Mr. James: Good evening, first order of business we need to continue petition RZ-12-001, Timberstone Development. Continue that to the June 4th Plan Commission hearing.
Mr. James: That is correct.
Mr. McPhail: So move.
Mr. Brandgard: Second
Mr. Gibbs: We have a motion and a second; all those in favor signify by aye, opposed, motion carried.
Mr. James: Next petition DP-12-006, this is the new Waffle House restaurant and before we get started, we need to waive the 15 day public notice requirement that is required by our Plainfield Zoning ordinance they did comply with the Indiana code requiring a 10 day notice, so we need to waive the 15 day notice requirement.
Mr. Brandgard: So move.
Mr. McPhail: Second.
Mr. Gibbs: We have a motion and a second; all those in favor signify by aye, opposed, motion carried.
Mr. James: Thank you, this is the development plan for compliance with the gateway corridor standards for a new Waffle House restaurant. It is going to be 1875 square feet, this is at the corner of Hartford Avenue and Cambridge Way, the address is 2110 Hartford Avenue. It is on about 6/10 of an acre and it is zoned general commercial. The site is lot 1 of Plainfield Business Center, commercial subdivision. It is an unusual site because it has three street frontages and a replat will have to be done, I don't think they will need as much land as currently described in the lot. It is located just north of Thornton's. Here is the site, here is Cambridge Way, Hartford Avenue and 267, it is just back there, it has the appropriate zoning, it is zoned General Commercial. The building is going to be 100% quick brick, all elevations comply, it requires secondary color requirement, roof top canopy units will be screened from all elevation used by about a 45' parapet, but they did need a variance for the location of trash enclosure, it is justified with three street frontages. Better look at the site, they only need about 6/10 of an acre so they don't need the whole site, so they don't need the whole site so they will have to re-plat it. Here is the site plan, the restaurant will be back in this corner, they have more parking than what is required that is facing the number of seats. Here is the location of the trash enclosure, because it has the three street frontages, it is virtually impossible to locate that trash enclosure, so it is not between the building and the street, so that justifies the variance and then they also need a waiver so they don't have to have a sidewalk connection to each street, they did put in a connection over to Cambridge Way, it goes to the edge of the parking lot and then they will do a connection at Hartford Avenue. They will have to do it through the parking lot, so we recommended they, since we have one connection, we recommended to the west property line. The elevation of the building, it is all quick brick and all elevations have secondary color requirement. You can see the parapet, the roof height is right in there, so there is the parapet that was screened the rooftop company used. Landscaping plan complies, we got level 2 over here, along 267 it goes up to some limited access and then we've got level 1 on the rest of perimeter and then they've got the shrubs that screen the cars at the edge of Hartford Avenue. They've got the required foundation landscaping, and this will be the yard, its main function will be dried retention. All plans comply with the gateway corridor standards, but they do need a waiver, so they will need to have a sidewalk connection to Hartford Avenue and they will need a variance for the trash enclosure location. The Hartford Avenue entrance it is proposed for a full access for now, but Thorntons lot was developed by the developer and agreed to a medium, but currently traffic doesn't warrant a median, so the Waffle House going in kicks in the requirement for a median, but we have told them since the traffic doesn't warrant it yet we will hold off on the median until such time that it is needed. So the question is when should the median be installed and who installs it? Now might be a good time to clarify who is responsible for the median, so with that I will have a seat and Mr. Butch Baur is here representing Waffle House.
Mr. Baur: My name is Butch Baur with Waffle House, Norcross, Georgia, I am here representing Waffle House here, I work for the company, and we have been developing since 1955 throughout America. We are a the real Waffle House, there has been a couple of Waffle House's around this area that have used our name over the years, we are the guys that have 1,600 locations in 23 states, we are very excited about this opportunity here. I think we presented you with a pretty good product, our buildings are normally split base block or some type of quick brick and split base block with a yellow fascia on the trim, so I am very happy to bring you something I think you will be proud of. All of our parking requirements are being met here and the access is something that will be very beneficial to us as we develop our business and get established. Eventually a lot of people will use Cambridge Way as they come from work in the evenings. 50% of our business is usually comes in the hours of 7AM to 2PM and between 2 and 11 we get about 20% of business, then 11-7 around the clock given 30% of business. So a lot of our traffic is going to be after midnight and during the slow hours, it won't be the peak hours, I hope that is not a problem. Our sign will be, we are going to use an existing monument sign that serves the business part, and I have the top pylon on the sign panel. Other than that we are going to have three wall signs and that is pretty much it. Again we are excited about the opportunity to hoping you approve our plans and if I can answer any questions.
Mr. McPhail: I do have something to say (inaudible)
Mr. Baur: On Hartford?
Mr. McPhail: (inaudible)
Mr. Baur: I believe the city signed an agreement back in ‘97 that would require the developer of Thornton Oil property put in or the city would put a median in I believe that is what the agreement said at the time this plat was (inaudible) or was the service was raised to a level C, I'm not really sure what that is, but there are standards for that. What I would also like to throw on the table in this consideration to be a right in and right out when that time is necessary for us to put a right in, right out in our driveway instead of a median all the way back. I think and we are trying to be a good neighbor, I think Thornton Oil is probably be a little irritated if we put in a median and it cuts off their building to get the traffic turning left from 267, I think it is something to think about.
Mr. Kirchoff: First of all it is lined up pretty much (inaudible) what kind of discussions (inaudible), do you have a sense of what we talked about (inaudible)
Mr. McGillem: Essentially this came up when Thornton decided to (inaudible) just beyond Cambridge and (inaudible). Our solution at that time was to come in at they were beyond the rest of the commercial establishments at 267 (inaudible) the way that is written, but the intent was the developer would pay for the developer is the one that (inaudible).
Mr. Brouillard: Who is the developer?
Mr. McGillem: The developer is still as far as I know Greg Small. Greg got Equicor Development and it is my understanding they are still out there (inaudible).
Mr. Baur: This is a copy of the agreement between the city and (inaudible) it does say in paragraph four that the city would pay the expense (inaudible).
Mr. McGillem: It is difficult level C is difficult in a sense of (inaudible) as development occurs around it, it is very difficult (inaudible) you can go out Stafford Road and (inaudible) it is a situation where (inaudible) same way at (inaudible) I can go out there and (inaudible) put a signal in there, however it becomes more and more difficult to add those at a later date then adding them upfront. I know for a fact that it is not the intent for the Town to pay for a median that goes in here. Town causing a median to go in (inaudible) we can go back and establish additional information (inaudible).
Mr. Daniel: We were approving their plans subject to the fact that the fact that the Town will not put a median in there within whatever timeframe the Plan Commission.
Mr. Kirchoff: Couldn't that be one of the conditions we will put on there?
Mr. Daniel: That they would understand when they build that there could be a median put in there within sometime after that timeframe ends.
Mr. McPhail: I think that is what the petitioner is suggesting, given the time to build some business before you put in there.
Mr. Baur: Maybe I could suggest that we use the trigger point being the sooner of 18 months or when the level drops to level C as already agreed to that that is a reasonable standard, would that be acceptable?
Mr. Brouillard: What is level C? I keep hearing that.
Mr. McGillem: I would have to go to the capacity manual, the highway capacity manual establishes warrants for on certain levels of service, level C basically means you are creating through that intersection a certain amount of time that traffic is held up in order to move forward. A signal is much easier to identify warrants because you have traffic specifically stopped and you can identify whether that person stopping there is having to wait through one cycle, two cycles, six cycles to get through the intersection, if you are waiting for six cycles to get through an intersection you are probably at a level F, C is somewhere between A and F, A being that you would be able to get through the intersection with waiting a very short length of time.
Mr. Brandgard: The actual fact is you don't have a traffic signal there, to make that work correctly.
Mr. McGillem: It makes identifying under the situation a lot harder.
Mr. Daniel: I think the Plan Commission would be better off just to tie it to a period, just say the Town agrees that it will not put a median in there with no sooner than 18 months after they open or something like that to where you have a date you are dealing with and it is clear cut, Mr. Baur how does that sound.
Mr. Baur: In given the options, we want to be here; I think I can explain that to my people, so 18 months.
Mr. Daniel: How does 18 months seem, how do you think that will work for your business?
Mr. Baur: If we can say 18 months from the day we open rather than 18 months from today's date.
Mr. Kirchoff: It could be timed to your open date.
Mr. Baur: Just to give it some time to plan it and build it.
Mr. Kirchoff: Is that sufficient or do you really need two years?
Mr. Baur: Two years would be better to be honest with you. I think it is a good point about not having a traffic light there, is really going to actually be better for all of us.
Mr. McPhail: I do too, yes I agree with that.
Mr. Kirchoff: I guess, Don I'm sure this isn't tied to the level C thing, but if we see a number of accidents there, can we word it that it comes back to you that we've seen that we have a public safety issue here, and we would like to do something before the 24 months, you know where we are coming from, because you don't want your customers…
Mr. Baur: I think this agreement sums that up pretty good already, whoever drafted it did a pretty good job, it does say that no agreement between the developer can keep the city from doing what is best for the public or public safety, and I'm on board with that.
Mr. Brouillard: Now we wouldn't be creating another conflict if you hit level C before 2 years would we? Because now you've got two different rules that you are trying to live by, one says you've got to get to C and the other is you are trying to say 2 years.
Mr. Kirchoff: I don't think you can measure it C without a light.
Mr. McGillem: I would rather just give it 2 years, 24 months and if it was determined by the Town that the situation occurred that they need to put the median in, they could do so, we can always even if it was in 6 months, to be honest with you, if someone went on the opposite corner of, catty corner from Thornton or the Waffle House going in, there was a huge generator of traffic going in through peak periods of time then one additional development would create traffic where you would need to have this median in, and we have got to have the ability from the standpoint of the Town to make that determination.
Mr. Kirchoff: I think he has the appropriate wording that covers that.
Mr. McGillem: Mel usually sees any agreement that that kind of wording goes into the agreement.
Mr. Daniel: I wonder where that agreement came from, but I am not going to comment on that.
Mr. Kirchoff: With that said then I think if that is comfortable with staff to continue working the design, the new phase, and getting the right people at the table to cover that issue independent with this process, I think that is what we are saying to staff. But that is not part of this agreement but it certainly needs to be something that needs to be addressed, would that be fair statement?
Mr. James: Mel are you working on the eighteenth condition?
Mr. Daniel: Yes. On the conditions part I have added number 3; The Town agrees to refrain from installing a median on Hartford Avenue no sooner than 24 months after the petitioner opens for business unless a public safety issue requires a sooner installation.
Mr. Kirchoff: That indicates that we are going to do it.
Mr. Daniel: No, although this says we will install it, it just doesn't say (inaudible). This says who will install it and it says that PPLC will not pay for it.
Mr. Kirchoff: Do you want to put the phrase “will install” or “cause to be installed”?
Mr. Daniel: I will put “cause” that is a good idea.
Mr. McPhail: We don't run into this very often but it is really an issue that we have to work that out.
Mr. Kirchoff: We are not a quarter of a mile away from circumstance not too far from there that we still fight every day.
Mr. Daniel: Condition number 3 now says the Town agrees to refrain from causing the installation of a median on Hartford Avenue no sooner than 24 months after petitioner opens for business unless a public safety issue requires a sooner installation.
Mr. Kirchoff: I guess I would ask the Commissioner if he is ready for a motion, do you have any other questions.
Mr. Chairman I move that the Plan Commission approve DP-12-006 as filed by Waffle House, requesting approval of a development plan in compliance with gateway corridor development standards a 1,875 square foot Waffle House restaurant at 2110 Hartford Avenue finding that; 1.The development plan complies with all applicable development standards of the district in which this site is located. 2. Development plan complies with all applicable provisions of a subdivision control ordinance for which a waiver has not been granted. 3. The development plan complies with all applicable provisions for architectural provisions and site design review for which a waiver has not been granted. 4. The proposed development is appropriate to the site and its surroundings. 5. The proposal development is appropriate with the intent and purpose of the Plainfield zoning ordinance in regarding a waiver to not require a sidewalk connection to the Hartford Avenue. The Plan Commission finds that; 1. The proposed development represents an innovative use of the building and site design and landscaping to enhance the use of value of the area properties. 2. The proposed development is consistent with and compatible with other development located along the gateway corridor, 3. The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Plainfield zoning ordinance. And if such approval shall be subject to the following conditions; 1. Substantial compliance with the site plan, building elevations, colored rendering, landscaping plan, lighting plan and sign plan file dated April 20, 2012. And trash enclosure details file dated April 11, 2012; 2. A variance granted by the BZA to allow location of trash enclosure within the building; 3. The Town agrees to refrain from causing the installation of a median on Hartford Avenue no sooner than 24 months after petitioner opens for business unless a public safety issue requires a sooner installation.
Mr. Brandgard: Second.
Mr. Gibbs: I have a motion and a second, Mr. Carlucci would you please poll the board.
Mr. Carlucci: Motion was made my Mr. Kirchoff, seconded by Mr. Brandgard. Mr. Brouillard- yes
Mr. McPhail- yes
Ms. Lafata- yes
Mr. Brandgard- yes
Mr. Duncan- yes
Mr. Kirchoff- yes
Mr. Gibbs- yes
Seven ayes, none opposed, motion is approved.
Mr. Gibbs: Thank you. Next item on the agenda DP-12-007, looks like Jill you are taking it.
Ms. Sprague: This is for the Stoops Buick. These guys are proposing this time to install an addition on the rear of the little bitty sides of their building. It is located there at the well not quite at the corner of Stanley and Quaker Blvd. surrounded primarily by general commercial and a little bit of office district. 267 is a gateway corridor and so three sides of the building are required to comply with the gateway corridor standards, but the rear where most of the addition will be is not required to. They are requesting an architectural and site design review for this addition and the site landscape and photometric plans all comply and I can show you a little more about that in just a minute, and then they are requesting a waiver for the building materials which they have done since the beginning of buildings history. The addition is the white area around here and because of that addition they are going to be obviously tearing out some pavement and taking out some landscape beds and stuff like that. The site definitely has more than enough parking, they have informed of how many parking spaces they need to keep open for customers and employees and then the landscaping that is being removed is actually not required to be replaced as when they first built the building they put in lots of extra landscape, so they still have plenty. They are going to replace the lighting that they remove, they are just going to put a couple on the building and that all complies. The elevation is the faded out parts is what is existing and the parts that you can see relatively well are the dark parts, the waivers that they are requesting is to have block be the primary building material on the north and south side and then on the Quaker Blvd. side, they are actually requesting a waiver because they won't have a primary building material, block is the one that comes the closest, but it doesn't meet the 50% requirement of being a building material and all of those are waivers that were approved, first in 2003 when the building was first built, and then last year when they wanted to get their building updated. They are going to have new HVAC mounted on the roof and it will stand out quite a bit but it will also be screened with the same material in the same color as what the roof material is made out of. There is a picture I believe of the rear of the building. DRC has recommended approval as it has been submitted, they have seen all of this information and as I mentioned the building waiver is the same ones that you have seen before. Primary changes on the rear of the property where they are not required to meet the gateway corridor standard. Any new or moved signage will need to be approved with a new ILP, but basically that is all I have unless you have any other questions, I'm sure the petitioner is here to answer any questions.
Mr. Gibbs: Are there any at this time from the board? If not would the petitioner like to come forward?
Mr. Quintana: Good evening, my name is Nick Quintana; I'm with the Sebree & Associate Architects, 97 Dover Street, Avon, Indiana. I am here representing Stoops Buick, with me is also Jim Meyers, you all know well from Stoops itself, and then Steve Hayes is with Banning Engineering. As all of you recall I came in here not too long ago to do the new updated image, and our intent all along was both to dress up the front of the building to meet the new GM standards, but also to expand the body shop and service departments. We didn't want to muddy the water because we were under a time restraint with GM to get the image portion of the project approved so that Stoops could stay in good standing with GM. That is why we decided to break it into two projects sorry we had to double your efforts on this too. We think it is a good for Stoops to be willing to expand and even bring more business to the Town of Plainfield. Like I said this is kind of more the same, we are just expanding the building out, we are using basically the same materials, the screening of the HVAC units is new, but we are more than willing to do that to comply. With that I will be more than happy to answer any questions that you have or if you would like to direct them directly to Jim.
Mr. Brouillard: I noticed that there is a comment in here that the CMU, can you tell me what that is?
Mr. Quintana: Masonry brick, the block, Concrete masonry Unit, it is called CMU.
Mr. Brouillard: Thank you.
Mr. McPhail: I thought you were going to tell us GM let you off the hook.
Mr. Quintana: No but for economies of scale obviously doing both projects basically under the same general contractor is going to give us a better value.
Mr. Gibbs: Thank you. This being a public meeting I will open it up to the public for any comments concerning this petition or in favor of this petition. If not, I close the public portion of the meeting and open it back up to the board for a motion or further questions.
Mr. Brandgard: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Plan Commission approve DP-12-007 as filed by Jim Meyers requesting architecture and site design review approval for an addition for the Stoops Buick at 1251 Quaker Blvd. with the requirement for waivers for building materials requirements finding that; 1. Building plan complies with all exceptional development standards of district in which this site is located. 2. The development plan complies with all applicable provisions of said conditions control ordinance at which a waiver has not been granted. 3. Development plan complies with all applicable provisions for architectural and site design review for which a waiver has not been granted. 4. Proposed development is appropriate to the site and its surroundings. 5. The proposed development is consistent with the intent purpose of the Plainfield zoning ordinance. In regarding a waiver to allow the primary building material structure to be concrete block and to allow the west elevation to not have a primary building material, the Plan Commission finds that; 1. The proposed development represents an innovative use of building materials for enhanced use and value of properties. 2. The proposed development is consistent with and compatible with other development located on the gateway corridor, and 3. The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Plainfield Zoning ordinance. At such approval be subject to the following conditions; 1. Substantial compliance with the building elevations and site plan, landscape plan, and photometric plan file dated April 20, 2012.
Mr. Duncan: Second.
Mr. Gibbs: I have a motion and a second, Mr. Carlucci would you please poll the board.
Mr. Carlucci: The motion was made by Mr. Brandgard, and seconded by Mr. Duncan. Mr. Brouillard- yes
Mr. McPhail- yes
Ms. Lafata- yes
Mr. Brandgard- yes
Mr. Duncan- yes
Mr. Kirchoff- yes
Mr. Gibbs- yes
Seven ayes, none opposed, motion is approved.
Mr. Gibbs: Next item.
Ms. Sprague: Next one is DP-12-008 for the Duke Realty Corporation. They are proposing AllPoints Midwest building 4, and you might think we are missing building 3, but they have allocated a different lot for building 3, so they are calling this one building 4. The address, I recycled this slide so the address is not correct. This is the site, it is located just north of all of the Adesa parking there that is along 40 and to the west of property we saw recently which was a truck repair place which I don't think they have gone through with that, so it is going to be right across from AllPoints Parkway. It is obviously it is primarily zoned I-2 and it is surrounded by I-2, Adesa to the south is the only difference in zoning which is the general commercial. There is residential within six hundred feet, which is why they need to do the development plan, this here is residential in the County. The site plan complies with all of the development standards, except they are going to request to reduce the amount of parking installed at development time and we have actually received their petition on that which will be heard on May 21st and we have approved several of those in the past several of those in the past few years, so it is not an unusual request. The landscaping also complies although they are requesting a waiver to not have to install the extra landscaping that would be required for an orientation of loading spaces, this property is along what we hope someday will be a street and I will show that to you later but it would run along the east side of the property. The site plan complies as I mentioned, they plan to land bank the parking the extra parking that would be required clear at the back of the property. The primary plat for AllPoints stated there is a condition that they would have to put in sidewalks along 200 South whenever there was any development, and so they will be installing those and also putting in a pedestrian connection on the north west corner of the building. Then these are the north and the south elevations, the south elevation actually does comply with our standards, which requires two colors of a certain amount. They haven't dressed it up like all of the rest of them because it is going to be facing all of that parking for Adesa. Then the other sides of the building this is the east and then the west. I did have an issue I thought with the sign in the building which I showed DRC, it looks like it will be a box sign which we do allow as a logo sign, and it looks like they must have updated their logo because that is now their new logo. Then this is where our comprehensive plan, land use plan, and transportation plan, this is the proposed street that would connect at the light where Adesa meets with 40 at the light, so that is why it would be a collector because it has a stoplight already at 40. That is the text amendment that Joe talked about at the last time we wanted to update our orientation of loading spaces to be required as a development incentive when it faced a collector or a higher. This is kind of a just a preemptive strike just to make sure that they were in compliance from the very beginning, and so in light of that, that is the waiver they are requesting was to not require that development incentive and then the variance will be heard on May 21st for their parking, but otherwise everything complies. So I know that the petitioner is here if you have any questions.
Mr. Gibbs: Jill I just have one question, architectural committee reviewed this and they are ok with this other one?
Ms. Sprague: Yes, DRC didn't see anything.
Mr. Gibbs: Is there any other questions from the board at this time, if not would the petitioner like to come forward.
Mr. Paul: Good evening everyone, I hope you are doing great tonight. I will do my best to make this brief, Jill hit on a lot of the same information I am going to show you so I will try to just touch on a few points that she did not make, although her presentation was very thorough. Here this evening to present AllPoints Midwest Building 4 to you which is going to be leased 100% to Regal Boy Corporation.
Mr. Carlucci: You want to tell us your name.
Mr. Paul: My name is Blaine Paul, I am with Duke Realty Corporation and with me is Randy Zynda and Dave Hansen with Regal Boy Corporation. I will be here to answer any questions you have relative to the development plan and if you have any Regal Boy specific questions they will be happy to answer those for you. I want to zoom in here on the site plan and indicate that there are two curb cuts proposed as part of this project, the northeastern curb cut is where the primary car access will be located and the primary truck access would be over at the northwest corner. At that gate right down here is where access to the site would be controlled, the entire site is subject to safety requirements, so the entire site is fenced with a secure fence it is going to be 8' tall black vinyl coated chain link fence. The initial building is 376,000 square feet; one of the reasons why one of the south building façade is not dressed up like the others is that it is our hope that it will be an expansion while that one day will be extended further to the south. One other thing I wanted to point out was the right of way has not yet been dedicated, so as we go through the secondary platting process for County Road 200 South we will be dedicating 35' half right of way, along the south side of the road, and then I am not sure if we are dedicating this at this time or not or if we are just putting it as proposed on the plat, but we basically pulled our improvements out of that area, we've committed to dedicating that half right of way for the future collector street if and when it comes through. When we first came in we had the building pushed significantly further to the east. But that was a comment that we received at our pre-filing meeting thankfully, so we had time to get that shifted over before we actually filed the petition. The initial building is 376,000 square feet with potential expansion will be 70,500 square feet. Also from a drainage prospective, the entire site drains pretty much north to south, so we will be installing drainage basins along the east and west perimeters to catch our roof drainage and all truck ports will sheet drain off of the gravel spreader into those basins and then will head down to the retention pond. Now we are looking at the south half of the facility, you can see the extension of the drainage basins will come down into this detention pond here and there is already triple culverts that go underneath the Adesa landscaping berm there that we will be utilizing for this project as well as our future expansion site which is over here. Not for this project, that will be a different building. Also we do have a truck loop road so that we will be able to get access from one dock to the other without having to access County Road 200. I wanted to touch upon landscaping very quickly, we have level one plantings on the north and the west façades, but then in on the north we have the parking lot perimeter and also the parking lot interior. I want to highlight a couple of points here just so that you are aware of it. We do have the proposed transformer located right at the north build of the façade, but we've got a two parking lot landscape around that to help block that. Then also this generator was on the original plans, it has since been pulled off but we wanted to leave it on the drawings, we wanted it to be a part of the Plan Commission approval so that if something changes in 6 months and then all of a sudden the generator is back in you are aware of it and you are comfortable that we are screening it appropriately. Then there is also an area here where there refuse bins will be located. To help screen that there is a berm that is going to be constructed right here as well as a berm that is going to be constructed right here as well as a berm that is going to be constructed in this location. Then we've increased the landscaping at both of those locations. The entire east perimeter is a level two planting which we have pulled close to the truck port so that if and when the road project goes through it is not like those trees are going to come out. They are out of the way and in the future right of way. Along the south level one plantings on the south side of the pond. I think you have seen the building, there is one thing I do want to point out relative to, it shows up pretty well on this drawing so we are going to stick here is relative to the HVAC screening, Joe asked for calculations on that, we submitted those calculations, the rooftop calculations will not be visible, there is a parapet, you can see where the roofline steps up right here and goes around the corner and then it steps down a little, but this elevation is about the same as this and as you go over to the next office pod, the north east corner of the building, all the rooftop ends are tucked behind these parapets, they vary in height from 3 to 6 feet in height. There are additional makeup area units in the central part of the facility but they are so deep on the inside but you are not going to be able to see those from the road frontage. I also wanted to talk a little bit about signage, this logo here, the reason why there was some confusion is that this logo was being worked on and just came out as we were going through the design process, and I think it is still even possible that it is being tweaked a little bit, so when the actual signage plans come in then they will be reviewed, but this will certainly give you an indication that this is going to be reasonably close to the corporate colors which is different than the colors of the purple strips on the building which was done intentionally to be complementary not to be exactly matching. Then there will also be a ground mounted sign located at the northwest entrance of the project. Sight lighting, everything complies, it is going to be shoebox style fixtures flat lens on the site, the majority of the site lighting is from wall not the fixtures, however the west truck court I should point out, there will be some poles over there however there will be some poles over there, but again it is the same fixture height mounted 30' off the ground and there will be lighting on the ground sign as well and one on each side of the two face ground sign I think you are accustomed to seeing. So with that, it concludes the presentation if you have any questions we would certainly be happy to answer those.
Mr. Paul: Do you want me to go back? Right here there is essentially going to be a secured location right here and there is going to be kind of a command center right beside this office pod that has visibility of that area of all times and it will be staffed continuously so when someone comes in they will have the ability to determine whether or not they belong there or they don't belong there and then they will have the ability to let them in at that point, it saves on money, it allows them to have their secure room, kind of in the main part of the building where they can use it for more than one use as opposed to having a guard house out there, and then one person can be more efficient with their time with this type of a set up. If by chance somebody gets to that location and they are not supposed to be there, they will have a personnel in the truck court that will have the ability to go up there and let them in and then basically escort them out the facility out the other side, so that is essentially how that will work and we think it is going to work great.
Mr. Gibbs: Questions at this time?
Mr. McPhail: I think I did have a question but I think Blaine just clarified that, that command post is going to be manned all the time, we've got a problem in that area out there, particularly the businesses on the north side not having enough stacking room for the trucks and getting them off the road, it is a real problem for us, but if I remember having an opportunity to tour their current facility, I think most of the trucks are in terminal you won't have a lot of trucks stacking up coming in there, Dave or Randy could answer that, it is just an issue that we just want to make sure if they start stacking up there you have a plan to get them off the road.
Mr. Hanson: My name is Dave Hanson I am from 6450 West Hannah Avenue in Indianapolis and I represent Regal Boy here tonight. To your question, the reason we took the guard shack out it is accurate in that it is a 24/7 operation, it is manned 363 days a year and there are only two days a year it is not manned, but we communicate with our carriers both in house and external so they understand there are no deliveries and there will be no stacking. To your earlier questions 65% of our traffic is all internal, we are going to outfit those tractors with devices so that when they come in to the site it will behave like an iPass, so that they don't have to wait and they will have access on the left hand side of the driveway as you come in so if there is a commercial carrier there or visitor carrier we won't have any stacking. We believe we've kind of over thought this as much as possible so that we could engineer to the worst case scenario.
Mr. Kirchoff: What is the estimated daily truck volume?
Mr. Hanson: All on a 24 hour basis, 50-60 entries on a 24 hour basis Monday through Friday. On the weekends it is much lower, it is predominately our fleet coming in from the southern borders they travel in teams come in over the weekends and it is much less. Thank you.
Mr. Gibbs: At this time I will open it up for the public; anyone wishing to address the board on the subject, if not I will close the public portion of the meeting and open it back up for the board for comments or motion.
Mr. Kirchoff: I have a couple of questions; one is more for Don I believe. As I look at this slide we have up, what's our lanes that we have there as far as left hand land etc.
Mr. McGillem: Across the frontage of this on 200 we've got pretty much the full width of the three lane section all the way across the frontage, now on the west drive the outer most area of the west drive is where we have not extended, if you recall when we extended the 200 for the west drive for primed distribution we finished out the north side of the roadway but we dropped the curb and tapered back in to the two lane section on the south side, so there is a small triangular piece in there building out that west drive that they are going to have to build out to the full width and then they will be back, when they get done it will be full build out all the way across their frontage.
Mr. Kirchoff: So no concern about them not lining up?
Mr. McGillem: I think with the three lanes in there I don't feel it will be a problem.
Mr. Gibbs: Don I might ask you a question
Mr. McGillem: I think with the three section or the three lanes in there I don't feel it will be a problem.
Mr. Gibbs: Don I might ask you a question is there any concern, I guess it would be the east ingress and egress on where that road would be.
Mr. McGillem: That is for whoever is here in the future. There will be when that future roadway comes in, there will be some work to try to work with them from the standpoint of the two drives right there close together. I think it can be done, the future roadway coming in there, it is on our plan, and we want preserved for it, it all depends and is all driven by what Adesa does in the future whether they redevelop that some other way, so without the Adesa modifications that future roadway will probably sit there pretty idle. But at the time it does come through and you got the (inaudible) 200, I think there will be some working in there possibly access coming out on the new roadway but they will need some new efforts in there.
Mr. Brouillard: Thinking about that same road there, and remembering this median conversation we had earlier. The sidewalk, will that be going in during construction or will that be when the road goes in.
Mr. Kirchoff: That is on 200.
Mr. McGillem: Sidewalk on 200? It will be going on right here.
Mr. Brouillard: I'm sorry but the road on the east side does that require a sidewalk?
Mr. McGillem: It will at that particular time require a sidewalk and it would be put in as a part of the roadway project.
Mr. Kirchoff: The only other question I guess if the procedural, Joe you indicated that this is going to be within 600' of residential, or Jill, I'm sorry, we did notify those residents who were here before when we did the other project, who are not here today.
Mr. Paul: Do you want to show them real quick what our boundary was? We used this property as our boundary that is 600' of two properties deep.
Ms. Sprague: You are probably asking about these over here to the west.
Mr. Kirchoff: Yes when we heard the truck repair site, we had a number of people here and I just wanted to make sure notification was consistent.
Ms. Sprague: They actually notified farther than they needed too technically.
Mr. Kirchoff: Just wanted to be safe.
Mr. Gibbs: I will entertain a motion.
Mr. McPhail: Mr. Chairman I move that the Plan Commission approve DP-12-008 as filed by Blaine Paul, Duke Realty Corporation, requesting architectural site design review approval for a development of 376,000 square foot warehouse distribution facility at approximately 9899 South County Road 200 South at 26.544 acres as well as approval for a waiver not to require the orientation of loading spaces development incentive finding that; 1. The development plan complies with all applicable development standards with the district location. 2. The development plan complies with all applicable subdivisions of the sub controlled ordinance for which a waiver has not been granted. 3. The development plan complies with all applicable provisions of architectural and site design reviews for which a waiver has not been granted. 4. The proposed development is appropriate to the site and surroundings. 5. The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Plainfield zoning ordinance and regarding a waiver to not require the (inaudible) to install the orientation of loading spaces development incentive landscaping, and the Plan Commission finds that; 1. The proposed development represents an innovative use of landscaping that will enhance the use and value their properties. 2. The proposed development is consistent with and compatible with other developments located within 600' of the residential and the proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of Plainfield Zoning ordinance and that such approval be said to the following conditions; 1. Substantial compliance with site plan, photometric plan, lighting cut sheets, site plan, and building elevation submitted file date April 19, 2012; and 2. Substantial compliance with landscaping plan submitted file dated April 27, 2012.
Mr. Brouillard: Second.
Mr. Gibbs: I have a motion and a second, Mr. Carlucci would you poll the board?
Mr. Carlucci: Motion was made by Mr. McPhail, seconded by Mr. Brouillard. Mr. Brouillard- yes
Mr. McPhail- yes
Ms. Lafata- yes
Mr. Brandgard- yes
Mr. Duncan- yes
Mr. Kirchoff- yes
Mr. Gibbs- yes
Seven ayes, none opposed, motion is approved.
Mr. Gibbs: Thank you.
OLD BUSINESS/NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Gibbs: New business.
Ms. Sprague: I think the next thing on there is the Ryland request. We have seen several of these before, they have proposed another elevation, actually another floor plan with two elevations that they would like to be approved to have with a smaller garage than the 484 that is required. The Sugar Grove allows us to bring to you any plans that are at least 450 square feet that have the HVAC and other chemical equipment not in the garage. All of these floor plans comply with that and we just wanted to bring this one to you for approval to make sure you think it is ok.
Mr. Kirchoff: Jill as I read the floor plans, it says garage 383 square foot.
Ms. Sprague: Right, they will have to have a four foot extension at least which brings them to I think it was 458.
Mr. McPhail: So they are going to have a 4' extension on this curb.
Ms. Sprague: Right and that is pretty common, most of theirs has to have a 4' extension.
Mr. Gibbs: Do we need a motion or consent?
Mr. McPhail: Might just clarification for two expenders, sometimes we adopt an ordinance that garages had to be a certain square footage because we were having trouble in some of subdivisions with no rooms to put cars in or bicycles and things like that. What is our standard base?
Ms. Sprague: 484 which is basically 22X48.
Mr. McPhail: But we have given waivers if there is no mechanicals in there, which gives them the same storage space. Did I explain that right?
Mr. Gibbs: It looks like you have the consent. Did we have some invitees that didn't show up?
Mr. James: Yes we had two invitees; one is Jeff Masters at 308 South Mill Street. They had done some work, they cleaned this up and they cleaned this up, but they've still got a mess back here and the front porch is messy. Mr. Masters, he is in poor health, he's got M.S., there is a young fellow, I don't know if it is his son or who he is living with him so I think this young man could help out Mr. Masters, I was hoping somebody would come tonight, but I will pay him another visit tomorrow and see if we can't motivate him to clean this up a little more and clean up the front porch.
Mr. Kirchoff: Is this the same address that probably 2 or 3 years ago we had concerns about the back of the property down by the trails?
Mr. James: Yes.
Mr. Kirchoff: I drove down by it tonight and thought gosh if you ever walked that trail, that back yard is, I was curious if it was the same property and if there has been any progress with that.
Mr. James: Yes, I didn't check the back.
Mr. Kirchoff: It is probably pretty close to a health hazard. Joe, my only comment would be, I would look at the whole site and not just this.
Mr. McPhail: Do you need a little teeth in your approach? I'm willing to make a motion to start the fining process if you don't get some agreement.
Mr. Kirchoff: Give him some kind of time frame.
Mr. James: I can give him a couple of weeks if we don't see progress in 2 weeks then we will start the fining process.
Ms. Lafata: How long do you let it sit before, like how long has this been an issue?
Mr. James: The front has been an issue for over a month I guess, but the back has been an issue for a couple of years.
This is Doug Jared at 47 Omega Lane. I made a call on the property and his neighbor and noticed his property and it is in pretty bad shape. Omega lane is as you are heading east and you get to Quaker Blvd., off on the right.
Mr. Kirchoff: The Marathon Station there, it is the first road east of the Marathon Station on 40. We are building a Habitat House on Omega and Butler.
Mr. McPhail: Has he responded to you at all?
Mr. James: No, I haven't heard from him.
Mr. McPhail: I would send him a letter and let him know you are going to start fining him. They don't respond we've got to give you some teeth.
Mr. Carlucci: One of the issues we have with another property owner is, you really got to make the fine, give us a dollar amount more than just $25.00 because that won't get anybody to do anything. Because we've got another one that we are going to bring up that was already told they are in violation and we fine them $25.00, well for that violation, so what he still wins on that one because of what he has been doing, and we will get into that after Joe is done.
Mr. James: Ok, do you want me to give him 2 more weeks and tell him if o progress we are going to start the fining process?
Mr. Kirchoff: Has he cleaned up anything? I drove by there this evening and I turned around in his neighbor's yard and all of a sudden there was somebody out on this road looking to see who was looking at the property. I don't know maybe somebody else had driven by too and he was beginning to get leery or something. I couldn't see what was in the back, I saw the side yard, I went down back and down again because I wanted to check on the Habitat house, the side yard, doesn't he have a car sitting there or something? There was a vehicle sitting there blocking that lawn mower, you can see the dead spot? That is where he pulls the vehicle in, and he pulls the vehicle in and blocks some of that. But I couldn't see what was in the back.
Mr. Brouillard: Joe what is the process? You are going to fine them $25.00 what goes on after that?
Mr. James: They have 45 days to either pay the fine or let us know that they want to go to court, if they don't pay the fine or we don't hear from them then we will take them to court.
Mr. Brouillard: So say he pays the fine, does he have to clean it up?
Mr. James: Yes.
Mr. Carlucci: The Judge will make him clean it up.
Mr. Brouillard: But if he pays the fine is there any further action?
Mr. James: I can give them thirty more days and then if he we don't see any progress in thirty more days; we can fine them again and increase the fine.
Mr. Brouillard: So is there a monetary value for the second fine and it goes up from there?
Mr. James: Yes, and it goes up.
Mr. Carlucci: Do we have to file at this point to a higher point, I mean if you start at $25.00 then you got to go to $50.00.
Mr. James: Well it starts at $50.00; you can go from $50.00 to $100.00.
Mr. Carlucci: Can the Plan Commission say we want to start here as opposed to…
Mr. James: Yes we will get into that. The next item I want to talk about some citations, one of them is 912 Gary Drive, he is the one that has the race car hauler that we had before the BZA a few years ago, and he continues to park it at his residence. It is a vehicle that is over three quarters of a ton and he says it was an RV, but it is not an RV, it is a commercial hauler. I fined him last year, he came in and paid a $50.00 fine, he is still parking the carrier there and so Rich talked to me about it and wanted me to get with Mel and see if we can just go ahead and fine him $500.00 or whatever and send him a message instead of going from $50 to $100.00 then $500.00 or whatever.
Mr. Daniel: I haven't looked at that fine provision in quite some time, so I will be glad to look at it and see if we can jack that up, he may think it is worth paying $50.00 every few months to park that there.
Mr. Carlucci: Is the other part of this that every day is a separate violation?
Mr. Daniel: Each day can be treated as a separate violation on that, so you can jack that up pretty quick, isn't that what the ordinance says? It doesn't? I haven't looked at that in a long time.
Mr. McPhail: We may need to amend that.
Mr. Daniel: That is true too.
Mr. Gibbs: In fact I would like to make it retroactive.
Mr. James: Says the first citation is $50.00, second citation minimum $50.00 not to exceed $100.00, and forth citation not to exceed $200.00. Now if it is commercial it says per day, but it doesn't for residential.
Mr. Brandgard: I thought we had it for residential too.
Mr. Daniel: We may want to change that.
Mr. James: For residential it is per violation.
Mr. Kirchoff: You could go there once a week or something.
Mr. Brouillard: Well that was what I was thinking, you pay the fine, someone might think I'm done with this.
Mr. James: I can only fine them once every 10 days.
Mr. Carlucci: I think there is good difference and the guy is just violating by being told not to bring that, and these people here, I think it is easier to motivate these people to get these things done than the guy that can just pay it and just ignore it.
Mr. Kirchoff: Is that the only provision in which we have the right to fine the fellow with the hauler, is there any other ordinances out there that might be…
Mr. Carlucci: Every time we he drives down there he is exceeding the weight limit on the street.
Mr. Kirchoff: That is what I am saying, are there other things that we can fine him for?
Mr. Daniel: Joe is this the same violation he was called on before?
Mr. James: Yes.
Mr. Daniel: So this would be a second violation wouldn't it?
Mr. McPhail: I would fine him as much as you can as often as you can, and we need to work on that ordinance, we need to get to be where after a period it is a daily.
Mr. Daniel: What is the second violation?
Mr. James: Not to exceed $100.00.
Mr. Daniel: The Plan Commission could authorize you to tell him right now if he does it again it is going to be $100.00, because this is the second violation.
Mr. James: Third is not to exceed $150.00.
Mr. Daniel: That is still pretty small.
Mr. Brandgard: I think we need to go to the maximum.