August 5, 2010
The Ellettsville, Indiana Plan Commission met in
regular session on Thursday, August 5, 2010 in the Fire Department Training and
Conference Room located at 5080
West State Road 46. Dan Swafford called the meeting to order at
6:00 p.m. Phillip Smith led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Roll Call: Members present were: Dan Swafford,
Don Calvert, Phillip Rogers, Clayton Sullivan, Phillip Smith and Sandra Hash. Ron Wayt was absent. Connie Griffin
Director of Planning Services was also present.
Approval of the Minutes – July 8, 2010
Dan Swafford entertained a motion for approval
of the July 8, 2010 minutes. Phillip
Rogers so moved. Phillip Smith seconded. Motion carried.
Conflict of Interest Statement - None
Annexation Update Documentation of Contaminated Soil Removal Sandra Hash, Plan
Commission member – Mr. Grimes came
to Town Hall and showed the plans he had for the church. The last stipulation given to him from the
Plan Commission was to bring in the receipts for the contaminated waste from
the oil leak created by the bus. He
brought that information in. They took
it on July 2, but it had to be tested.
The results were not back until the 29th of July. He has satisfied that condition. The other condition discussed at the last
meeting was a certificate of occupancy on the church. Now, he's caught in a situation because the
County gave him some stipulations on landscaping and paving the parking
lot. It was so costly for him to pave
the parking lot that prompted him to voluntarily annex into Town. There were some other problems the Plan
Commission was concerned about and he remedied those. He's cleaned up everything they've asked him
to clean up. But, the county will not
let him have a building permit until he complies with the landscaping and
paving requirements. So, now, he needs
to proceed with his annexation because he can be grandfathered into the Town of
Ellettsville. She feels he has met all of their requests up
to the building permit. She called the
building department to verify they would indeed issue that permit if we went
ahead and annexed him into town. Mr.
Gerstbauer said they would. Dan Swafford
asked if he would like to come forward and speak. Mr. Grimes came forward and stated when he
went to the planning committee; they implied if he was annexed into
Ellettsville, he would not be required to come under the county
inspection. When he took the blueprints
into the inspector, they were ready to give him a permit to do the work. Then, he stated, when they were getting ready
to sign the permit, the lady from the county came in and said something else
had happened and told him he was going to have to go before the county rather
than the Ellettsville board. Mr. Grimes
said he didn't know what it was and Mr. Schick, the inspector didn't know
either. If he is accepted into
Ellettsville, he understands he will not be held under the county's zoning and
regulations and he is asking the Plan Commission to accept him into Ellettsville
rather than him being in Monroe
County. Dan Swafford asked if Mr. Grimes had a copy
of the conditions they gave him. Mr.
Grimes presented those to the Commission.
Dan Swafford asked him if he had done any work on the handicap
restroom. Mr. Grimes responded he had
not because he was not given a work permit.
Dan Swafford asked someone to read the conditions Mr. Grimes was
presented by Monroe
County. Sandra Hash stated it was addressed to the
Guiding Light Ministry which is the church Mr. Grimes rents to and reads as
On June 24,
2010, I and Bobby McGrue were called upon to do a preliminary inspection of a
new Guiding Light Ministries in hopes of issuing a certificate of occupancy for
the new use of the building. The
previous use of the building was for Grimes Plumbing business. Upon completing the inspection, I regret to
inform you that a number of changes or improvements need to be made to the
facility to make it comply with the present building code for the new use. A Monroe
County building permit
will be required for the necessary construction and work to bring the facility
into code compliance for the new use.
Items observed that need correction are as follows:
Section 675 ICA 12-4-11 of the Indiana General
Administrative Rules states no change in the character or use of any building
or structure shall be permitted which shall cause the building or structure to
be classified within a different occupancy group or within a different division
of the same occupancy group unless such building or structure complies with or
is made to comply with the current rules of the Commission for new construction
for the proposed revised use of the building.
A change from a mercantile office, storage retail facility to an
assembly group A3 place of religious worship requires the entire facility
comply with the present day codes.
Section 1105 Provide an accessible entrance maximum
1/4 inch vertical rise or 1/3 inch with a slope of 1 to 2
Section 1008.1.9 Provide panic exit hardware on the
exit doors from the sanctuary and dining area.
Two exits are required from each space.
Section 1011 Provide the required exit signs in the
sanctuary and the dining area. The signs
are to be powered by the primary power and have battery backup power for 90
minutes. The two spaces are each to have
two exit signs identifying the two required exits from each space.
Section 1006.2 Provide emergency elimination for the
two required exits from the sanctuary and the dining area. Also, provide emergency lighting at each of the
exterior exit doors to illuminate the landing outside the doors.
Section 1008.1.2 the two required exit doors from each
the sanctuary and the dining hall is to have the doors swing out in a direction
of egress travel.
Section 1008.1.81 Door hardware is to be of the lever
type which does not require tight grasping, tight pinching, or twisting of the
wrist to operate; all doors except the panic exit devices.
The toilet rooms is to be a fully accessible toilet
room with all of the required maneuvering space; fixture clearances, accessible
fixtures and grab bars. See the attached
accessible design or provide an alternative design.
There is to be a floor or landing on each side of a
door. Such floor or landing shall be at
the same elevation on each side of the door.
The back exit door from the dining area is to be level with the
floor. Provide the required landing at
the back exit from the dining room. The
landing is to be a minimum of 36 inches wide and the length measured in the
direction of travel is to be not less than 44 inches. Stairways shall have hand rails on each side
(the south exit door from the sanctuary with exterior stairs).
Section 502 of the Indiana Energy Code requires the building
envelope to be insulated to require thermal performance. If the dining hall is to be mechanically heated
or cooled, the envelope of that space is to be insulated.
Another section requires that the craft door or foil
facing of that insulation meet a flame spread of 25 and a smoke develop index
of not more than 450. The facing on the
fiberglass backed insulation does not meet this requirement and is to be
covered with a material that meets this requirement such as 1/2 inch gypsum
Foam plastic insulation is to be protected from the
interior of the building with an approved thermal barrier such as 1/2 inch
gypsum wallboard. The blue foam board
installed with the HVAC supplier diffuser is to be removed or covered with
Miscellaneous electrical conditions as open conductors
not covered in a box, adequate support of electrical cables, and securing
Section 101 of the Indiana Fuel Gas Code requires gas piping
systems to be maintained. The gas
furnace within a hall closet smells of leaking gas.
Section 407 requires gas piping be adequately
supported in accordance with Table 415.1 and 1/2 inch size at six foot
intervals or 3/4 inch by 1 inch by eight foot and a 1 1/4 inch and larger at
ten foot. Gas piping crossing the dining
area. (At this point Mr. Grimes
interjected he had corrected all the gas lines because they needed to be
Dan Swafford asked Mr. Grimes what conditions he could
not comply with. Mr. Grimes stated these
were all conditions for Ellettsville as well and he did plan on complying with
them. Dan Swafford asked him for the
reason why he had not already complied with them. Mr. Grimes said he was told by the inspector
not to do anything until he got his permit.
Then, the day he went in to get the permit the inspector was ready to
sign the permit, but something else happened and he stopped it. Connie Griffin
added all building permits actually come back through to her office before they
are approved. Dan Swafford asked for
clarification on what was needed. Sandra
Hash stated the stipulations were an occupancy permit and the tickets from the
disposal of the hazardous waste. Sandra
Hash added the occupancy permit is the last step of the building permit. Connie Griffin
stated the holdup is the county codes they want him to update to - that's the
Catch 22. Dan Swafford stated those are
what he wants to know - the county codes.
Mr. Grimes stated if he is accepted into the Town of Ellettsville,
then he will not be under obligation to Monroe County. If he is not accepted into the Town, then he
will have to do all these things - unless they give him permission not to. But, if accepted into Ellettsville, he will
still have to comply with all these things except under Ellettsville's
jurisdiction, not Monroe
County. Rick Coppock stated when Mr. Grimes went to Monroe County
to change the use of the building, they wanted him to come into compliance with
their landscaping standards and pave the parking area. He can't get a building permit until he does those
things. If he comes into Ellettsville,
he can get a building permit because Ellettsville doesn't require him to do
update and pave the parking lot. Dan
Swafford asked if Ellettsville did not require that. Rick Coppock stated you do with new
construction, but other businesses that have come in have been
grandfathered. They were not required to
do paving prior to recently there wasn't any landscaping ordinance. Sandra Hash asked Mr. Grimes if he understood
that if he should ever change the usage of the building again, he would have to
come into compliance and pave the lot.
He stated he did understand that.
Dan Swafford asked if Mr. Grimes moved the buses. Mr. Grimes stated three have already been
moved and the rest will be moved, but he stated he has until the 12th to do
that. Phillip Rogers asked if everything
has been done that the Commission has asked to be done. Connie Griffin
answered they did have a land use verification form she has asked Mr. Grimes to
fill out which states what the current land uses are so that if any change at
all occurs then he would be into our code stipulations. The current land uses on the property that he
agreed at the time that he signed this on June 24, 2010 was five uses. There is a personal residence at the home he
and his wife reside in, there is one rental home, Joel Clark had bus parking,
there is a church that rents the old commercial building (one tenant in the
building), and there was one trailer that is used currently by a family member and
no rental payments are received at that unit.
There are no additional uses allowed at this time with this
document. If any of these things changed
he would have to adjust to our codes.
Sandra Hash asked Rick Coppock for his expertise on her question. She stated this process started quite some
time ago. We had our public hearing and
he did his legal notices and as she recalled none of the neighbors came to
voice any concerns. She asked Rick
Coppock if they should start the process all over again with the notice to give
the neighbors an opportunity to respond.
Rick Coppock stated it had continued to be on the agenda and he did not
feel they needed to be re-notified. Mr.
Grimes stated he wanted to answer Phillip Rogers question - yes, he has
fulfilled everything and this was the last thing. He had 18 items and he lived up to it.
Dan Swafford entertained a motion. Phillip Rogers made a motion to accept Ike
Grimes' annexation. Clayton Sullivan
seconded. Roll Call vote: Dan Swafford – yes; Don Calvert - yes;
Phillip Rogers – yes; Clayton Sullivan – yes; Phillip Smith - yes; Sandra Hash
– yes. Motion carried 6-0.
Sandra Hash reminded Mr. Grimes this would have to go
before the Town Council. The next
meeting is August 23rd and he could be on the agenda for the first
reading. She asked if the Annexation
Ordinance and the Fiscal Plan could be ready.
Connie Griffin stated the
Fiscal Plan has been ready for seven months.
Sandra Hash asked if Darla Brown had the deed and Connie
Griffin stated she would make sure she had that as well. Sandra Hash told Mr. Grimes if the first
reading was August 23rd, and if Town Council did not accept it on the first
reading, the second reading would be September 13th. Then they would sign the document, it would
have to be published in the newspaper, and after that advertising she would
have to wait 30 days before it is recorded.
After it’s recorded he would then be in the Town of Ellettsville.
Mr. Grimes asked if it would be satisfactory to go back to the building
inspectors and ask them if they would give him permission to start doing the
remodeling. Dan Swafford answered it was
going with a favorable request to the Town Council, but we can't give you that
advice to go ahead. But, it did pass the
Plan Commission and now it will have to go to the Council. Mr. Grimes added, for the church's sake, the
emergency doors and things needed to be done.
Mr. Swafford agreed because he had heard there were a lot of safety
issues. Rick Coppock told him he should
be able to change door hardware and signs without having a building permit. He couldn't change walls and things like
Driveway Standards Code 152.227(B) - Ancillary parking areas are not required
to be paved - Second Discussion
Griffin, Director of Planning - stated this was the second discussion on this. The additional parking areas are not required
to be paved and that was open for discussion at the last meeting. She is asking for any additional thoughts at
this time. Phillip Smith asked if this
was businesses or residential. Connie Griffin stated this was residential in
platted subdivisions. This would be when
someone comes to request a new driveway permit.
Right now, unless there is a restricted covenant in the subdivision, we
do not require additional parking to be paved.
Dan Swafford asked if they waived the new driveway permit with the Safe
Routes to School people. Connie Griffin stated the fee of $25 has been waived
along Ridge Springs Lane. They would still be required to have the permit;
we would just waive the fee. Dan
Swafford asked if they would be required to pave the additional parking area
and Connie Griffin answered, yes,
they would. Dan Swafford stated that was
his concern because he knows that area and hates to give them a double whammy
there because the sidewalk is taking some of their area. Dan Swafford stated he understood it was a
good code due to the ruts and such, his only concern is the economics of the
situation with the residents. Phillip
Smith asked why the residents would be required to pave their driveways if we are
putting in the sidewalks. Sandra Hash
answered she thought that was covered in the grants. She thought the grant would cover these
people. Dan Swafford stated they would
not add the additional. Connie Griffin stated not in the private area. They will take care of the area they tear
up. Phillip Smith stated they will put
the stub in, but they will not finish the driveway. Connie Griffin
stated will come up quite a distance.
Dan Swafford feels it is a good code, but he would ask for an amendment
for these people because they are being forced into this right now and it is
cutting into their drive where they will have to widen their driveways. It's something they don't want to do, but are
being forced to do because of the Safe Routes to School. He feels if they do pass this they should be
exempt from it.
Nierzwicki, private citizen - stated
that in the past there was an issue on the percentage of space covered. There were some people who would have paved
their whole back yard into a parking lot.
So, one thing that was done was a percentage and where it would be. He added that may be something they might
want to think about in the future. Connie Griffin stated she would get some other areas
and their driveway standards and bring them to the next meeting. Sandra Hash stated if they did allow the
gravel drives, she feels there should be some standards regarding the borders.
Subdivision, Rezone, Development Approval
Griffin, Director of Planning, explained Smithville is coming before the Commission
for a subdivision. The property site is
244 acres and they want to break 10 acres off making a two lot
subdivision. She first spoke with Mr.
Potter about a C-3 zoning. But, since
then, she has spoken with Rick Coppock and they are thinking an I-1 (Industrial
1) use would be better for the warehousing.
The project is in multiple phases.
But, right now, the types of uses they want to use are for a warehouse,
office buildings, truck garage, truck shed, trailer shed, equipment storage
yard as well as an employee parking lot.
They are also talking about doing a landscape buffer along the south and
west side. She and Mr. Potter are thinking
an I-1 zone would be more appropriate for this use. Phillip Smith asked what made her think
that. She stated she was basing this off
on their current zoning at their warehouse is a C-1, but she failed to realize
and she has not been here long enough, but that was probably a grandfathered
use when it was re-zoned. Our actual
code states warehouse usage in an I-1. C-3
does not have that statement. There is
the statement that the Director of Planning is permitted to make a ruling if
the zoning use has not changed that much.
There is plenty of ground and there could be the appropriate buffering
and setback to allow them to have that higher usage in order to be more
compliant with how the code reads.
Phillip Smith asked if she was saying that with an I-1 they would have
more options than with a C-3. She said
Potter, Certified Civil Engineer representing this project, stated in the packet there is a drawing of the
overall property. It goes from SR 46 on
the south, Chafin Chapel Road,
to where Flatwoods Road
intersects SR 46, and then he pointed out the east line. The square on the drawing is the 10 acres
they are proposing to subdivide out and rezone for the proposed building and
parking lots and storage facilities.
There is an existing gravel driveway there now that goes back to their
transmission tower that is further north.
They are proposing to upgrade that driveway, widen it out to get two-way
traffic and then they would access the proposed development off of the widened
drive. There are no plans right now for
further development of the 244 acres, but this existing drive and the upgraded
drive would not be used for access to other development within the 244
acres. There would be a separate drive
coming off of SR 46, probably right across the street from the kindergarten
center, where there was an older house at one time. The state highway people like that location
for a second access drive off SR 46 for later use. The State Highway Department has requested we
install a passing blister on the south side of SR 46 so that cars coming to
turn left can go around on the right side.
We are planning on doing that as part of the State Highway permit. He then showed the Commission a more detailed
plan of the 10 acre site including the buildings. The first phase of the project would include
a new building for the parts warehouse and office building. In the second phase there would be a truck
garage added to the building. There
would also be an outside storage yard on the east side of the building. There would be a couple other open-sided,
roofed sheds for pickup trucks and trailers.
He pointed out the parking lot for employees. There would also be some room for expansion
of the buildings in the future, if needed to the south for the office and warehouse
building and to the north for the truck garage.
The water detention area would be on the north side of the project. He pointed out a proposed septic field and
stated they did have the letter from the State Board of Health regarding the
septic field. Connie
Griffin stated they have fulfilled the filing requirements,
the fees, the notice to adjacent property owners, the hearing notice, and the
affidavit from the Journal has all been received. Phillip Smith asked if the parking area for
the employees would be black-topped. Mr.
Potter responded the only thing they want to black-top initially would be the
visitor and handicapped parking, seven or eight spots, they have to pave for
handicap access. Other than that, they
want to have gravel and crushed stone parking and driveways for a while and
then pave later. Dan Swafford stated he
noted they have 60 or 70 parking spots and asked Mr. Potter how heavily that
road would be used. Mr. Potter responded
there would be 30 or 40 people using this facility initially. A lot of this will end up not being used
unless they do expand. Dan Swafford said
he thought there were only going to be a few people working there. Mr. Potter stated that was true as far as
working throughout the day, but this was where their field people would be
parking and taking company vehicles to and from. Connie Griffin
added this was a goal of the Comprehensive Plan, to attract commercial and
industrial development along SR 46, especially toward the west. The Comprehensive Plan would be in agreement
with a development of this nature. She
added the supervisors have reviewed some of the comments she had sent to
them. There were just a couple of
concerns from the Fire Chief that the Bean Blossom-Patricksburg Water could
supply in case of a fire emergency. They
are seeking, with the developmental approval, the septic variance and the
gravel variance. She went on to say,
according to everything she could find in the Town Code, they met the
criteria. Dan Swafford noted the
variances are going to the BZA. He asked
when they've gone to the BZA, will they come back to the Plan Commission or
will they go to Town Council. Connie Griffin stated, technically, what we are
looking at right now is the subdivision into the two lots, and then the
rezone. It is our suggestion to go to an
I-1. We believe I-1 would be the best
classification. Then we would have a
developmental review. That could take
place at a later date. We definitely
want to handle the subdivision and rezone issues first. If you felt comfortable with the development
review based on Rick's findings and Mr. Potter's findings and Cullen's
guarantee those aspects would be completed - that could also be for your
consideration. Dan Swafford asked Rick
Coppock what his findings were in this.
Rick Coppock stated everything with the plat is fine. We are just working on the signature part of
that. The zoning is really up to the
Plan Commissioners. He had talked to Kevin
and he wasn't anticipating having the development plan reviewed tonight. There are some things that haven't been completed
on that. Dan Swafford asked Mr. Potter
if they were in a time crunch. Mr.
Potter stated in his last conversation with the Smithville people, they would
like to do some grading, if possible, this fall and then start the building in
the spring. Dan Swafford asked if it
would be agreeable to vote on the subdivision and the rezone this meeting and
then wait on the development approval till next meeting. Sandra Hash stated that would give them time
to review Rick's remarks as well. Don
Calvert asked if there would be a passing lane on the south side. Mr. Potter stated it would be further east
where the existing gravel drive is now.
Don Calvert stated his concern would be whether they would be going over
any utility lines, will it change the drainage, is that going to be asphalted,
how long it is going to be. Mr. Potter
stated it had to be asphalted. Don
Calvert asked if the state has already agreed to that or is it in the
process. Mr. Potter stated they have
verbally agreed. He added they are allowing
them to have an 11 foot lane instead of 12 feet. Rick Coppock stated they would be cutting the
bank back on the north side. There is a
gas line there. He went on to say he
thinks it will be deep enough.
Russ Ryle, Reeves Road
resident - asked if the state already
had the property right of way for the turn blister on the south side of
46. Mr. Potter stated yes, there is 30
to 35 feet of right of way on each side of SR 46 back when that was done in the
1930's. All the new construction for the
passing blister would be in that existing right of way. Mr. Ryle asked if that was a private driveway
across the street from their entrance road.
Mr. Potter answered in the affirmative and stated it would have to be
upgraded according to the state's standards where that driveway would intersect
that passing blister. Mr. Ryle asked how
far north of SR 46 the south line of the 10 acre property is. Mr. Potter stated it's about 600 feet.
Dan Swafford entertained a motion for approval. Phillip Smith made a motion to approve the
Smithville subdivision and rezone to I-1.
Phillip Rogers seconded. Roll
Call vote: Dan Swafford – yes; Don
Calvert - yes; Phillip Rogers – yes; Clayton Sullivan – yes; Phillip Smith -
yes; Sandra Hash – yes. Motion carried
Griffin, Director of Planning, based on a discussion with the Clerk-Treasurer, they
wanted to develop a checklist for Plan Commission recommendations. She prepared a checklist that states the findings,
whether or not it should proceed to Town Council and The Plan Commission’s
recommendation. She displayed a copy on
the overhead. The form was given to
Sandra Hash. Connie referred to the
packets and stated the changes are in yellow.
This is the early stages of this.
When she read through the current code, she noted there are often
statements such as an application will be accompanied by all documents and four
step processes with forms. This
particular ordinance is going to need new applications prepared. She looked at other cities and reviewed their
PUD codes and application process. She
has not had enough time to review their applications, but she really likes the
format. What she has looked at so far
has just been the minor changes to the PUD code such as clarifications. In our current code 153.034 along with plat
approval we do require a cash bond be held in escrow. So, even though they are not in this chapter,
we do still have those requirements for some sort of a bond. We are currently protected. She would like to have gotten further on
this, but she has a new administrative assistant and they were working
diligently on getting the code enforcement database updated. Sandra Hash noted in 152.279 it states notice
must be published in two local newspapers, but if you have one paper in your
jurisdiction that meets the required circulation, you can advertise in just
one. We are meeting our requirements by
just publishing in the Journal.
Planning Department Updates
New Administrative Assistant Nicole
Brown – Connie
Griffin stated she has a new administrative assistant whose
picture was featured in the Journal.
Nicole Brown is a long-time resident of Ellettsville. She has that knowledge of locations which
helps her a great deal. One of the main
reasons she was her first choice because she was already correcting her
database after the proficiency exam she gave her. She's very observant. She thinks she is a good addition and she
hopes to keep her for awhile.
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Transportation Enhancement Grant INDOT
Connie Griffin stated the transportation enhancement funds, like a
lot of organizations, was running out of money in different areas so they are
starting to look under rocks. Therefore,
our Heritage Trail Grant right now is requiring us to write a report giving a
status of where we are in the project and to ensure this is still a very viable
project. She has been working on a
report to get to them. She would like to
get that to them at the first of next week.
It's just a short report to let them know we are making the movement on it;
we have our matching funds, so forth and so on.
Stormwater Permit Renewal, Connie Griffin
stated this is coming up in September. Her
time will be shifting towards getting ready for that permit process. There's a presentation that accompanies this
permit process to show what we have accomplished for the last couple of
Code Enforcement, Connie Griffin
said one of the first things Nicole started on was getting the database updated
and getting her back online on knowing when she has inspections. That will be one of her main jobs is to let
her know where to go next. Sandra Hash
stated Rick Coppock is still a big part of that permit review and Connie is assisting
him. She asked for clarification. Connie Griffin
stated yes. She corrected her
terminology stating it's actually an audit.
There will be a PowerPoint presentation. She will be asking for Town Council members
to join in on a tour of certain facilities.
To show they have had some activity.
Rick Coppock added there are six different minimum control measures we
have to meet. He stated they just had
their audit on their construction inspection.
Dan Swafford asked how that went.
Rick Coppock answered he thought it went fairly well. They said we should get our report back in
about a month.
Privilege of the Floor – non-Agenda
Russ Ryle, Reeves Road resident - states he is puzzled about why we are allowing
gravel driveways which do not meet the code requirements. He asks why we are allowing this to
continue. Dan Swafford stated all they
did tonight was allow a subdivision rezone.
They did not include the gravel.
Dan Swafford stated he was going to bring that up, but there wasn't much
sense in doing that tonight. Mr. Ryle
asked if they were going to pave the access road. Connie Griffin
answered it would be done in phases and as it gets towards the end, that is one
of their considerations and they would like to pave and bring that whole area
in to connect to water and wastewater.
Dan Swafford added during the construction phase there would be heavy
equipment coming in and out and it would just destroy the road. Mr. Ryle stated at some point there should be
an agreed to point in which paving is put in.
Our current code requires paved access roads and parking lots in places
where they have heavy equipment. We
don't want this to grandfather in as septic and unpaved forever. Phillip Rogers stated if they don't start
building out there, there won’t be a sewer out there. He added there is a high pressure sewer out
there now, but it's on the other side of the road where the Early Childhood
Center is. It's difficult to hook onto though because it’s
Sandra Hash had one comment on the PUD. She agreed they need to work on it. She referenced an article in the planner's
handbook that talked about how often PUD's are overused and don't have the
stipulations required to guide them. In
her opinion, she wouldn't care if they never had any Planned Unit Developments. Dan Swafford stated he thinks PUD's are good
for the Council and he thinks that's where it stemmed from because any PUD has
to go to Council. Sandra Hash added she
thought they were bargaining tools.
Dan Swafford entertained a motion to adjourn. Phillip Rogers made the motion to
adjourn. Clayton Sullivan seconded. Dan Swafford adjourned the meeting at 7:33
p.m. The next meeting will be September
2, 2010 at 6:00 p.m.