brought up.

Um there was a few changes to the subdivision plan that gateway requested. They have been taken care of as well. Uh and these were three homes built originally under and are now being asked to be subdivided into three for mortgage purposes. Three units for mortgage purposes. Yes. Okay. It looks like a full subdivision, not a condo. I mean, the lot lines go through the buildings, but they include the entire parcel. Correct. It's three parcels. Each one will be a separate parcel, right? So, that's not a condo. No, it's not a condo. It's a tout. Yeah.

Okay. Uh, we've certainly done these before, but Kelly, any what are your comments?

Sure. So um I have not seen the revised responses yet. So just from our initial review um just a few items to note. So the the first thing is um just clear identification regarding responsibilities of the shared infrastructure specifically the storm water management facility as well as um inlets, pipes, etc. that will be split um evenly across each of these three residents. We want to make sure that's clearly indicated on the plan for reporting regard regarding the um ownership and maintenance responsibilities as well as having that written into the deeds. Um and then just another note as well um the initial plan received does show a portion of the property to be dedicated to the town. However, our office did reach out to Mr. Co and he did verify that that is not the case. So there is no proposed dedication to the town of land for this.

That's correct. Yeah. That note was that the share drive? Yeah. Yeah. Anything that's shared should be written into a a operation of maintenance. Yeah. There there are no shared drives. So, does the one property need an easement to get to their property over the driveway or No. No. No. Each unit has its own driveway and and it's Oh, it's just a double wide drive. That's correct. This is the one that had one curve cut for two driveways. Wider one. The wider one because there was no maximum throw width within the ordinance.

Yeah. and Hampton added the note that the uh that would put in a deed that each unit owner would be responsible for a shared uh maintenance of the storm water including the uh level spreader in the pit.

Um this letter does this I'm a little unclear what this letter is and when did we receive it? Um so so typically just to explain the process whenever we get an application in uh there's a a relative time for uh applicants to respond to engineering comments that typically uh doesn't occur before a planning commission meeting because the amount of time it takes to get a review from our town engineer and then get sent to a different engineer depending on the comments. Sometimes those comments cannot get addressed um in time for review. Um it's not uh untypical for an application to um get submitted. Uh obviously, you know, none of the planning commission owners were able to review the uh the updated plan set. However, the comments that uh were addressed in in this letter that was received today uh would be reviewed post that submission um by the town staff and our town engineer. Um and the comments that were included in the staff memo and the account engineering uh memo were both minimal uh engineering comments. So typically when there's minimal engineering comments uh you know you come to a meeting like this review uh the item that was presented and submitted originally and then any uh reviews or updated uh plan sets would get uh you know submitted to the town engineer for review it you know once once that's completed by the applicant.

Kelly you agree there's nothing substantial. It's just cleaning up plans. It's just cleaning up plans to make sure things are clear in regards to long-term use as well as just some um minor items for clarification for the ordinance. Okay. Um given that I think uh we ought to state that any approval if that's the way the plan the voting were to go is subject to conditioned upon these items being cleaned up to the satisfaction. C can we just Matt we previously set it up that whenever there's engineers comments that need to be addressed the motion includes must meet all engineering comments. Yep.

So that is a is a standard practice for for these type of motions. Right. I if you are providing a motion can you include that as part of the motion? Well I I I can't predict what the motion is going to be prior to if it's going to change. Um I'll make that motion. Okay. Uh well, let me let me announce what we're we're uh needing here, and that is a motion to recommend town council approved approve Old Perry Highway Town Home subdivision plan as submitted by Gregor Schwab. We need to check for public comment and just in case.

Okay, we will do that. Thank you. uh on this particular matter. Are there any is there any public comment uh regarding this mortgage subdivision of those three town of those three units? Town homes. No public comment. All right. Can we just modify the resolution to include meeting the town engineers and please?

Yeah. And that motion that I just stated is of course subject to what I stated before that is that all of the changes that the town engineer wanted to see are in fact uh incorporated and and completed. Can I have a motion to that effect? So moved. So moved. A second. Second motion from an second from Sean. Uh, all in favor of approving. I opposed. None opposed. Thank you.

The next item. Um, the warden plan lot consolidation minor subdivision blot and lock 825 P243 and 825P241. Is there a presentation? No, I believe you have all the materials. Okay. And you're here for what purpose? I'm trying to uh replace a deck on my house and it was out of compliance with the setback requirements and I currently own the lot next door which is not on the original survey when I purchased the home. So I'm trying to consolidate the lots. Okay. And I'm sorry, state your name, please.

Laura Warden. Okay. Laura Warden. Um

any comment from up here? We we talked about this last time if I'm not mistaken. I'm happy to provide a little bit of context just just uh just for the planning commission. A number of lots in the town uh which are called uh bingo lots or smaller lots um that do not meet the the standard of the the town's zoning today. Um a number of these lots have properties that are too close to the side property line. So, whenever you have somebody that wants to come and rebuild their deck, uh do something along the lines of adjusting their property and that does not meet the the uh the zoning setbacks, that's why I was unable to approve a permit for uh this de deck permit that was submitted. Um so, Miss Warden had to apply for a consolidation because she owns two properties that are next to each other. um and consolidating these properties into one property um under a uh consolidation would meet uh the setbacks for her deck and bring this property further into compliance for what it is now.

Is the replacement deck same size as the existing deck? Any questions? All right. The motion then that uh we will be discussing is a motion to recommend town council approve uh the warden plan lot consolidation as submitted by Laura Warden all is there public comment on this I don't hear any um can I have that motion so moved Shel is so moved second second Sean thank you all in favor

I all opposed hearing none We'll move on. The next item on the agenda is uh PLC 26-03 presidential arms apartment plan minor land development block lot 947K 136 and a presentation. State your name and make your presentation.

Uh good evening. Aaron Henderson, Remington and Vernick engineers representing Presidential Arms Apartments. And the uh the reason for the submission is a minor land development approval um for the approval of two dog parks erected within the property and a rock sump to manage storm water due to the uh to the addition of imperous area. Uh the dog parks are the impervious surface. Uh the dog parks are not um those are fenced. Okay. So the imperous impervious surface already exists. It does.

Okay. And the sump that you're creating or the drainage that you're creating will handle water off of that area. Correct. Okay. Correct. It's it's actually a makeup of uh of the sidewalks that were uh that were added. So what we're doing is detaining the runoff from the roof of the pool building in lie of the new impervious surfaces. Okay. Have you

Yes. They're offsetting um sidewalk and a picnic area that was um paved that was previously put in. So the conversation we had that area was spread throughout. So instead they're proposing to offset by capturing an existing I believe it's a full house roof to manage storm water. We're looking for a volume that would be equivalent to what was added and and obviously you've gone through that calculation and it it it does meet that criteria. So I did have um a comment regarding just clarification on the square footage totals to make sure that what was managed by the sump does equate to an offset and do we have an answer to that question? I do not have one at this time but we'll we'll provide that answer. Yeah.

Okay. We'll provide that answer and address some of the other comments that uh we had for us. And do you have another solution if the the um the size of the roof is not great enough to um offset the impervious? We we we can come up with some other solution. Yes. Yeah. There's there's plenty of uh plenty of property there and plenty of opportunities to capture runoff where needed. It's just a rough estimate of the roof area for the pool. Um I I want to say it's uh it's about 1,800 square feet that we're capturing. So acres we're just looking

1,800 square. Yeah. And I I believe uh the I believe the property owner only added about 900 square feet of uh of new concrete sidewalk. So we're we're we're more than making up for that. Why are we doing this? It's town ordinance. I know, but like when did the new sidewalk go in that precipitated why we're here today?

I I can provide context to that. Um so town staff had uh our code enforcement officer there had visited the site in relation to a code enforcement call. Um upon going to the site, we noticed that there was newly constructed sidewalks that uh met the uh requirement for a minor land development. So we contacted the property owner followed that procedure. The property owner was unaware as they are a new property owner and were not familiar with uh the requirements for the land development. So we had a discussion with the property owner in how to rectify um the added impervious. Um so they uh came in for you know a preation meeting with staff uh where we reviewed uh the the requirements of the land development. um and they have uh you know come in and filed after putting in a few of these items to meet that requirement through the MPC and our town code of having a land element review. Uh so a few of these items are you know like the sidewalks the the fences are already constructed and were constructed and a violation of the town. So now we're trying to rectify that construction by going through the correct approvals and review process to get this approved. Does the area where the roof of this pool building drains into is is that the same or call it watershed area as the location of the sidewalks and where the water hitting that impervious surface would go?

Yes. Yes, it all drains. The the entire property, Kevin, uh correct me if I'm wrong, but the entire property does drain towards Presidential Drive. What is the um the fence that's over the property line? That's not the dog park fence, but that is correct. But what is it? And it needs to be removed apparently. It it that is a removed. Correct. Yeah, it's it is a lay down area for um for the owner's maintenance crews. So, it's some uh um building components and rock salt things things of that nature. And what are you going to do if you're going to demolish it that that will be rectified

somewhere else? Yes. As part of this plan? I mean, you identified we see where the fence needs to be removed, but I did not see at least where the where it's going to be if you've applied to have it reinstalled somewhere else. Um, Kevin, do you want to you want to speak to

All right. Thank you. Okay. Well, that sounds like that solves the fence problem and but we what is remaining on the roof problem? We have to we have to confirm the square footage that they are saying is that they have in order to for us to agree that it is sufficient to offset the sidewalk construction.

Correct. Yeah. We just want to see the numbers spelled out on the plan compared to the sizing of the rock sum to make sure that aligns. Um and then the other item too um is just making sure there from the GIS there appears to be an MTSA se where that runs down in that area. So I want to ensure that we are outside of either an ement that's associated with that um or if there's no clear defined easement off the center line of that that MTSA is contacted to verify the um distance the sump needs to be installed away from that line. Okay. And this sump has some flexibility as to where it can be installed. Yes, it does. Okay. So that doesn't that sounds like a a detail that we can figure out. Okay.

Okay. Um any other issues that people see? Well, this sounds to me like we have another situation where the approval if granted has to be subject to these things being rectified to the satisfaction of the town engineer. Uh so the motion that is before us is um no I I always forget about those public comments. Haven't had any. I think we'll have some later. Any public comment on this matter?

Hearing none. Thank you. Um, so the motion is to recommend the town council approve PLC26-03 presidential arms department plan as submitted by Kevin Roland subject to the concerns and issues brought up in this meeting and by the town engineer satisfactory rectified. Can I have such a motion? Move. So moved by Sean. Second by Clark. All in favor? I I Sorry. Opposed. I'm opposed. We have one opposition. Um, and the opposition is Brendan.

I'm sorry. The motion was moved. Yeah, the motion motion passed with one opposition. Okay. Thank you very much. Now, the next item on the agenda, uh, McCandless dental care preliminary and final land development block lot 944- C-342 and apparently there was some last minute or last uh minute changes that you wanted to mention.

Sure. Uh, the town staff received a letter from the applicant um, the KU resources requesting a tableing until the February meeting. Uh so Lenny will be presenting the item tonight. Uh there will be no vote as they have agreed um and requested a table until the next meeting. Uh yeah this is the this process is the same as it would be if they were looking for an approval. They just there's no voting tonight.

Right. Yeah. So um to start Lenny White engineer KU resources. Um to follow up the table request was you know the the gateway letter came on Friday afternoon. So you know that doesn't give us enough time to respond formally. It certainly doesn't give Gateway enough time to review formally uh ahead of this meeting. So, it just makes it easier to to push it back a month, table it, come here. Um one of Well, I can get into it. Um but it just helps the process keeping everybody moving. Um so, the the proposed project uh it's a twotory. It's approximately 8600 uh square feet. It's at um what is it? 9730 New Hart. Uh I think we're all aware of where we're at. Um so it's on the corner of New Hart, Pine Creek uh and Old Perry Highway. Um the the applicants are I guess they're currently under agreement with the current property owner. Um so I'm here on behalf of the the developer that's going to be building uh the building and developing the site, which is BBDB LLC. Um the the the building I said 8,600 square feet, 5,800 square feet first floor and then uh a smaller second floor um 2,800 ft. Uh we're in the MN neighborhood zoning district. Uh we do have a couple different zoning districts um to the north of us and to the I want to say right, but I guess it's to the east of us. Um so we have a few different buffers as we kind of landscape buffers as we kind of go around the site. Um do have zoning variance approval um that we got we obtained prior to coming submitting for land development. Um most of the those both um are in relation to the front and side build two maximums.

Um so the the build two on the on the front was 5 to 15 feet from the property line and the sides were 0 to 10 feet. Uh we we obtained variances to increase those to build a rectangular building instead of you know a U-shaped or an L building. So um that primarily comes out because the property is a corner lot. Um so we have frontage on all on you know two of the sides which requires the build would require the building to be that same shape along the front. Um one of the items that uh that did come up kind of informally at the at the zoning hearing board meetings was uh parking. Um, so the initial parking count we had um was 68 parking spaces that we could show because they fit. You know, we could we could physically put them there. Um, you know, working with the owners with um, you know, kind of planners specifically for Dennis office for, you know, buildings of this structure. We dropped that down to 54. Um, we're actually going to probably lose another one for the bike rack. So, that's usually the easiest easiest place to put one. Um, so that'll drop that total down to 53 spaces. Um, another one that we haven't formally responded to to the gateway letter was uh that also came up at the zoning hearing board was a traffic impact study. Um, the trips that we have both uh peak PM and average daily are both less than the the required for a traffic site. So, we're not required by the ordinance to do a traffic impact study.

Can you give us a number? It is. So, our our peak uh PM trip is 30 and the average is 311.

Yeah. So, that'll be when we formally submit it'll be in there. Um that was the So, you can do the trips by building square footage or by employees. Did it both ways. Took the the worst case scenario. Um, one of I guess another I guess the easy stuff. Um, all the utilities are all along uh, you know, new heart or you know, old old Perry. Um, so we did get kind of a preliminary feedback that was the fire marshall Matt.

Um, but utilities are all there. Um, storm water management is in the middle of the parking lot. Uh, and kind of between the building and in the middle. Uh, we have several bio retention areas and an underground detention tank. Uh, that'll that'll capture all the runoff from the site. Um, right now it's getting some offsite, some not offsite. Um, so with that detention system, uh, that in the bio retention areas, they'll do water quality, runoff volume, and runoff rate. um that will have to meet the town code which is a 60% rate requirement. Um so anything after construction will be less than before construction just by the nature of the release rate percentage. Um in addition to that we have uh an MPDS permit we need to apply for and prior to doing anything uh on the site. So, conservation district, you know, it's going to go through their, you know, their meat grinder um for same thing, rate and quality and volume. Um the as we kind of head down the site, the the other one was the sidewalk. Um we were looking for some feedback. Uh initial staff convers initial conversations with the staff were that we were probably going to ask for a modification. Um because the sidewalk by code is at the property line into the rightway. Um that the nature of this site, the shape of the site and the existing infrastructure on the site um kind of pushes some of that back into the property itself. um which we would you know ultimately if if modifications are granted by you know the town council to put those in just so that way the public could still access those sidewalks without being on property. Um I did send Are you able to

pull up the Yeah. You want to uh What did you want me to pull up? Probably the street we're talking about sidewalks that Google Street. Sure. Yeah. So the the sidewalks right now are, you know, back off of uh the property line, uh because the property line is, you know, right behind that tell that that signal pole um and in the middle of that 2 to1 slope that's right there along, you know, right behind the back of the curb. I see. I didn't know if you were looking at me and I just realized. No, no, we're looking I'm sorry. We're looking at uh what's on the screen.

Um so yeah, we have as you go up New Hart, um utilities are in where the sidewalk typically would be, there are utilities there. Um so we're proposing to pull it outside of the where the utilities are just so that if any utility company has to go in there and do any repairs or replacements, you're not ripping up your sidewalk as well. You're talking underground utilities, I'm assuming. Yeah. Sorry. And when you pull it out, it goes to where? Goes into go into the property. Okay. Yeah. We're not We're out of the We're out of the rightway and into the property.

All right. You mentioned earlier that due to certain infrastructure on the site uh in relation to the sidewalks, what infrastructure you talking about? The utilities? Yeah, underground utilities. Okay. Yeah. Because it there's no other infrastructure that I can see. I believe um gas is on one. Yeah. So, GA gas is on Old Perry. Uh and then we do get sanitary and I think the water line goes up New Hart as well. So, does this property it obviously goes from New Hart.

Does it go all the way to that? I think that's a Bergkshire Hathway building or is there something in between you and the Berkshire Hathway building? There's two pieces. Um I don't know. I don't remember off the top of my head how far that lower piece goes. So if you look at the left side kind of in the middle of the property there's a you can see the adjoining line. That's my question. Is that is that the dividing line between this property and the Bergkshire Hathway property?

Yep. Okay. Anything else? Um here sidewalks, traffic, utilities, storm water. Um parking. Um we have I'm just kind of touching on on the gateway letter because we did kind of look through it internally. Um, a lot of it is, you know, just kind of clarifying some s things on the plan, adding some notes to the plans. Um, we do have we are we are still pending on infiltration testing. Um, we've been fighting the weather for the past couple months. So, but that's, you know, that's part of Gateway's letter that, you know, they know and we know that we're going to need all that stuff for, you know, for approvals anyway. and and what is the plan if the infiltration testing is not favorable?

Then you go into so which is typical for the area. Um so we get into lots of surface BMPs. Um so right now we do show you can you can call it five retention areas uh but it's kind of like four and a half. Um because if you look in the island the parking in the middle um it's technically four fire retention areas kind of where the you know, where the the curbs loops around, but the two of them are somewhat connected, but from a design standpoint, they're separate. Uh, and then there's another one in the the front next to the handicap spaces.

So, it'll be additional bio infiltration around the perimeter of the parking lot. Yes. So the you know if it if infilt if we don't have infiltration and we get into the managed release concept design D likes to see lots of things on the surface um before you can get into that managed release design uh and then the managed release design will be most likely in the underground detection which are 48 inch pipes right now. I was surprised to see that I do have I personally I know this property very well and um flooding is a problem right below it as I'm sure you're aware. I was surprised that there was nothing. I did not have I I did not see the wetland delineation report, but um there's always appeared to me to be there's cattails.

Um it in the northwest corner, okay, of the property. It's actually when you show the photo, it's where there's foliage growing out of where nowhere nothing else is growing. And then I looked at your C401 drawing and it looks as if in exactly that area according to if I'm reading your key correctly that that's an existing stream waterway. No, that's what that it is shown on there as that stream waterway. I will note there is within the area zone E 100 as well as the 500year flood plane down in there. So yeah, that the yeah the flood plane is in that corner.

So yeah, I'd take a look at least make sure that the the scripple sheet is that formal 401. Yeah, I I mean the it's very hard to see these um but I did not see any other than the extreme waterway um dash line. I didn't see anything else that at least uh indicated that. But again, my concern is not I'm I'm just pointing out that that is this is a property that has

has water on it. It drains down to old Perry Highway. Perry Highway floods below the property. Um I think it has on a number of occasions um at least once very devastatingly. Um so um I think that everyone and well it's something I'm concerned about. Um, and it concerns me because you're you have your I mean I understand you're putting in the um the rain gardens, the underground retention, but there's still I still feel as if there's potential for runoff that won't be controlled that will looking at the grading that will eventually make its way down onto Old Perry Highway. Yeah. And I mean, you know, the site that we could collect, take into there, you know, the the town does have the 60% release rate. So,

you know, that'll that's all stuff that we'll work out with Gateway. Just to clarify, the delineation showed no wetlands, no streams on the site. So, one quick question, your your um engineers report, I think the storm water report. Mhm. Refers to 15 beds. To what? A 15 bed facility. 15 bed. Yeah. So, I was confused. I think you're going to have 15 dental stations, are you not? I'm sorry. Yes. So, it Yeah. The the chairs. Yeah. The aunts, the dental chairs or whatever that's called.

Correct. 15 of those. Correct. No bids. Okay. Yes. Yeah. Just a Yeah. dentist chair, right? They're just regular dentist chairs. Nothing fancy. Okay. I'm still Okay. I'm sorry, but I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here, but I'm confused and maybe you can that you said your which I have not seen your wetlands and l report did not indicate any wetlands or streams, right? But am I misreading then your C41 drawing

which shows an existing stream waterway? I don't know where where you're in that corner in the bottom bottom left right where there's almost like a channel if you look right above it there's a 1014 contour existing according to your key the delineation of a mapped point.

Yeah. Yeah. So, we had a comment to make sure that the the flood waves floods were met and and when we initially saw that that's what we were thinking, but we wanted that clarification as well to make sure that based off of what was provided in the wetland report that this was indeed the case and it was not meant to be something else such as a a physical wet body stream right there and not just the 500y year flood plan. So, yeah, I think that clarification would would be great to review. Okay. Is that clear with the engineering ones? Yeah. Yeah. Um you mentioned parking earlier. Um and we were just talking about 15 chairs.

Um I assume you put 15 in because you want to use 15. Uh I don't know. And you also mentioned there were going to be 53 parking spaces. Mhm. If you have a a patient, a dentist, and a an assistant, there's three * 15 is 45. You're pretty close to your 53. Uh how did you come up with and what is the right number of parking for your maximum

uh occupation, right? So minimum um is is a space and a half per chair and then plus your employee count. Um, so they were looking at, I think, 21 employees. Um, so we had a little bit of a buffer uh on top of that. So that's where we ended up with our final count. And then just the layout of the site um getting rid of, you know, just random parking spaces doesn't really other I mean it changes the the total impervious number on the site. Um but as far from a functionality portion of the site, it doesn't doesn't change anything.

The uh the water on the roof of this building goes where? Uh the front of it will go into the detention tank uh or sorry the the side facing the parking lot which is the front of the building to the to the parking spaces. But um the parking lot side of the building goes into the system. Uh and then there are two on the Perry Highway system that come around and go into the inlet on New Hart. And what what's this building going to look like? Uh other than two stories, we don't know anything.

Um do have renderings and kind of elevations from the architectures are going to utilize specifically practice not leased out for other uses. Correct. I'm sorry I missed any renderings. If Do we have renderings? We do have renderings. The the ones today are better. Those were dated December. Okay. Let me grab I think it's like the next couple sheets you sent. It was ones. They're all in that same PDF.

That elevations are in there. Rendering will be on the cover page. This is the what I have on my my docket.

Is that the Sorry me. Let me see if I can You said that you had reset plans today for for this item. Maybe I'm thinking of the Google That would have been yesterday.

You sent something yesterday. Is that what you're saying? Yeah. We have to resend it. You can resend it. I I'm looking for it here. I got Oh, okay. Sorry about that, everybody. Okay,

there's the renderings. Okay, these are the renderings of the actual building, not Yeah, for this site. Okay, and since I can't see, what are the uh surfaces and the roofs?

That's a good architect question. My name is Keith Andreo. I'm the architect with Integrity Design representing the owners. Um, the building presentation you see your primary materials are brick veneer and it's a the what you see in the yellow, you know, orang-ish is a vertical um composite wood panel siding. So, and the and the roofs that you you asked about would be metal standing scene. Um, colors are are fairly accurate in the in the rendering you see. Um, what we are proposing. Um, also you see there's a large amount of uh transparency. Um, what you're seeing here meets the ordinance uh for glazing 60% on the ground floor street facing and 30% on the upper levels. And this uh view that we're looking at faces which street?

Uh that this view here is facing Old Perry Highway.

Yeah. Okay. Any questions? Not for the architect. I have a couple more for the engineer. Okay. Any other questions for the architect? Thank you. Come on back. It's just a short break. Clearly, storm water is a key issue. You you have some issues associated with buffering that may not be quite accurately portrayed.

So whether that cuts down on the impervious surface, I don't know. One of my concerns is traffic. That intersection is a bad intersection and there are legs of it that do not operate according to I mean they're failing. So across Mcnite there's problems on Pin Creek Road and this particular configuration is extremely confusing for people who aren't familiar with the area. Am I going straight? Am I turning right? Am I turning left? When you get the arrows. So, do you have any idea where your traffic, your 30 p.m. peak will be going?

That's Yeah, that's not part of kind of the trip count. It's just So, you haven't evaluated that or looked at your market area? I Yeah, I don't know the answer to that. These roads are under the control of Pendot. Um, no.

No, those are not. I think they I think they are all municipal owned roads. Okay. If I question I have maybe for for the town of the for um gateways I say you're quoting the requirement for a traffic study are there in the I'm not familiar with with that regulation but are there where there are cir mitigating circumstances um like you have a very atypical or non-ypical intersection here where a study would be worthwhile. I think if if there's concerns from a standpoint, it's definitely something that is worth discussing discuss, excuse me, discussing um if it's not a statement that's in the ordinance. That section of the ordinance, if I recall, doesn't really cover that attenuating circumstance there. But I do think, you know, it's definitely something to discuss as as a group too to determine, you know, how that should move forward. I would just think as a as a developer that that traffic study would help and advise you on the layout um of the building and the infrastructure. Um I mean I'll just personal I've had a marriage moment through that intersection. Um and I've seen you know a few near misses as well. Um so putting a you know changing the sight lines um as well as adding peak hours, people coming in, people leaving. Um I just I don't know what But I think it'd be very warranted to have that discussion.

Yeah, we did receive um a site distance plan as well to make sure that they did meet those sight distances. Um and with where the driveway is currently oriented on the northernmost section um kind of sitting outside of the the northern buffer yard, I will call it. Um from the standpoint from our traffic folks, it was it was at least a beneficial location there as opposed to having it closer down towards that kind of U-shaped intersection down there. But yeah, I agree. It's a little wonky down there. Yeah, I mean it's it's a real concern. Pine Creek can be backed up closing Blazer off so you can't get out play backed up all the way to um to Old Perry Highway. Um blocking people from getting off McNight.

Yeah. So how how these vehicles are going to get into the mix is a real concern. Yeah. And I think too, you know, a discussion that we can have and then and I can discuss with the staff from a traffic standpoint on more municipal front roads if there's additional improvements that maybe haven't um been prioritized and there needs to be adjustments on maybe how some of these um infrastructure improvements to town roads needs to be handled. I think that's something that we can we can discuss as well from the front. The lights are under the control of Pendot though, right? Um probably in this area. Yeah. proximity. So, no, that's a real concern. Yes. In addition to storm water.

Any other questions or comments on the commission? Yes. So, yeah. So, I've gone back to storm water and the wetlands. Um I guess maybe a procedural one, but just be you through payment in my experience there. They can discover wetlands that and I know the property you're talking about down there. It's I'm I'm not a geotech, but it's squishy. Um, and is there, you know, a potential for when you're doing your your permit to discover you actually have a wetland there? Well, did a wetland?

Yeah. Our environmental team was at on the site and and dug into the site to determine wetlands and everything else. We haven't seen it, but there's a report that supposedly identifies. Okay. Okay. I'm sorry. Yes. Yeah, in our report like we were we were at the site, you know, their site pictures of of them, you know, doing all their their field studies and everything like that. So, we did take a look at that as well to verify there's three criteria you need to meet in order for it to be classified as a wetland and their report stated that the areas that were tested did not meet that criteria classified as a well and was what their report had summarized the findings. Okay. But you haven't seen that yet. The report?

Yeah. Engineer. Yes, we did receive the report. Okay. Thank you. Any other comments, questions? I'd like to see if you could. Anything else from you, sir? I think that's I think that's everything.

Okay. Then I think we're open for public comment. uh and we'll see as many people as we can see. Uh just keep in mind that we we do in fact uh limit the presentation to a five minute. So state your piece in as concise a way as possible. Uh and that way we can get just about as many people through this as as we can. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Who wants to be first on a public comment? Please step forward and state your name, name and address.

My name is John Manovich. I live on New Hart Boulevard, 9949 New Hart Boulevard. Uh you guys had a pretty good discussion here on the retention areas of that particular area, too. Uh you took a little more than five minutes. I'm going to try and keep it to your regulated five minutes. Um, I saw where they were testing too and the squishy area. You're right about that. Uh, I don't understand why this isn't like the uh old Trader Joe's area where they're going to do the Walmart back then about the water and the retention area also. But, uh, they're going to put the retention area under the building too for the wastewater. Seems like there's water everywhere over there. And I wish that they'd look into a little bit more on this water retention area. Uh the traffic seems like because the building is where it's located, New Hart, Rhinaman Road and um Pine Creek and Old Perry Highway, you including Mcnite Road, North and South Bond, the other side, Blazer Drive, and the other sections of Pine Creek and everything else that does actually interfere with all of this. Uh at times uh you can't get through the New Hart intersection or the Pine Creek one or two cars because Mcnite Road in Pendot dictates 60% of the traffic lights going north and bond. So uh is that going to be changed? Who's going to take care of that? Uh, and like I say, the uh the retent back to the retention again. That is a big concern. I'm glad you guys looked into it. I thought I was going to have a battle with you guys, too, other than just the just the people doing that. And uh

I liked it, especially when you brought up the part about the uh the dog park and the retention roof over the uh the roof over the swimming pool area in uh Presidential Arms. So, I'm glad you guys are very concerned about it. And uh as far as that goes, when you're talking about the the 15 shares or 15 beds, 21 employees, do the 21 employees include the dentist, their assistant, or is this just the secretaries, the intake, the sec, the people that take care of the records and everything else. So, I mean, to me, it seems like you're going to have a lot more than 45 people or so for chairs, plus those 20, maybe 55. And they're going to park out on New Hart Boulevard. They're going to park down on Rhinaman Road. They're going to be blocking driveways. And as far as that sidewalk they talk about, it's a 50 to 60% uh terrace on the corner of Rhinom and and New Hart Boulevard. I don't think there's anybody here that's able to walk it unless you're coming from West Virginia with a short leg. But I thank you very much for your time.

Thanks. Thank you. Whoever wants to be next, please state your name and address.

Hi everybody. Um my name's Christy Rush. I live at 359 Wagon Wheel Trail up top of uh New Hart. Um, we have two entries in and out of our neighborhood. How many houses do we have up there? Two entry and exit points. One's over by Billy's in the church and the other one is Rene. My daughter asked me to say tonight, she's 19 and she dropped me off here. She said, "Mom, one time I was coming down Renaman and trying to go onto Mcnite Road and a lady who didn't want to let her out um onto um Ren or Rene, she was just trying to make the right." The lady went into oncoming traffic to prevent my daughter from coming out, risking her own life. And um my daughter said it's so dangerous down there. And what worries me is the amount of kids in our neighborhood that are new drivers coming down there. There's an also an anger issue which I don't understand. Um people just won't let you out. I have to go out that way every day to get to work and people just don't want to let me out. So, I worry that um you know, a building of this size and the parking and the water retention and just the whole thing, I don't care if you build there. Just build something that's conducive to where I live. That's not going to put me and my family in danger or risk, you know, somebody's life. My next door neighbor got t-boned down there without a building there. So, um how many accidents have I avoided there? quite a few. So, um I'm just coming here to speak just as a neighborhood person who's been here before. Um I care about my neighborhood. I care about my neighbors and I don't

want anybody to get hurt. And if you know corners are cut or my kids can't see around a building or that's a five five I guess street intersection that comes together

there. That's that's a lot of traffic for even me as a 57 year old woman to handle, much less a 19-year-old kid that lives there. And those are kids on Renaman, there's kids on Old Perry, there's a church up there. It's just too much congestion for a dentist office. If you want to build something smaller there, I I don't have a problem with that. It's the the size and how am I ever going to get off that hill? um coming down Renman going around waiting at Renman anyways um it's just it's just too much. It's just my opinion. So take it or leave it. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks.

Hi, I'm Joanna Cameron. I'm at 352 Wagon Wheel Trail. Um, I want to put it out there to start with that while um I am on the environmental advisory council, I am not here to represent them today. I am here to represent my community and as a citizen because I am a member of Wood Haven Oaks up on uh Wagon Mill Trail up there on the top coming down New Hart Boulevard, same as Christie. The reason I'm here today is to talk about the traffic, to talk about the water, to talk about the rain garden because that is kind of my thing and also to talk about the just general feel for the area. Um, so talking a little bit about what this is supposed to represent. What MN zoning is supposed to represent is the daily needs of a residential population with small small shops such as cafes and other eeries, which sounds great. I would love to have a walkable coffee shop from my location. That'd be fantastic. All right, but that's not exactly what this represents. This is something where now we're going to have a sidewalk with a giant dental facility that I don't know who's really going to be walking or riding their bike down that way. Um, and now we're going to have to also worry about people getting hit and people riding their bikes through there and it opens up a world of possibilities for people getting hit. Um, additionally, the thing that we're talking about is that in 2023 there was massive flooding. This is a devastating flooding that happened. This is a picture taken by KDKA

when they were out there and this is after the major thing that we had cars that were submerged in the water and caused lots of damage. And this is something that continues to happen and will continue to happen because of the increase in major weather events that is happening within our planet. Um, and exactly what you guys were talking about, it is directly on the flood zone. This is the FEMA flood map and you can see it is right there including the little bit of swamp area that is right there on the map. I can see it so I assume everybody else can. Um, additionally, when you have a rain garden like that, as I've learned from the rain garden, it requires constant maintenance. So, if they have a rain garden on the map to build onto this property, who is taking care of that? Who's making sure it's not getting clogged? If you're having a pipe, okay, that's where all the water is going. Who is going out there regularly to make sure that that's not getting clogged? And that's not overflowing into the parking lot because that is a lot of water because it's not just the water that falls on there, but it's also at the bottom of the hill. So, all of the water from the top of the hill to the flows down to that spot and that's why we're getting major flooding right there on Old Perry Highway. Additionally, the traffic as we pray as we go across major roadways, including pinned out roads like Mcnite and then all the others, it is very difficult when you're trying to go through these lights and they're letting five cars, four cars go at a time before that light changes and people are having to speed through there sometimes on the red, heaven forbid, there's a pedestrian to get through all of these different intersections. Um, and the thing is up in Wood Haven Oaks, it is a wonderful community. It is a community where we have food trucks and we have children that are roaming the streets. We have to have food trucks

unfortunately because we don't get the cafes that are promised to us with our neighborhood zone. Um, but if we have 50 cars in a parking lot and they're trying to avoid that intersection, you know, the quick way is to go up through our neighborhood and speed through there. And that's what a lot of people are doing already. And if you continue to have more people avoiding the congestion, that's sending them up again through our neighborhood. And then we have to worry about our kids getting hit. We have to worry about the neighbors who are just walking peacefully through our neighborhood getting hit. And that is kind of what your zoning is supposed to do. You know you're according to the zoning code you are to provide a pleasant, attractive, healthy, safe and convenient environments for living, working, shopping, education, recreation for us. We need to make sure that we have a safe environment for us and also reduce losses from flooding because that's flutter e. So thank you for your time.

Thank you. Yeah. Next, um Steve, so I live at 9856 West Moccasin, um which is up in that same neighborhood, um of a past president of the Wood Haven Oak Civic Association. So, I don't want to belver the point, but my neighbors kind of said the same thing. Like, I can tell you, we know when when St. Aiden or St. previously St. Alexis, we know when church gets out.

The traffic through our neighborhood is is robust. And like like they eloquently said, we do have a lot of young children uh that are in the neighborhood and I'm an avid dog walker and I can tell you that squishy is, you know, an understatement in that area. So um appreciate everything. You guys addressed everything and know the the concerns of the neighborhood. So um I thank you for your time. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Jess Smith. I live at 9880 New Hart. Uh we lived there for about 14 years. And I just like to thank my neighbors for coming out and speaking out against this. Uh we all know this is like the 800 lb gorilla on uh New Hart that we just been waiting to see what will go in there. Uh, and I don't think it takes much of a stretch, especially if you are familiar with the area that I don't see how this can be feasible that size that scope on that parcel of land. Uh, I was at the zoning uh, ordinance hearing and I was just shocked that that that area is even uh, zoned for business. I mean that area is rough uh even for a a small uh individual house to be there. Um none of these images really do it justice but uh as multiple people have discussed I mean that intersection is a Medusa's head and unfortunately I have nothing against the developers or the land owners but that's just going to create a mess. I think deep down we all know that. I don't know what options we have now. Uh because you know something will eventually end up on that parcel and it rightfully so. But I just think the size and scope of this project and the use uh is not really going to add much to mealless. It's going to subtract. Uh and unfortunately in my 15 years of living in this area, we're seeing the things that make meas so livable is just slowly getting overdeveloped. Uh, and it's a fine line because obviously, you know, you want to

increase your revenues and increase the tax base, but I just as a resident of this area, I just this is just not the right application for that site. Uh, and again, I want to thank you all and obviously I want to thank all my neighbors for coming out and speaking about this because it is important. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else? I'm Bill Birdwood. I live at 10213 Country Manor. So I don't have all the impact that these folks have, but there's been a great discussion here today. Quick presentation on the project itself. So a quick question. Is there drawings available to the public online or? Yeah, every every application that gets submitted to the planning commission um is a public application and can be viewed town hall. Um you can either set up a meeting or you can come in at any time. Our office hours are 8 to four o'clock. Okay. But they're not online. Uh not no they're not online. We have everything um digital, but that's you know something to definitely consider.

Yeah. I'd like to take a quick look at some of that stuff. Yeah.

But I'm not going to delay any of these points because it's all been great discussions and there's I mean there's two clear things that need to happen here that I I'm just going to state. One thing is the storm water and the concerns that around that that's clearly needs to be resolved and and and discussed. But more importantly the traffic I mean at the end of the day there are traffic engineers. There are people that can come into this place and say okay let's measure what we've got. Let's measure what we're going to perceive is going to be the traffic and is there a way to to get a solution? Because it's unfortunate that this project doesn't move forward because of these couple of things. Take a look at it. figure out a way to fix it or decide it can't be fixed because that intersection is a mess now. And at the very minimum, as a community, we should be addressing it anyways. I don't have to tell any of you guys that if you live here, you know how crazy it is. So, those are my two points. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. Uh Barbara Richards. I live at 305 Manor Court and um I would just like to agree with everyone that's been coming up. I I come down Rhinaman through there um every day. I really feel for the people that have to come down New Hart and go through there or go up New Hart up to their home um because it's it's always been a nightmare. Um you know what had almost had several accidents down there. There's people rushing through coming from Pine Creek and they're trying to make that turn onto New Hart and the light is so short and they want to get through because they know they're going to be waiting a long time and then it the traffic just stops for someone trying to turn up New Hart and people don't let them in and it is it is just a nightmare there. So, um I hope something can be done about that before anything is considered about this um this building, which I think one of the the strangest things that I don't know where you're going to find all these dentists to move into that place. I mean, I've never seen such a big dental office. It's got to be a surgical center or dental surgical center of somehow. Is that allowed or is it just dentist office? Um, it's just huge and I would be very surprised if a dentist ever moves into that building. I think it's going to be maybe someday end up being something else. Um, so I just wanted to back up what everybody said from coming down. Ryan, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Jackie Rizzo Ringheisen. We're at 187 Pine Creek Road, which everybody's been calling Rhinman. So, it really is Pine Creek right there. And um the Ringheisens were there 150 years ago and we we are still there on a little bit over an acre. So, that property was really the Ringisens. And we have pictures from the past and things like that. We have pictures of the old homestead that was the farmhouse for that apple farm was on that piece of property. So, you know, there's a lot of history we have documented. And I'd like to thank everybody, including you guys, coming up and and speaking up about the water retention and runoff traffic issues. Um, this just like a quick example of a traffic issue. Our driveway feeds onto Pine Creek right there. Right be, you know, right before New Horn. We get blocked in all the time.

My mailbox is down there. I got to walk all the way down there on the road. My butt's on the road, you know. And people like they try to hit me. We find rearview mirrors all the time. Trash. Rubbish. I mean, and people were walking. I don't I don't know. I can't believe they're walking on that road. Okay. And they're going down the intersection and they're crossing where there's not a crosswalk. And you know, I have pictures of that, too. We take pictures all the time in the whole area. So, I just want you to know that it needs looked at because if you're going to put 30 cars or 30, if I understood, I don't understand, 30 cars a minute a day, you know, people come in for an appointment at 8. Are there like 30 cars every hour? like how long is a dentist appointment? Are you cycling through these 30 people all day long? So, there was 30 cars or whatever it is going through that intersection. The one the one day we were we got down our driveway, got into the traffic, and we're sitting there trying to let somebody let this we always let the space open at New Hart all the time when we're there and some jerk passed us on the oncoming lane just to go around us. I think they did go up New Horn. I remember. Um, but I thought and like somebody said, they're coming across flying across Mcnite Road from the other side of Pine Creek to be that light. I mean, just think of how many lives that person put at risk right there doing that. And, you know, you're g someone's going to run late for their appointment. Somebody's going to be running late to go home to go somewhere else afterwards. So, it's just going to be, you know, the traffic alone, let alone the water runoff, the flooding. I have pictures of that same KDKA that I personally took. We got down, we ride around, we see all

the flooding. I take all the pictures and um I have pictures of um accident debris. They hear about the accidents going on down there. There's debris all the time. And um you know those little sticks like um on Old Perry there's a that intersection coming down from St. Aiden's Parish or St. Alexis you sit at the light there's there's always like something's bent over you know there's there's been accidents there'll probably hear about those so I have pictures of those. So, I'm just telling you that that looks really nice from a picture standpoint, but putting a big huge building there with 50ome parking lots or 54 spaces and 30 cars every hour going through there, that doesn't add any value to our neighborhood and it puts them at risk and it puts everybody else in the entire intersection at risk. So, I'm really h happy you guys are taking a really strong look at it and I'm happy that everybody here has voiced all the same concerns as I did. And one last thing, I have a minute left. That whole 910 intersection that's getting redone or the 79 910 intersection that that all that traffic that's going through there is going to 79. So I don't I don't even understand where all the rest of that if they enhance that intersection, Pine um Brans and Pine Creek and the whole intersection is going to get a lot busier. I mean, I don't nobody has ever even said anything like, "Oh, if they're going to enhance the intersection, that's just going to be more people going to come come through. So, uh, we got a bad situation. It's only going to be worse. And it's not enhancing the neighborhood. A two-story dental clinic. It's a hospital to me. It's not coded as a hospital. It's a neighborhood center.

So, um, that's all I have to say. Thank you. And thank you everybody. Thank you.

Others. Okay. I think that completes the public comment. Appreciate it. Uh, I think we've heard what you had to say. I think our concerns were similar and uh I just have a a question and I don't know what authority we have but you know if we don't control the lights we they might be our roads but we don't control those lights and people two or three mentioned you know people have to race through because the light is so short. Do we have any ability to talk to PennDOT or make a request or uh cooperate with them in some way so that they can redesign or relook at or re-engineer the the way those lights work to make things I I my daughter is a traffic engineer and and I know none of these things are easy. Uh but uh it sounds like everybody has that same concern and do we have any ability to request somebody from PENDOT take a look at this? Uh

um yeah so I will say um on the gateway side every year we are working with the challenger directly John and public works to continually improve infrastructure at intersections as well as where there are known issues improving those um together. So I think that's a definitely a discussion that can be had brought to the table to review um internally and with us as well on you know what's been done here what's the plan um you know what's public public works is thinking and see if we can have a discussion with Kendod and start planning for you know maybe what could be done here from a traffic standpoint in the future.

I I I think we're to do it now. I'm also not naive things like that take forever. So, I don't know whether that could even begin to give us any insights as to what might happen out there. But, uh, uh, you don't start. If you don't start, you don't get anywhere. And I think we probably need to at least potentially have that discussion somewhere.

Thanks, Kelly. And that that's an item uh you know typically whenever we have these planning commission meetings uh you know staff will I'll relay to our town management um you know kind of what occurred at the meeting um give an update and typically you know whenever you hear a number of residents come up with a concern that's something that would um you know in my opinion need to get elevated to the town manager. So that's something that you know I will do with my department. I think this one is a particularly tough one because while the um while the their traffic information doesn't spur a requirement for a traffic impact study, the the real fact of the matter are that that intersection when it was created, I don't think even when it was originally designed probably ever worked at an A level. And I recall when they were talking about doing where old Trader Horn was, there was some work done, it was I think it was I think it was like a D minus at that point, maybe even failing. So the problem is how do you let I mean we may not be able to stop it but how in good conscience can we allow you know an over a six thou almost 6,000 square oh I'm sorry 8600

square foot development in what we know I mean it's a it's a failing intersection and we're and we're also allowing it to have and I understand they have the right to a driveway onto New Hart Boulevard a residential street that join into a failing, you know, intersection. It It just sounds um somewhat unconscionable to add to what's already a failing intersection. So, I I at least think that um we should be able to um I hope that perhaps through council that we can um require more intensive traffic impact analysis.

Yeah. And I mean Ann and I'll just ask you I mean is that is just so legally um speaking I mean is the planning commission through the review can request additional documentation if they feel that it's necessary. So that could be something where you know the planning commission sees concern with this issue and they request that the applicant provide additional information. Correct? I thought we already did. Sorry we did. I just wanted to verify in a legal standpoint. Okay. I I would just add that we we asked Kelly to have her traffic engineers look at us and tell us what additional information might need to be done. Correct.

Yes. What we would require we would want to see the numbers first. So that's what we've had asked for tonight and then you know where that stands then at that point if there's additional information upon you know that's going to build on that are the the traffic engineer would basically just it would be traffic a full assessment at that point is what he would recommend and you can do that formally and writing when that time I point yeah I mean we need some documentation that we need absolutely

I would have a very hard time going forward with this project without the professional recommendation of of a traffic manager looking at the specifics and the extenduating circumstances of of the of the area. The 19 um uh you got six roads coming in there. Like I said, you already have a failing um failing, but I mean it's it's already a challenging intersection and to add more to it, I I would want to have the some again from a professional traffic person um their recommendations before I could approve it.

I think that probably sums it up. Um so, uh do we need a motion to table this? Is that the way you want or is it going to be automatically tested? Yes. A motion to accept the tableabling from the applicant. Okay. We have it moved. A second. Second. Seconded from Sean. Uh all in favor of tableabling. I opposed. None. So it has been tabled. So we have some type of comment.

I just had a question. What was the uh underlying rationale for the table? Uh so typically uh the applicant when it comes to tableabling the applicant is able to request a tableabling. So whenever the applicant received a number of comments that they weren't able to address prior to this meeting they requested a tableabling to say hey we don't have enough time to address comments for engineering. So we are tableabling which gives the town uh planning commission and town council an extension into the timeline that we have under the municipalities planning code to make an motion for approval or denial. So what they're basically saying is, hey, we need more time, so we're agreeing to or we're requesting that we table into the next meeting.

Thank you.

Yes, sir. Um, the other thing, even though it's cable and the way the gentleman brought that up at the beginning, if we could extend the impact area other than Lyman Road, Creek Road, New Hart, and Old Perry Highway to extend it into Route 19 because I really don't think that was taken into consideration with all of this discussion. So just just to clarify, this application is from an applicant for this specific property. In terms of the traffic in concerning the traffic, I think what you're asking is is regarding traffic that would be addressed through what would be um what Kelly mentioned is like a some type of traffic report. But in terms of like upgrading the intersection from the municipality, that's not from the applicant. That would be something that would be from the municipality,

right? if you guys would extend it into a little bit further areas that actually does impact this entire meeting this evening. He's asking that analysis include the other side include 19 just seems like it ended right at that light. You're include you're just taking on old Perry Highway Pine Creek and New York.

Yes. the traffic engineer will look at kind of a full movement of traffic and um kind of base it off of that and if there's areas outside kind of within the same vicinity that are I'll say outside of the jurisdiction of the applicant that's where I think there has to be some additional conversations outside of kind of this window where yeah additional improvements may may be necessary and that would be handled separately right I understand the jurisdiction in the area right there yeah in terms of the site Yeah. No, I understand that. I believe our traffic analysis is just those streets.

They don't care if there's railroad tracks and the train runs 24 hours a day and you can't get across. We're not talking about railroad tracks. We're just talking about that included. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. um that has been tabled and uh I think the next item uh we have a sign ordinance. I don't know if everybody wants to stay and listen to that presentation. You're welcome to do it, but we're going to have a discussion here about the new side potential sign ordinance. Uh that's the next item on the agenda and that's up to you. Yes.

Thank you for coming. That's something you would have you'd have to realign. that you'd have to take out. Can I just ask if you if you're having a conversation if you could please just leave the room if you could take it into the vestibule. That'd be great. Thank you very much. No, you're fine. Thank you.

That's your option. Yep. I can't block it off and then

uh Okay. Thank you. Uh we're going to just continue with our meeting here. Um we're going to start with a you know we have a sign review uh discussion ordinance um just to go over that we're going to be giving a presentation. I'll be giving the presentation. This is for January 26 meeting. Um we have a lot of text on this slide. I'm going to explain it and then I'm going to turn it over to Anna to give a little bit of context. On December 15th, Town Council adopted or authorized the following items. Um there's a there's a few things here. Uh the first is authorization of um review of the sign ordinance. The town charter requires that the town council um gives authorization for us to review. So that's just a check in a box to say hey there's you know for the ordinance revision for on premise signs off-remise signs temporary signs and digital display message duration. We're going to look at that review. So that's what authorized us to do this review and the prove us to do that. the the next items. There's a few items um and closing the door. Um and the next items which Anna will kind of describe um the purpose of these items uh there's a a settlement agreement and then two um adopted proposed ordinances in terms of of lease agreements for offremise uh digital display signs which I will turn over to Anna just to give a little bit of context of to to why and how those exist.

Matt, I'm sorry. Could you just did you say that the town council authorized off- premise temporary? Did they specifically um Yeah, the motion I can read the motion for you. Motion to approve a resolution of the town council of the town of the county al county, Pennsylvania resolving that at a future meeting of the town council. The town council will hold a public hearing and thereafter consider an amendment to the town zoning ordinance to amend article 1305 signs as amended of the talent ordinances to revise the regulations for on-remise signs, off-remise signs, temporary signs, and digital display sign message duration. Okay. Thank you.

Yep. And I'm going to explain the background and the procedure we're going to follow. Um, so it just makes a little bit more sense with the context. So, back in 2024, a developer applied for some offre premise signage um polemounted in some less than desirable locations in the town. Um these would be illuminated signs um that change message and essentially those are permitted under the ordinance currently um by special exception. um those applications for special special exception were denied um by the town and then um subsequently appealed to common police court. Um it the town chose to rather than continue the litigation work towards a settlement agreement with that developer. Um and in doing so they were able to agree to signage that was not polemounted and instead was monument signage um in in more desirable locations. Um, and as part of all of that settlement, um, understanding that the language in the ordinance, um, may happen to be ambiguous currently and any ambiguities in the ordinance are interpreted in the favor of a property owner or developer um, as you know. And so the benefit here um, with the town authorizing to move forward with those um, agreements with that settlement agreement, it includes um, two lease agreements. So these signs are going to be on town property. some locations that are more desirable. Um, and another portion of why we're here is the zoning ordinance amendment. Um, specifically to do with this settlement agreement is the off um, premise signage. The other proposed amendments um, are proposed by Matt and he'll go through those and explain them. Um but the reasoning for that change which specifically will only permit um off-remise digital signing um on parcels directly above Mcnite Road um and they will not be able to be within

400 ft of residential districts um or face residential properties. Um so we see this to be a change that would protect our residents um within the town. And the procedure here is a little bit unique. There's um a mechanism under the municipalized planning code called the pending ordinance doctrine. Um it's rarely used um and it's a little bit procedural intensive, but it requires a resolution to be approved uh by town council, which was at the December 15th meeting, and then advertisement of their intent to have this ordinance be part of this pending ordinance doctrine. Essentially, the way the pending ordinance doctrine works is it's to um protect the town in situations where you might realize that there is a loophole that you missed or something is having an impact that you weren't hoping it to allow you to fix that defect and not have others capitalize on it in the interim before you can go through the lengthy process that is a zoning ordinance amendment. Um, which is lengthy for the exact reason to allow for public comment and whatnot, which is very important. Um but essentially how that will work is since this has already been advertised as part of the pending ordinance doctrine um when it is if it is subsequently approved um there's a hearing scheduled for February 9th and um the date for consideration of enactment is February 23rd um if it is approved at that February 23rd meeting it would be effective as of the date that it was first advertised which I believe is December 18th. So it allows for in this interim no one to capitalize off of this loophole we feel is in the ordinance or this ambiguity that exists so that we won't have any illuminated signage put up.

It's almost like a moratorum. Correct. Yeah. It it operates as one. Yeah.

So that's the background and why we're discussing off- premise signage. Um, and that's the background behind the settlement agreement, which has been discussed at town council meetings. And so I apologize if this is repetitive for anybody. Um, and that's kind of the background on the pending ordinance doctrine. Um, otherwise everything will go through the same mechanisms. It's here for your review and your consideration, your recommendation, your feedback. It will also go to the county for their review. Um, so otherwise it will follow that standard procedure. Um, if anyone has any questions about the background or how the pending ordinance doctrine works, I'm happy to answer those. Otherwise, Matt can kind of go through the other changes which aren't necessarily connected with the settlement agreement, but since we're addressing the signage, it made sense to address them.

And through this presentation, I I'm I'm going to, you know, there's there's a number of things that I'm going to discuss. I I would say a after this, you know, presentation, I'm going to open it up for conversation between everybody. This is a discussion piece. I do not foresee us um acting on this item tonight as uh you know I feel like whenever we're looking at something as important as signs that it would require us to you know take a take a good review of it make sure that the change that we're making um is something that we want and uh meets you know what the town's comprehensive plan. So, just to just to get into the the overall changes, um, if there's any clarification questions that you have during, please feel free to interrupt me. There's a lot of information here. Uh, this is the overview of what I'm going to be speaking of tonight. Um, I have three topics essentially breaking our signed ordinance into three items. Uh, there's the general updates that, uh, I kind of consider like cleanup updates from the 2023 code. Uh these are updates that uh you know there's a number of cleanup items that are going to be uh you know seen uh whenever we do the zoning ordinance update. Uh those are items that staff is uh reviewing and working towards having something drafted to the municipality or sorry to the planning commission uh the future meeting date. However, with the context that Anna provided uh staff found it apparent to address the the issue with the sign ordinance prior. So that's why you're going to see a couple of the cleanup items that are separate from that settlement agreement. And then we'll be talking about off- premise sign regulations in the um MC corridor district kind of touching on what Anna had spoken of. And then on premise sign regulations in the neighborhood center MN district. Um so general cleanup additions. Uh these are a few things that I have identified within the the sign code that I feel um will enhance it

um and improve it. Um these are all proposed um additions. So for temporary signage, this is an addition to our current regulation of temporary signs um which we do not there is no regulation currently for a maximum residential temporary sign um size. Uh so I did a little bit of um digging into some different municipalities and uh speaking with some staff and we feel that you know it's it's reasonable to have some type of um regulation for a temporary sign. Um you know these are signs that don't need permits. Um, so right now without having any temporary sign maximum in the residential districts, someone could theoretically go and put up a 100 foot sign and there's nothing that we could say about it as long as it's considered temporary. So this would just be um, you know, something that the areas we're looking at just having something that isn't limiting residents and their in their right to have signs and signs on their property. Um, but also making sure that we have a regulation for residents or property. So, uh, we don't have anything that's, you know, egregious or along the lines of that would be, you know, o over overly, uh, o overly shown in the municipality. Um,

while you're on this, can I ask a question? Yeah, you can ask a question. Um, we still, it not is not proposed to change is are allowing one temporary sign for road frontage of a property during election season. That is not the case. So,

so there's there's um when it comes to signage and regulations, there's regulations and then there's kind of how we handle regulations. So, when it comes to political signs and enforcement, I mean, that's your first amendment right. Um, and you know, what I've learned from working in local government is you don't touch political signs. Uh, so that's one of those items where the spirit of this ordinance doesn't really, in my opinion, constitute temporary political signs. Um, Na, you look like you were political signs have been treated differently by the courts and so we typically do, as Matt was saying, treat them separate from our ordinance requirements. Um, that being said, when it's off election season times, we typically do go review remove all those in the right of ways. Um, but there's specific dates during um, election season.

Should we then not modify the definition of temporary signs to exclude political? I I think that's something that's reasonable to to think. That's something I didn't think about and something that maybe we should it would be reasonable. We do have to maintain content neutrality, but I I think that that could be reasonable in this instance where with it being political, I mean we we do treat them separate. Yeah. Um yeah. So I'll make a note to to review that and then um we can address that next.

My only comment is I I understand we have to allow political signs and they are they have this special status, but I personally am all in favor of size restrictions even on them. I feel strongly about that and I'd be willing to put some sort of a size restriction on somebody else's ability to tell me what their political views are.

So, so what we can do and and what what I I can do with our attorneys is make sure that we, you know, whenever we go and review this for an update that we we take a look at the, you know, the legal Yeah. uh the legal side of things and then we can bring something to the table that would that um because you know in my opinion um and this is just my professional opinion working in multiple municipalities um when you get into dealing with political signs every side every single person will have a different opinion on that on that scenario. So it's definitely something we want to make sure that we're reviewing for consistency with the courts and with uh you know neighboring municipalities and so forth. Um, did anyone else have anything else in terms of that or do we proceed?

For construction. Um, I'm sorry. Is it for con like construction sign? That's the that's the next items. Um, this is this is for all temporary signage in the town in the residential districts. Uh, so in and let me and to be honest with you, my presentation doesn't show this very much, so let me just read the code so you know exactly. Um, in non-residential zoning districts in the civic district, the maximum sign area for a temporary sign is 32 square feet. There's no regulation for residential zoning districts for temporary sign area. So that's why the the proposal is to have a 20 foot maximum sign area for residential temporary signage.

I just the typical sign is going to be a 4x4 or a 2x3. Correct. So, so this would allow for you know four by uh five. So, right, which is bigger than just if you want to get it appropriate size with your typical construction which would be what's it 16? Yeah. I mean,

and that's going to limit right because somebody will get a little bit more a little bit more your typical construction sign your max for residential 16. So that's that's another thing that we can, you know, consider that size requirement and look and see because like I said, you know, that that 20 feet is a number that was probably, you know, I think I chose that from looking at a couple neighboring missed alleys, but that's something that we feel is is um you know that like that this that would be more restrictive on residents is what that that would do. So any whenever you're taking that maximum signing area down is you're restricting people's right to have signs. So, not just political signs, any any type of sign. And you want to have a sign that says, "Hey, what's up?" You have a sign that says, "Hey, what's up?" on in your property. It could be 20 20 ft. And that's what that's what we're saying here. So,

I'm I'm not not trying to argue it here, right? My basis is this is a typical construction for a small construction sign is going to be that 4x4 4x4, 2x3. That's the basis to make probably 2 by two. Yeah. Right. Because they just put the little Right. Uh Yeah. So I I can go back and take a look at um you know for consistency sake see what some of the other um you know regulations are for neighboring municipalities and that can bring that back and we can discuss that. I think that's that's great. It should say square feet. Yes, it should. It probably just it does say it in actuality.

The other thing is um say you drive around see those uh people happy 40th birthday temporary signs on somebody's front yard. Those are probably if you add up the square footage of each one of the letters probably more than Yeah. Yeah, I mean you can

intended to I mean I I don't think the town's going to nickel and dime people for that, but if someone's got an axe to grind, how do you differentiate that from somebody puts up the uh for sale by me or 32 new homes coming soon type of sign. Um yeah, I mean that that's something that um thinking about if I had like 10 letters that were different signposts, like you could argue that that's 10 signs. So I mean you could say that you're not allowed to have that as a municipal like does this code want to go say, hey, you can't have happy birthday, happy 40th birthday for one day. I don't know if this that's the purpose of this. Um, but I I I don't know if I I'm curious to see if that specifically like that new idea of um large signage has been adjusted in other neighboring municipalities, but also that's great comment. So, thank you for that. Um, moving forward, just to keep on going, we have temporary real estate construction signs. Um, this is just

bringing Douglas. Doug, right? So what's the definition of temporary? One minute, one year. So what's doing? I can maybe it's okay. Um

that's I mean that's I mean you're not wrong there. So a temporary sign. Um, it has a sign constructed with cloth, canvas, vinyl, paper, plywood, fabric, plastic, or other lightweight material that is not permanently installed in the ground and not permanently affixed to a building or structure that is permanently installed in the ground. Uh, the term temporary sign includes a frame signs, lawn signs, banners, inflatable signs, and window signs. Uh, the temporary signs does not include flags and signs that are intended to regularly move such as vehicle signs. So, that's the definition of temporary signs. temporary is not there.

So we don't have another because that's getting at how long it's temporary if it's there for a day.

Oh, I'm sorry. There is a uh 90 days 90 days and and our code enforcement officer um he does like if there are signs that are out there for 90 days. You know, he tries to keep track as best he can of some of these signs. I mean, you know, with the number of signs that are in the municipality, um, it's not that he necessarily is able to to catch everyone, but it's something that we we're trying every day to, you know, make sure that these temporary signs are following those, you know, our current regulation. But the in the sign code currently, there's a number of regulations for exempted pine exempted signs from permitting requirements. Um, and temporary sign is on there. These are just additions to what that is.

Okay. Um so there there is more information than what you're seeing here. This I'm just showing you what is changing

in the code. Um and whenever we come to this meeting in a future date the what you will have in front of you will be a ordinance review ordinance that we will look at that will be what the it'll show the entirety of the sign codes. Um but typically when these ordinances are written in this ordinance that was written uh that was for it doesn't even include the entirety of the code because it only shows what the changes are. So once we have the official change, you you'll be provided with that at the meeting. Um in terms of temporary signs for real estate construction, um this is just formalizing uh temporary real estate signs because it wasn't listed in the the definition for temporary. Um and we had the Rachel Rachel Carson Eco Village that had a sign that was where they had placed a sign. It kind of led to us saying, "Hey, maybe this is something that we should look at." Um, and this this uh text is um consistent with neighboring municipalities as well. Uh, moving forward, there's just an adjustment from PCC to UCCC. Um, there's uh, you know, the building code uses the uniform construction code. Our zoning code has Pennsylvania construction code and it has caused confusion for a lot of um, developers and applicants. They're like, what is the PCC? So, this is just a verbiage change. Um, now into the off digital off- premise digital display regulations. I realize I typed that at the top there. Um, but these are the few of the the items that Anna had mentioned. Uh, so these are and I have a few slides, so there's more than just what you're looking at here, but these are the items that are related to offremise digital display regulations. So these are signs that um are not signs that are for your your property. Uh so you know if you these are bill bill billboards and signs that are kind of like billboards uh that are might just be for one person on the property. Um but essentially uh as Anna had mentioned there's a line in the code

that says any ambiguity in the sign code should be resolved in favor of allowing digital display or allowing the display of a proposed sign. Um I will whenever I'll pull up my digital display resolution here. So, this is um this is our current off- premise digital display sign code that I've posted into this presentation with um with the proposed edits to the sign code. Now, the underlined um and crossed out sections is is how it's written whenever you look at an ordinance update. Uh so, what what you're seeing here is an adjustment to number six, which is sign separation. Um that's just changing it to sign spacing. the the definition in the code is sign spacing. I think that was just a over overlook from whenever they did the code in 2023. So that's just um

just a a verbiage change. How does that thousand ft work as the probe flies or um so that's from that's actually defined it's funny that sign separation is defined in the code. Uh so and that what that is is it's basically just the distance between one sign next as proise. I we also points I'm just saying like yeah there was a sign on Mcnite and then you go on Pine Creek it's not 1,000 ft on Pine Creek but it's 1,000 ft from McNight. So like you're measuring on the roadway or you

Yeah, it would it would be it would be on the roadway um is how I would interpret it. Let me just I'll double check our sign spacing um sign just the definition so we can clarify that while we're here. distance between signs or sign structures measured there's a straight line distance between the closest edges crow flies of each sign flies

um and just and just to clarify um and I go back as was on the line before so in in the zoning code uh whenever you see this excerpt of our 135100 uh these are the regulations for these offer signs it does start with a a line uh that says in res in non-residential zoning districts which is the second line on this which says proposal add code line section 1305150B. This is a a regulation update where there rather than just saying in a non-residential zoning district, this is what's limiting these um these the off-remise digital display signs to only being a budding Mcnite Road. So, it's like overlay district.

It's essentially saying what what this is doing, what we what this is achieving is saying that digital display billboards are only permitted on McNight Road. They meet all this the current standards of the zoning that that we have currently. We address digital display signs in the off-remise digital display because as you can see here, digital display is not mentioned at all in our off- premise signs code. But if you go into the the actual digital display section of our code, it mentions that in 150 or in in this section 100 that you can that it references digital display and it follows these regulations. So what my fear was is that the ambiguity that we had mentioned of that someone was going to say, "Hey, your sign says that ambiguity rolls in my favor." And they take us to court and then they'd be able to put up a billboard. So that's that's why town council has gone through this entire process to make sure that we're limiting these digital displays, these we're talking, you know, billboards to only Mcnite Road

only if you're not located within 400 feet of a residential zoning district. And that's area 400 feet. Um, and what this will do is this is going to protect the municipality from becoming a thoroughfare with a sign on every property that's that is saying, "Hey, this is my business. This is my business." Now to go to go back I thought it said there could be a sign on every property. Um there's there there can be that's for uh temporary signs that this is off premise digital display. This is totally different. So there's temporary signs, those are those are signs that do not need permits and there's on premise and off- premise signs. Those are all per uh signs that need to get permits um and follow these these regulations.

And it's also setting the spacing at 1,000 ft between the signs.

Yes. So, and and I and I can explain that as I go through. I I'll let me just go back through just so we can go over the the other portion of this because the other portion is the message duration. Um the message duration is currently in the miscal is 20 seconds. The um you know through the settlement agreement they have negotiated 8 seconds which is 1 second higher than um what PENDOT's regulation minimum is for digital display. Um, in my professional opinion, um, and I've tested this in different municipalities, and I urge everyone if you're interested to do the same. Drive down a road like McNight Road that you can go that the speed limit and count the seconds and see the number of seconds that that you can see a sign. If you have 20 seconds and you're going, you know, 45, 55 miles an hour, you're seeing one, maybe two items. 8 seconds, you're still only going to see one or two items. Um and it and it's over what PennDOT's uh requirement is. So we're trying to find a middle ground for you know protecting the municipality in where these signs can go while also meeting the requirement of we aren't allowed to say hey you're not allowed to have off- premise digital display signs. There has legally there has to be a location where these can fall within our zoning.

So are we going to change the regulations for on premise digital display that? So that was that's my next that's separate that's the next thing. So offremise the the edits the offremise uh digital display signs is purely related to

the settlement agreement. Everything else is something that I've looked at through our zoning and is is discussion pieces. These are items that you know town council has looked at um and has authorized for it to move forward on. um what we're do I mean we you know as the plane commission you still have the you know we're still reviewing this so this is something you know that people have issues with it's something to bring up um but I just wanted to to to kind of justify that 8 seconds because when you look oh we're going from 26 to 8 seconds you might think that that's a pretty big over a 50% decrease but if you're in the context of what it actually what we're actually looking at it's really not that big of a change and the the the sign code already has um uh mechanisms in place for digital displays in terms of the types of digital displays. Like you can't have something that fades in like all all of the items that have already been reviewed for digital displays in terms of the requirements of like what can be shown, how it can be shown, how it can be changed. So that's what that's what these adjustments are. Um and then the the last the last adjustment uh recommendation that I that was something that I had put into the code was removal of section 1305130E which is a line that says the addition of a digital display non-conforming sign is prohibited. In my opinion this that text is is a redundant section. It doesn't need to be in the code because it's saying something that's already said in the code. like we have the the code has a justification and regulations for for nonconformities. Um so basically this is just saying digital displays to a non-conforming is prohibited because the the code already says that if you have a non-conforming site that you're changing you have to bring it to code standard. So it's just a redundant text and in my opinion it just causes more confusion. Um so that's why I had it included into this um into this

recommendation. Um if we we I would say if there's any questions on off- premise digital display signs we could maybe speak about those now discussion then we could talk about on-remise after that. So if there's any additional comments I' I'd open that up right now. My question is generally I know is discussed later probably applies to both. Sure. The the illumination Yeah. that the digital sign puts off. What is a good way because I'm not familiar with how that mode of measuring brightness Yeah. actually comes across. So, and let me just what can you compare it to?

So, they there are um I mean there's like

let me just I I'll phrase this in terms of what a regulation is and then I'll let you go from there. So essentially when it comes to you know digital displays the the requirement that our had that our um code has is knit in nits. So it's it's between sunrise and sunset a maximum of 2500 nits is permitted. Maximum of 200 two two nits is permitted between sunset sunrise. Um so and and then there's you know there's a there's a couple different um you know sections of where they talk about you know transition um message display may they you know brightness talks about it says that digital displays containing animation streaming video text images which flash pulsate move or scroll are prohibited. Um, but in terms of like if you're talking about if like uh code enforcement compliance or are you talking

just visual to get a sense of what it is. So I'm thinking I'm coming north. This is Ross, but coming north by uh wherever the Aldi Plaza is and then Ross Parks up on the right there's a an LED sign there. I think every single one is how long the emergency wait time is at the uh AHN Mandis Hospital. What is that? you talk about in terms of like the nits or the visual projection. I

I don't know the answer, but I I can look into that and get that info to you because that's definitely something that um you know, if we're going to look review digital displays, it's something that we want to consider. Um I was not part of this uh you know, the zone the zoning update 2023. It wasn't with the municipality. I'm going to assume that they looked into these items. Um but you know, that's that's not necessarily true. So what I can do is I can look and see um into some other uh neighboring municipalities and just generally speaking how people handle illumination and uh you know nits and and how they would relay that and what that regulation actually means right because I read 2,500 nits and I'll be honest I don't I don't know what that means. I'm not a late engineer or a electrician. So

So my my point of comparison too is again if we're in Ross And we're at that jug handle by block at Northway and you're getting going north to go left up up to like BJ's. There's that massive sign there. That's right. And that's at some point is like the brightest thing in the world when it's right there. It might be the elevation. The one that's on the wall, right? Yeah. That like frequently has half the bulbs burned out. Oh, it doesn't matter. What is that brightness? just as as trying to compare. I I don't know. I I'll look into it, see if we can find find the answer. Um

I looked it up and it says a typical um phone screen ranges from 300 to a,000 nicks. Your phone is small. Yeah. Yeah. But I mean, if we're looking at 250, is that what you said? That's what the current reg the current minimum regulation for night is 250. It says 250 to 400 is sufficient for standard. Indoor viewing. Outdoor is 800 to,500. So maybe that's 800 to,500. Professional outdoor signs 5,000 to 10,000.

And I, you know, I'm just going to bring this up to because this is another thing that maybe in a context I I should have started with. Um, this is our zoning map currently. So I just want to show people where these signs could be with where these are. So in the MC district only, which is the brown and along Mcnite Road. So we have there's two sections of MC in the municipality, which is down here by Vincent and up here by the um you know along Mcnite when you're getting closer to like town hall

on the corner of Paramount. So I mean the number of signs that can actually be established with this regulation is minimal. So there's so you know the and and with the the two um signs that have been negotiated with the municipality um the both you know both of those items are we're trying to make sure that we're trying to protect ourselves from all of these signs. So in terms of like the the number of signs there's only room for a few. So, so just just in in context, I just wanted us to to keep in mind that the reg these regulations the way that they are written here will only constitute for allowing a few of these signs in the municipality. Ju just just so we know that we're not talking about like a hundred signs down.

Can I just ask though, will we be challenged that it it's a reasonable challenge? How are we going to justify that we're only allowing the MC on the night? So, um, and Anna, I don't know if you have any context for this, but from what was relayed to me and from what was relayed from our town manager and Steve Gorbal, uh, town attorney, um, they have reviewed that for compliance with other, um, you know, municipalities and for I mean, but have we written a rationale as to why 19 is different than truck route 19? McNight is different from Perry Highway. I I'm just asking that maybe I don't think necessarily might

it might be a good idea because if I'm a developer I'm gonna come in and I'm going to challenge you. you got an MC over there and it's a state road and um so from our perspective this complies with plan um and that obviously is a factor and then when we look at exclusionary zoning it's it's pretty difficult to argue um that an ordinance is exclusionary have to outright exclude or um say that it's not feasible to put women um and we feel that this allows enough space without allowing them to do that.

That's actually a really valid reason on why it wouldn't be allowed on Perry Highway because 400 ft from a residential you're probably not going to get. Right. Right. And and and that was thought like that was thought of whenever they were negotiating like that was something that they reviewed and they look at different

No that's fine. This is this is a discussion piece. This is what this is the purpose of this uh this board. Um, so just to continue moving forward just just so we can uh because this will be brought up, you know, the next meeting on premise signs. Uh, so this is this is um I'm going to tie this into what will be the future zoning update that will come from this planning commission in our town council. Um, so this is me. I I there's a few key on premise sign issues that I've identified um in the municipality that I wanted to bring up to the planning commission, the public to get comment um before I go and put together something that is more formal. Um as as you know, I wasn't here for the 2023 zoning. Um, as I have spent, you know, the last seven months with the municipality, I found that, uh, you know, there's there's been a number of people that particularly in the neighborhood center district, which is our MN district. Um, you know, there there's just a there's a couple questions in terms of that district. So, what we're going to be doing is looking at that district again uh to in comprehensively to make sure that those regulations um are, you know, kind of what was intended and what was wanted. Um so, whenever it comes to these on premise signs, uh the this is an image along Westingmore Road. Uh this is was taken a couple weeks ago. every single sign that we that is in this picture is is non-conforming uh that's on premise is non-conforming in this district.

Um now it may it may have been the intent and so that so why I wanted to bring this up is because there's you know there's

when it comes to to to ordinances there's you could do things however you want to do them in my opinion um and from what I've seen in terms of onremise signs um My slide just deleted. Apologize. So, when it comes to on premise signs, the uh we have three different freestanding items for for how we break up freestanding signs. I'm going to pull that up right now, but that what that is and just to explain it so people are aware is we have free we have a freestanding monument sign, freestanding pylon signs, and freestanding pole signs. Uh what those signs are monument sign is you're affixed to the ground. No clearance between that sign basically your your ground level stone. You could think like a stone monument sign. That's that's one type of sign. Uh that's a freestanding. There's pole signs which are you have one pole that goes up and you have a sign um on top of the pole. And then there's pylon signs which is you know you have two poles and they s they sit on top of of that. Um so now what what the municipality is facing um is the decision that we need to discuss in my opinion and talk about is the regulations for these freestanding signs in the MN district. Um and so just to go over what these current regulations are. Um so the the number of signs that you can have in the MN district are two signs are permitted per lots uh fronting one street. Three signs are permuted on lots with two or more streets and up to one sign may be a freestanding pearl lot. If you go down through the MN district, there is the U monument signs which is permitted. There's one one permitted with a maximum sign area of 32 square feet, maximum sign height of 8 feet. Um and then you know the regulations with

that pole signs and pylon signs are not permitted in the district. Um, every sign that was shown and runs along West Ingamar is a pole sign or a pylon sign. Now, whether or not that was the intent of the ordinance, I wasn't here for that. Um, and that that's that was in the past and now we're at where we're at now. We've had a number of variances that have been um uh approved and and gone through the zoning hearing board related to signs and a number of individual property owners who have contacted me regarding these regulations um you know with you know essentially w with concerns um with these regulations and why I wanted to bring this specific topic up as a more of a discussion rather than me bringing some type of of edited um ordinances because I I I don't know if um in my opinion I think that it's it would be it would be easier for the municipality to have a freestanding sign one requirement for freestanding signs um that would because that's pretty I would say that's pretty traditional zoning mind frame where this is more of a you know took looking at the form um but what what the issue is is these signs are meant this this district is meant for neighborhood small, you know, smaller business neighborhood center. That's what this district is.

And we've now limited uh smaller businesses from, you know, having these signs that are, you know, showing their business is is really what their opinion is. I think the intent was that that particular district, you're not driving fast. You're going 30 miles an hour or 25 miles an hour. It is a small supposed to be a small um development and therefore having signage that isn't you know a big pylon or whatever was more to fit the character of that neighborhood district. that was the discussion now and so and that and I think that I do

and I do think that and from what I've read I do think that one of in the 2023 zoning one of the changes that was was made um to these uh to these signs was you know was to to West Ingamar and but the the issue is is West Ingamar isn't the only location for MN district signs. I mean we're and I'll just show you I'll pull up right district um it's all of McNight and and too. It's we're talking what what the MN district is, just so we all are aware of what we're actually talking about, where it's located within the municipality. Um you have West Inglamar, which um is over here, which is a small section here.

We have the section of MN that's located with kind of in the central area of municipality near our uh TC and what we discussed tonight. um our MN district down along Perry Highway um and then over along um Duncan Manor and down that stretch um and then uh half of Macandas crossing as well. Um so that's what these regulations are for for these um items. Now, I gave a presentation at the at the uh at the previous town council meeting giving an overview of uh the the future zoning change um which will will come in front of everyone at some point. One of my concerns and one of one of the issues that I saw from the the zoning change in 2023 is that and I and I can't remember off the top of my head it I think it was 17 districts that we had previously that we went to now 11 or nine districts. So we went from having more commercial districts to now having only essentially three commercial districts and two institutional or for like uh CD or civic district. So now we have we have less variety of regulation for different types of uses within the district. Um because in my opinion it's hard to regulate McCandless Crossing and Duncan Avenue and Duncan Manor and also West Anglear the strip of West Angle that is is meant for more of a traditional neighborhood center. Now is this plan meant for um the future also? Yes, it is. But what we need to realize is that you know these signs that I showed in that picture are they're not going to go anywhere. I mean, the Coons the Coons property sign that you saw was just approved at the last zoning hearing board meeting to be approved. They have a variance to update their sign to a digital display sign. They've received a variance for that. Um, so the the issue I have is that we

have this sign ordinance and we we have these regulations, but if we're, you know, if our zoning hearing board sees these regulations and doesn't necessarily um agree with that, we either have to challenge their decision or we have to update our regulations to to meet what the regulations are. What was their basis for allowing that? Their basis for allowing that was that every they're they're on the corner of that intersection and every other property has a digital display. Um the uh the J&M automotive, the Marathon Automotive, the Bylon, the they're all pylon or they're all non-conforming digital displays. All of them are non-conforming signs that are they were they officially approved?

They were approved prior to the zoning. So they were changed. So now they're non-conforming. Yeah. But their justification is that wasn't impacting the What's the point of having the ranks if they're just going to say so but but what and what I want to say there is that that that brings up something to me in my opinion where this is something that we need to do as a group

because you have so many people that come in with variances whether the result is that we say that it should stay as it is and not change it that might be what the result is but it's something that needed to be brought up in the sign ordinance needed to be discussed um and you know I kind of wanted to open that to the public and to the planning commission so that we can talk about, you know, what we think in terms of what I just spoke about so I can kind of gauge people's interest and then staff can put together an ordinance that we can then come together at a new meeting, review again, comment on and then make a motion to approve or go back and review it again. Um now there is a you know there is a constraint for the off- premise signs in terms of you know if that gets approved with with our current doctrine. Um so there is you know

that'll have to move that that's something that will have to move. So what I'm looking at is I I I would like to us to to make an adjustment to our signed ordinance that that we feel meets with our current zoning ordinances. And then if we go to the zoning ordinance review and in that review we look at say the the uses and the zoning districts and we look at more comprehensively what I said in terms of all these different neighborhood center districts and we kind of we review it in terms of uh possibly changing regulations at a at a further date because that's what's going to happen. So, I wanted to get some feedback before staff went and put together something that was going to, you know, be brought up.

You are permitted. Yes. Does the ordinance currently contain any language regarding a sign that's on property that's changed or is no longer being used and it has regulations that it has to be removed um within a certain time frame. Yeah. Let me So, it's funny that you mentioned that too because at today I was reading through these sign ordinances and I was looking at some of the neighboring municipalities and I I saw that section in a few uh in a few um

different ordinances and I was like I was like I need to check that but I I wasn't able to review before the meeting. Um definitely definitely something that we should think of because there are a number of of signs in this municipality that I've you go up Ignite Road and there's a Big Empire sign that I see there. Um in terms of in terms of looking at that uh regulation, I definitely think that's something that we should consider as it's you know it causes an eyesore if a business leaves and they just leave their sign up. So, we need to have some type of backing for for enforcement because what the issue is is if it's not if if it's not listed in our code, then we can't enforce as municipal staff. Um, but we'll I'll pull it up and just check and see.

Something that we should look at though. It's just I wish I had the entirety of the sign code memorized. I just don't. I thought the intent was to include that. So, if it isn't here and with a certain time frame after the the business went out of business to be removing the sign. Um, yeah, I I I if I recall, and I believe it was either Cranberry or Hampton, don't quote me on that. um they had some type of of of text that I think limited it to 30 days after a business closes or a sign an on-remise sign say would not be uh in use that would then have to be removed.

Removed means remove the structure. Removed means remove the text not the structure. So it could be just a white blank uh surface. Yeah. There's there's nothing that there's there's no legal bounds for us to say that you have to get rid of your structure. In the same way that if somebody has a vacant building that isn't like a a nuisance, I can't say you have to demo that in 30 days. It's the same concept. Yes. if it's going to fall down

unsolicited. My view is that at a certain point in the town, aesthetics have to start mattering. Y and I get why the zoning board decided what the zoning board apparently decided, but like I think that monument signs and fewer of them are generally uh more attractive and to the point raised earlier, if you have a neighborhood district where people are supposed to be going slower and people are probably familiar with what's there anyway

because they live there. um having a gigantic pylon or pole sign on every single corner uh telling you the competing one cent difference in gas prices is just it's not visually appealing for the type of areas that we're trying to foster in that district. And it's it's actually been proven that more science is not necessarily better for the businesses that if we actually regulated it so that everybody got to the point where they were complying with the code um it it would be better for the businesses. Um,

and that and that's the thing too is and what kind of why I wanted to bring this as a discussion piece is because you know we could change these regulations um or we could not change these regulations and that the signs that are still there are still there. So it doesn't change what's already there. It's just looking in the future if we want to review that that regulation and that's why I wanted it to be a discussion. If you're getting that many variance requests and they're approving them then I think we need to evaluate it. Um, I would agree with evaluating it, not necessarily changing it, but putting more weight behind it so that the zoning board doesn't ignore the intent

because then you just have a self-fulfilling prophecy. Well, they're all here anyway. They're all non-conforming anyway, so you might as well keep going. Whereas if we say no, we really mean like we want fewer of these things. I would lean in that direction versus might as well throw up some more assignments. Why not? I appreciate that. Thank you. I agree. Can I ask a question about the off premise? We have signed the lease or is it the lease proposed for those two signs that are being permitted? one at Reichold and the other one uh at Perrymont I think is where they're going to be.

Yeah, they it was an ordinance that was the resolution was passed that authorized the execution of those and have we executed the leases? I believe so. I can't say for certain if they've been actually signed, but it's part of a settlement agreement. Well, I know it's a settlement agreement, but I was struck by the what I thought was a abysmally low price of $5,000 for those signs. Oh, for the lease annual lease for those signs. So partially and I don't want to get too restrictions but partially that has to fact that um the town will get free advert advertising on those signs. So for town meetings and whatnot. Well, what I what I would like to understand and I don't

what is the revenue that those signs generate annually and I bet it's a bundle of money and I think a lease if I were running this business I would take a percentage of the total revenue that that sign generates. I granted them the right to have that sign, putting it on my property, the township town, and for $5,000, I bet they make that up in revenue in three weeks.

Yeah. I I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying. I think um it's important to take all of the context into consideration and the fact that they the proposed areas were undesirable locations that would have impacted residents and having them move them um was part of that negotiation to different locations. Um the town's um received benefits from the negotiation of getting to include town information and I think it's going to include like it's like build stone. include like the town of the campus name on it. I saw a picture of it and and it's a it's a nice looking structure, but so I think it was a little bit of a unique discussion rather than if someone just approached the town. But I think that's

Yeah, I I I think those signs are worth way more than $5,000. Do those signs count

on the th00and foot or are they exempted from the foot? So those those signs are like those signs need we those signs can't exist if we don't pass off premise sign regulations and town council accepts those. We've negotiated those agreements. So town council wants to accept those agree those adjustments. Um it's something that they have they've put they've pushed for. Um in terms of you know I I believe the they have been executed. Um but you know that's it's something that you know that that review comes like the the they would those signs would still fall under the approval of whatever we approve here in terms of our code like they're not exempt from regulation still it's just

they wouldn't be considered nonformative they would be considered under yes and and that was kind of how it was crafted was through that negotiation I believe um was that they were trying to figure out you in terms of like where where these signs can be located so that they're you know basically minimizing the number of potential additional signs with that separation. Do we have an overlay of what that would actually look like in terms of the area?

I don't I I don't have one. Um, I I mean I could I definitely could put that together um for you, but I mean I I can say I I I'm fairly certain that if you know where the signs are located, I don't believe that there's many options for additional signs. I I there may not be locations for more signs. I don't know that off the top of my head, but from what was described and discussed to me, there uh this regulation is meant to harbor limiting more any future, you know, signage to to essentially pollute McNight Road. I mean, that that's what this is.

So, they they're they're trying to they're trying that's what this negotiation really really was is trying to make sure that we're protecting ourselves. Um, so that's why council has pushed to uh, you know, make that that those adjustments to offremise signs, but we still, you know, as planning commission, we're still reviewing it to make sure that we feel that it meets the character of our comprehensive plan and um, you know, it's going to protect our residents.

You want comments from us? If if anyone wants to comment, you're you're welcome to speak. I mean, we if we comments if you want public Yeah, you're welcome to come up and speak if you want to come up. I mean, you can sit there and speak, too. It's that's fine.

Jackie is just so physically So, and we're right across the street from you know and it's not too bad the front of our house like I think you need to understand people I wasn't sure where we offm that kind of thing all those signs are on the Yeah. So those are on those are on premise signs. So on premise signs are anything that is a sign that is saying hey my business is here. That's an on-remise sign. Wall sign on premise sign. These off- premise signs we're talking are freestanding off- premise signs. Basically your poll with your billboard on top. I mean that's really what this is trying to make sure that we're not allowing ambiguity and a bunch of different signs along. Remember Lady Bird Johnson who made all the signs, billboards come down on all the highways?

They're sneaking back. Saturday, they're not even in business anymore. And their sign is bright white. Can't imagine. And it's only comes on at 12:30 a.m. and it goes off about 8 a.m. It's not on during the day. So, you know, I was wondering if that was you were, you know, looking at this stuff.

Well, so that's that's different. That's an on that's an onremise sign in the town center. So, we're not even considering looking at on premise sign regulations for wall signs. We're just looking at at signs that are freestanding. Um, but through this, I mean, I I'm definitely going to take that comment and look at it. There are standards for um lighting and signage. Um, and you know, there's, like we had just kind of mentioned, there's requirements for for illumination. Um, if they're doing something that is, you know, breaking the ordinance at night time, like I can I definitely will make sure that I have somebody take a look at that. Yeah. Anybody else, you know, anybody,

right? Yeah. I mean, your brand.

Yeah. No, thank you for your comments. It does really help. I appreciate it. Yeah, but I kind of like I thought we'd asked previously for signs to be shown on plan so we can think about it in part of the context of the whole thing. So if if we're sending comments to you, would it be better if the entire planning commission work

Well, I I was more so having comments like I wanted to have an open discussion. Um Anna, in terms of planning commission members that wanted to give context at something. I know that planning commission there's requirements that they can't meet. Are they able to provide me with comments to an item through via email or something along those lines? If it's just directly to me directly to just you, that's okay. Um, we cannot have forum on an email chain. Okay. So, individually, we don't copy the other individually. You can send them straight to Matt and you can have chains with less form. So, yeah.

I I will say I'll say this just for me. I I if we're going to do if we're going to have like any type of comments you have, just please email them directly. I don't want to have any type of like planning commission type of uh discussions outside of this room, right? Um and what what I would do with any of those comments is I will have them at at the next meeting and if you know they'll be uh open to any any public you know if wants to see those I'll have those available that way you know people know what's going on. Yeah, I've really enjoyed the discussion and the presentation and your remark at the end about sharing the comments. That's really nice.

Thank you. Um and I really um it would be so nice if there was I think Bruce used to have his zoning map for it. Do would he have one in in in the like in the he bring one with him here? Okay. Was bigger than the 20. He was so proud of that just if that one was around two before

um that it's funny that mat might be hanging up on the wall back there to be honest. There's a huge map of the rivers. We do have a big map right here. I'm not certain. Um that I mean that's definitely something I can look at like we we we have maps back there that we could bring that way. We at least have um not that you know sometimes the terms are MNC. They're all very close to but it would be nice like maybe the history but it would be nice to have the old map too. You know what used to be there. Yeah, I think I actually do think our old and the new

RGIS online. Um I do believe it does have current and old zoning. Uh we have a um like a zoning map. Um but I I'll definitely check. I do I do think it would be valuable to have, you know, access to like where things are and that that's why I bring it up. I mean, yeah, just Yeah, thank you for that.

Um thank you. All right, so that takes care of Um I was thinking that blue light at night but I don't think that's um I had time to sit here for the other discussion and I've printed out the current sign ordinance and then the proposed changes and I I guess it saves on printing but just to kind of see what's there and to see the red line changes.

Yeah. So that's that's kind of what I said, you know, whenever ordinances are written typically sometimes they're written in that fashion. And that's why whenever I bring some type of further ordinance, I wanted it to be the complete sign ordinance so people could get the context. Um, so yeah, I I do agree with you that whenever we do have some type of ordinance update that needs need more information. And then under illumination, I had a question. Sure. Um, oh, there's there's letter

uh the addition of digital display non-conforming sign is prohibited. Yes. Yeah. What did you explain why you

I I can reexplain just so you're aware. So our code has a section for nonconformities that applies to the sign code already. So I felt that it was redundant to have that in the sign code because it's literally saying a nonconformity cannot you can't like it's saying like a nonconformity can't change but like that's already said in the in the zoning. So that's kind of it was more of a clarification. I mean that I could stay in there. I just felt like it as a professional I just didn't really there sometimes there's there's a couple um there's a couple uh ways that these ordinances that can be written that can lead towards um like more of like a flavor text rather than like a a regulation text. And to me that was one of those that was kind of like they wanted to make sure that we know that non-conforming digital display science can't happen. they put it there, but like in practice non-conformities like you there's a process for you know changing those. So and that applies to that

and then I was under the impression that um I guess I thought that had already been executed too and so I was confused as to why that's already executed but I understand that there were two signs that had been done with signs that

so yeah the lease can be executed before the signs are constructed right so these provisions we want this to be in effect by time and they still need to get permits too is the thing like they still have to come through my office and get permitted to to construct these. So if like let's say this we were like nope no we're not changing any regulations for our signs. They can't do what they're doing. Um I mean we I I would have to deny it and then they'd have to go through that process. Um I I don't think that's what you know that's not the intent of what we want here. Um

they understand what the regulations are. So we don't think that would necessarily happen but the leases do provide for and settlement agreement provides for the time for compliance um and provides a reasonable time period for and to address your comment about um the withdrawal of those applications the lease to address that. So they were part of the negotiated settlement agreement. Um those two withdrawn applications and then also the one was denied um back. So this is to accommodate all of their previous submissions and and to be honest the what what the the purpose of this this review is to review the the items on the sign ordinance. I mean, we're not we're not necessarily reviewing what town council has done for leases. We're not reviewing I just wanted to provide that context so that we know why this has been brought in front in front of the planning commission. Um, just to clarify. I mean, I know we've talked a lot about the lease agreements, but that that's something that's not under the purview of this planning commission. Um, and I just wanted to clarify that. Did you have anything else?

Thank you. Does anybody else have any comments? Anybody from the planning commission? No, I'll get on premise and send you comments. Thank you very much. I appreciate uh everybody's comments. Okay. Uh we've had general public comment for all this time. So uh the last item on the agenda is for us to adjourn. Can I have a motion to adjurnn? So moved. Second from someone. Yep. Second. Second from Shelley. All in favor of adjourning. I opposed. We are adjourned.