Mr. Gibbs: I would like to call to order the Plainfield Plan Commission meeting for April 5, 2012.
ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM
Mr. Gibbs: Mr. Carlucci would you poll the board to determine a quorum?
Mr. Carlucci: Mr. Brouillard- here
Mr. McPhail- here
Ms. Lafata- here
Mr. Brandgard- here
Mr. Duncan- here
Mr. Kirchoff- here
Mr. Gibbs- here
Seven members present, none absent, we have a quorum for the purpose of conducting business.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mr. Gibbs: Thank you, would everyone please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES- March 5, 2012
Mr. Gibbs: I assume all of the board members had the opportunity to review the minutes from March 5th, if so I will entertain a motion.
Mr. Kirchoff: I would move that we approve them with a correction on page 6, the largest paragraph there where Mr. Daniel is speaking I believe that should be the Appellate court not the Pellet Court. I move that we approve as amended.
Mr. McPhail: Second.
Mr. Gibbs: I have a motion to accept the minutes as written with a correction on page 6, and a second; Mr. Carlucci would poll the board?
Mr. Carlucci: Mr. Brouillard- yes
Mr. McPhail¬- abstain
Ms. Lafata- yes
Mr. Brandgard- yes
Mr. Duncan- yes
Mr. Kirchoff- yes
Mr. Gibbs- yes
Motion is approved, six ayes, one abstention.
Mr. Gibbs: Thank you.
OATH OF TESTIMONY
Mr. Daniel conducted the oath of testimony.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mr. Gibbs reviewed the guidelines governing the conduct of public hearings.
PETITIONS FOR PUBLIC HEARING
Mr. Gibbs: First item on the agenda is PP-12-01, Mr. James we will turn it over to you.
Mr. James: Good evening Mr. President and members of the Plan Commission. Our first petition tonight is an Incremental Commercial Primary Plat. This is to create a lot for the new Aldi's store that we approved a couple of months ago. This is at the old Galayan's property at the northwest corner of Main and Shady Lane, they are going to create two lots and a phase that could be subdivided in the future through the incremental plat process. Lot one is for Aldi, and lot two is for Ameriana Bank. Utility and drainage uses will be added with a secondary plat after the construction plan for Aldi's has been reviewed and approved. The lots comply with the general commercial standards, this is zoned, this is zoned General Commercial. There is an existing cross access easement on the property that allows access across the property, so we discussed this with the development plan, the adjacent property to the west could enter on the property and go across the property and then get to Shady Lane. Then there are existing sidewalks on Main Street and Shady Lane, so no additional right of way is needed off of Shady Lane, and no waivers are requested. Here is the property 8.8 acres, here is the old Galayan's building which is going to be demolished, the Fire Department was out there last week doing some training in the building. Here you can see it is zoned General Commercial, Shady Lane, and Main Street. This is the primary plat; lot 1 for Aldi's and lot 2 for the Ameriana Bank in the corner, and this would be phase 1 that could be subdivided into the future with just a secondary plat. So the plat complies with all of the Subdivision Control Ordinance Regulations and with the General Commercial standards.
Mr. Gibbs: Is there any questions from the board at this time?
Mr. McPhail: Joe where is the easement to the west for the connector?
Mr. James: There is no easement, there is a cross access for the whole property, so they could connect over here, they currently have the right to go across the property, and it is a blanket cross access easement.
Mr. Gibbs: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Mr. Furr: Justin Furr, Director of Real Estate for Aldi, my address is 486 East Stop 18 Road, Greenwood, Indiana 46143. Just to answer the question we are still working with the neighbor to the west, we have some documents going back and forth to establish that official easement agreement between the two of us, but all the indications are that as long as he is ok with it, we are fine with it and we've made some changes to the site plan to allow his connection as long as he does a little bit of grading on his side, it should be no problem at all, we made those changes to help make that happen. Really I didn't have anything to add, I am here to answer any questions that you might have.
Mr. Gibbs: No more questions from the board.
Mr. Furr: Thank you.
Mr. Gibbs: At this time I will open it up for anyone to speak in favor or opposing this petition. If not, I will close the public portion of the meeting and open it back up to the board for discussion or a motion.
Mr. Kirchoff: Mr. President I move that the Plan Commission approve PP-12-002 as filed by Aldi, Inc. requesting approval of the Galyan's incremental Commercial Primary Plat upon finding that:
1. Adequate provisions have been made for regulation minimum lot width, minimum lot depth and minimum lot area.
2. Adequate provisions have been made for widths, grades, and curves and coordination of subdivisions public ways and current and planned public ways; and
3. Adequate provisions have been made for the extension of water and sewer, and other municipal services,
and such approval shall be subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the Town Standards, including but not limited to Plainfield Ordinance 1-96 regarding floodplain Management; Plainfield Ordinance numbers 4-94, and 3-86 regarding Sewage Works; Plainfield Ordinance number 17-97 regarding drainage; Plainfield Ordinance number 19-97 regarding Municipal Waterworks and Plainfield Ordinance number 18-97 regarding access permits.
2. Complies with the standards and specifications, the Plainfield Subdivision Control Ordinance,
3. All lots created by an incremental secondary plat shall have either (i) direct access to and from the public recorded access easement through portions of real estate included in a primary plat.
4. All lots created by an incremental secondary plat, shall either contain within the limits of the incremental secondary plat or have legal access to an adequate infrastructure to accommodate the fully developed needs of the incremental plat, (i.e., storm water management, sanitary sewer, water, electric, gas, telephone etc.).
5. Substantial compliance with the primary plat submitted file date March 16, 2012.
Mr. McPhail: Second.
Mr. Gibbs: I have a motion and a second, Mr. Carlucci would you poll the board.
Mr. Carlucci: Motion was made by Mr. Kirchoff, seconded by Mr. McPhail.
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, the motion is approved.
Mr. Gibbs: The next item on the agenda, DP-12-002, Jill.
Ms. Sprague: This one is for the Speedway South, down by the interstate, they have a location there, it is on the corner of 267 and East Perry Road, or also on the Cambridge Way corner with East Perry Road. They are going to tear down the existing building and reconstruct the convenience store further to the south so that there is not parking behind the building where there is not parking behind the building where people are less likely to use it. The gas station itself will be almost 4,000 square foot building, and then I think it was 4 pumps out front. The property is zoned General Commercial and also surrounded by General Commercial it is not going to be any surprise to anybody. Since they have gateway corridors on two sides they are required to have or to meet the gateway corridor standards on all four sides. Then the site plan and everything complies with almost all of the ordinance requirements, they will be going to the Board of Zoning Appeals on April 16th to review a few signage things, I will talk about those in a minute. Then the proposal did also require the use of the depth of yards so that they could put their interior access drive a little closer to the property line than usual, but they did also put in the extra landscaping that was required for that. I did a combination here of the site plan and the landscape plan from our petitioner, and basically everything meets the ordinance standards; it fronts all three fronts meet the required doubled the landscaping for the development incentives. The building elevations, they all comply. The signage there, this sign here is going to be a second changeable copy sign as well as to be a changeable copy sign that is not part of an identification sign, which both of those are variance issues and then both sides of the canopy they are proposing to have on the short sides, the full Speedway written out, which is more than the allowed 10% that is where their other two variances will come from. This is basically the same stuff just to show you their HBAC will be on the back on the gable roof there, but they put in the screening so that they will be fully screened. The lighting all complies and just to show you, they are going to leave up their existing pylon sign and pole signs. This is the first changeable copy which is why the one on the building would be the second. Then basically except for the signage stuff everything the supplied us meets what the ordinance requires and decide if the DRC and staff all the requests we made to them have been cleared up, so if you have any questions for me I can answer those, and I know the petitioner is here.
Mr. Gibbs: Would the petitioner like to come forward and address the board?
Mr. Carter: Eric Carter with Weihe Engineers, 10505 N. College Ave., Indianapolis, In. Jill pretty much summed up what I had here too. It is on the site location on Hadley Road and State Road 267, the existing site you can see the canopy is attached and the rebuild will be a detached canopy and so it opens up a space compared to what is up there now. The picture is showing what is existing, and this is the proposed site plan, and you see the canopy is detached and parking along the side and the front. This is another store down the road from here that is showing the sign, it will not have the striping that you see on this one, Adam Campbell with Speedway is here too if you have any questions for him.
Mr. Kirchoff: Could you go back to the one that shows both the site plan and your landscape, backup to where it shows kind of the plot plan and the landscape and that? Are there sidewalks on Cambridge Way? Not even today? Which leads to my question which I will ask staff after.
Mr. Brouillard: Jill had mentioned something about pushing your building back, was there a problem with the parking lot back there or just a better utilization of space now?
Mr. Carter: Better use of space.
Mr. Gibbs: At this time I will open it up for the public for anyone opposing or supporting this petition if you would like to come forward.
If not I will close the public portion of the meeting and open it back up to the board for discussion.
Mr. Kirchoff: My question comes from our work session we had a couple of weeks ago on transportation and one of the things, we got a report on the gateway corridor project and one of the concerns we have had down in this area is pedestrian access across Quaker Boulevard, and we have been kicking around some possibilities for that, so that led me to wonder should we be considering sidewalks as looking at a new project down there. I look to staff to give us some feedback.
Mr. McGillem: If we were to build sidewalks across we would prefer that they would be on the north side, sidewalks all along Perry Road continue all along our pathway along the north and west side of Perry. We don't have adequate right of way across McDonald's or any of the parcels on the south side that we could get walks across. I think that if we as you indicated in gateway corridor we are looking at what we might be able to do there, but I think if we did put pedestrian crossing at surface at the intersection it would go across the north side. It comes in at Shell back to our need at some point and time to get that additional right of way from Shell in order to extend the lane and complete that.
Mr. Kirchoff: The reason I was questioning Don is, one of the proposals you were talking about was possibly doing something south, and if you did that, then how will pedestrians get north if we were south with no sidewalks? We were talking about even down by the Coachman or someplace down there.
Mr. McGillem: Talking about side road separation structured. I think if we go to separation structure it would be in that area between Steak N' Shake and the Coachman where we would cross onto (inaudible). We will try to get people to use it down there.
Mr. Kirchoff: But again is would there be any sidewalk connectors then to go north if we come across on that south there?
Mr. McGillem: There are no sidewalks along Cambridge except for one location and that is I think that is in front of Best Western or something, Comfort Inn.
Mr. Belcher: Just looking at that apparently we have the walks to the corner of Manchester that's the drive that goes out to the back way and there is also one piece of walk at the Comfort Inn and it stops. We picked up a few pieces so McDonald's would be the only plot with no walk on it, if you tried to deliver a cross street to that intersection, I'm not sure we'd want too, but that would be one option. There are sidewalks on the Clarks Creek Road, the new road a little bit further to the east that do connect all the way up to Hadley could get you to the north, but again there are some issues about people trying to walk on Cambridge we probably want to look at. There are many widths there in Cambridge too, you might be able to take it out of Cambridge and still have plenty of lane width at some point in the future if we really want to get some people north.
Mr. McPhail: I have a question for Joe. Will this particular side has two nonconforming signs right; does our ordinance allow complete rebuild for this facility and still maintain those signs?
Mr. James: Yes as long as they don't remove the signs.
Mr. McPhail: We got a situation here where we are going to get a brand new facility, and if it was built from scratch they wouldn't be allowed to put those signs out there and we are going to allow them to continue to have nonconforming signs? That is not fair to new people coming in and building.
Mr. James: That is a good point.
Mr. Gibbs: Anything else from the board, if not I will entertain a motion.
Mr. Brandgard: Mr. Chairman, I would move that the Plan Commission approve DP-12-002 as filed by James K., Shinneman in requesting architectural and site design for approval for the new building of the Speedway Gas Station and Convenient Store at 6050 Cambridge Way on 1.23 acres finding that:
1. That the development plan complies with all regular development standards of district in which the site is located.
2. The development plan complies with all applicable provisions of the subdivision control ordinance for which a waiver has not been granted.
3. The development plan complies with all applicable provisions to the architectural and site design review for which a waiver has not been granted.
4. The proposed development is appropriate for the site and its surroundings.
5. The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance,
and that such approval be subject to the following conditions:
1. Substantial compliance with the site plan, lighting cut sheets, photometric plan, and landscaping plan submitted file date March 16, 2012.
2. Substantial compliance with building elevations submitted file date March 28, 2012.
3. Substantial compliance with sign plans submitted file date March 16, 2012 pending approval by the BZA for the variances being requested.
Mr. Kirchoff: Second.
Mr. Gibbs: I have a motion and a second, Mr. Carlucci would you poll the board.
Mr. Carlucci: The motion was made by Mr. Brandgard, seconded by Mr. Kirchoff. 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-12-003.
Ms. Sprague: This one is for a new project they are calling Airtechs 8PA, we have done 7PA, 9PA, and 5PA. 5 and 7 are up here and 9PA is down here where Amazon is, this one is going to be 8PA here, it is in between Airtech Parkway and Ronald Reagan Parkway. Currently it is zoned I-2 and surrounded on the north and west by I-2. Basically to the south is the Stouts farm zoned Ag, and to the east is undeveloped commercial industrial. The property and all of its surrounding areas recommended light industrial or warehouse by the comprehensive plan. Just a few things as we go through. This is the site plan, they are planning to divide the property into two lots at the moment and then as Airtech is the only one with a sidewalk on the side of the property we are talking about, they and since this property is not adjacent to Airtech they will not have to do a pedestrian connection at this time. If they do an addition or a new building on this lot then they would have to put in the pedestrian connection. The pedestrian connection on Ronald Reagan Parkway is on the east side. So currently the parking this only covers the area that if the entire building is warehouse that is how much parking they have. They will need to put in more parking if they put in office space which is usual, but we can take care of that at the IOP stage, and then they have also shown us some signage locations at every entrance. Main signage is only allowed to be on one frontage. The DRC had a little bit of trouble with the original elevation they had shown us, this is a sample of the original submittal and this was the updates they made in response to DRC's request that they put in more features that have more contrast to break up the long length of the building. When we resubmitted those to the DRC they felt that that had met the request that they made. Basically the landscaping or lighting plan are way to small to show you up there, so those all complied and they've done everything that we requested of them and any of the issues with the parking stuff we can take care of at the ILP stage. If you have any questions for me, I can answer those or I know the petitioner is here as well.
Mr. Gibbs: Is there any questions from the board at this time? Would the petitioner like to come forward?
Mr. Hirschman: I am John Hirschman with Browning Investments; address is 6100 West 96th Street, Indianapolis. First of all thanks for opportunity to be here tonight, thanks for considering our project, thanks also your staff, as always work hard and they do a great job and they add a lot of value to our projects, so I appreciate all of the time and effort put into it. I don't have a lot to say the staff report was complete and accurate and good, and we are just excited. I was driving here tonight thinking how long it has been since I have been through this process and Airtech it has been since 2006. The last building we did in Airtech was the Amazon building, 950,000 square foot building that Airtech, that is hard to believe, and we are already to get going on this building this year, awfully excited about it, so I am happy to answer any questions you have about the project generally and I've got a whole slew of design team members here that know more than I do about the details if any of that stuff comes up, so happy to answer questions.
Mr. McPhail: I have a question on the north east corner of the access outlet parking lot (inaudible).
Mr. Hirschman: There is an interior access drive that runs east west on the south side of those two buildings, one building is the OHL building there at Reagan and the other is the NicePak building, there is an interior access drive that connects Airtech Parkway to Reagan and that curb cut feeds into that interior access drive.
Mr. McPhail: So they will have two right ins, right outs?
Mr. Hirschman: Correct.
Mr. Gibbs: At this time I will open it up for anyone in favor or opposing the petition. I will close the public portion and open it up to the board for discussion or a motion.
Mr. Kirchoff: Mr. President I move that Plan Commission approve DP-12-003 as filed by Six Points Associates LLC requesting architectural and Site Design and Review approval for a 622,440 square foot distribution facility at approximately 445 Airtech Parkway on 39.7 acres finding that:
1. The development plan complies with all applicable development standards of the district in which the site is located.
2. The Development Plan complies with all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Control Ordinance for which a waiver has not been granted.
3. The Development Plan complies with all applicable provisions for Architectural and Site Design Review for which a waiver has not been granted.
4. Development is appropriate to the site and its surroundings.
5. The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance,
and that such approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Substantial compliance with site plan, photometric plan, and landscaping plan submitted file date March 16, 2012, and;
2. Substantial compliance with building elevations submitted file date March 28, 2012.
Mr. Brandgard: Second.
Mr. Gibbs: The motion is second, Mr. Carlucci will you please poll the board.
Mr. Carlucci: Motion was made by 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, the motion is approved.
Mr. Gibbs: Thank you. Next item on the agenda DP-12-004.
Mr. James: This is the Verus Partners petition they need to do the orientation of loading space development incentive for a 770,000 square foot warehouse, because based on article 4-11 you can't have loading space between the building and the front lot line unless you do the orientation of loading space development incentive. This site is unique in that it is not within 600' of the Ronald Reagan Parkway which is a gateway corridor, so it doesn't require a development plan approval by the Plan Commission for compliance with all of the gateway corridor development standards, but because they will seek tax abatement they did have to comply with the gateway standards and we took this to the design review committee so DRC looked at all of the plans and they recommended approval with all plans and also of the alternative landscaping plan. The west perimeter is where they have to do the development incentive, that loading space will face Plainfield road at the west perimeter which Plainfield Road is the frontage road that is just east of the Ronald Reagan Parkway and the landscaping plan complies, they have required level 6 because they have to do the orientation loading space, plus they have to do the depth of yard development so that gets them up to a level six. I am going to show you the alternative landscaping plan that they are proposing. They would like to move the level one perimeter landscaping at the east perimeter, that is back at the bottom of the hill that is next to the Indianapolis Airport nobody is going to see it, there is going to be no development to the east of this property, and it is in a floodplain so that is another reason that there won't be any development over there. They would like to take that landscaping and move it to the opposite side of Plainfield Road onto their commercial industrial zoned property. Here is the site, this is the Greenparke Industrial Park, this is Ronald Reagan, Plainfield Road to the south is Indy Park Ride and Fly and then you've got the airport over here. This is the creek back here so there will be no development to the east back over here, then here is Plainfield Road and that is where the loading spaces will be facing Plainfield Road and they will also be back here in the back so they will have cross docks and then you see it is in the I-2 zoning and then they have got the commercial industrial zoning along the frontage which will be the flex office type buildings like Banning's building, and so there will be some development between Ronald Reagan and this site sometime in the future. Just want to show you what the buildings going to look like. This is the rendering that was approved by the Design Review Committee and all the elevations complied, so I just wanted you to see what the building was going to look like and I think they presented that in their packets also. Here is the landscaping plan, you got the level six here, here is Plainfield Road and then all the landscaping complies, they are going to use the existing trees over here on the east side which will be given credit for the required landscaping over here, so that complies. Then here is the level one back here in the floodplain, there is a 15' elevation drop from this road to the back of the property. This landscaping it isn't going to do much good so they would like to move it up here to this side of Plainfield Road and create more of a streetscape for Plainfield Road and also when this property develops they will still have to do your required level one landscaping, so this is just going to be additional landscaping to what is going to be required in the future. So that is the alternative landscaping plan that they would like to do. So tonight you will make a motion on the orientation of loading space development incentive with the options of the landscaping plans.
Mr. McPhail: Joe I have a question about the water storage tank and the fire system that is not any higher than the building (inaudible).
Mr. James: The tank is 50' tall, but again it is going to be back here behind the building and with the elevation drop, I don't know if you are going to be able to see it or not. Bob Staton is here representing the petitioner if you have any questions for Bob.
Mr. Staton: Good evening, Bob Staton, Banning Engineering, 853 Columbia Road, Plainfield. Like Joe said if you have any questions I'd be happy to try to answer them. Andy Churchill with JRA is also here.
Mr. McPhail: With that storage system I was wondering what size of water line you will need to feed that.
Mr. Staton: I'm not sure; we haven't figured all that out yet.
Mr. Churchill: Good evening, Andrew Churchill with JRA Architecture offices at 7222 N. Shadeland Road, Indianapolis, Indiana 46250. The point of having the water tank of that size is that we can fill it up slowly and not have a big demand on the city water supply system. So it is probably going to be a much smaller service line than what we would normally feed a building that doesn't have a storage tank. I think you are correct in that the site lines since it is only slightly higher, but it is behind and down below. We took kind of a worst case scenario; it may turn out to be shorter also.
Mr. Brouillard: Is it common that have a storage tank like that for a building that size?
Mr. Churchill: We wanted to build in the capacity to handle high hazard commodities, and the required flows for that exceed what the Plainfield ordinance permit's the demand to be. So it is a decision that was made in order to have the capability providing a higher level of protection.
Mr. Brouillard: What is a high hazard commodity, I am ignorant to that.
Mr. Churchill: They are not the kind of things that you would think of, I can't say it is a spec building, they are not the kind of thing that you would necessarily think of as being dangerous, but they are more of a high challenged type fire things like plastics perhaps and it could get into some combustible liquids or something like that.
Mr. Brouillard: So it is more of an emergency type.
Mr. Churchill: Yes absolutely, there are some things that I know, like I think over at NicePak for instance, some of their fabrics and things like that is high challenge.
Mr. Gibbs: At this time the board will hear any comments in favor or opposed to the petition. We will close the public portion of the meeting and open it back up to the board for discussion or a possible motion.
Mr. Kirchoff: I'm not sure I understand the last condition on the proposed motion. Is it A or B?
Mr. James: Yes, A would be required plan where you are not moving that landscaping and B would be the alternative plan where you are moving it.
Mr. Kirchoff: So we should pick one with the motion.
Mr. James: That is correct.
Mr. Kirchoff: Mr. President, I move that the Plan Commission approve
DP-12-004 as followed by Verus Partners, LLC development incentive to allow the orientation of loading space toward a front lot line for a proposed 770,640 square foot warehouse distribution finding that:
1. The required front yard is effectively screened with perimeter landscaping as required for the use development incentive;
2. The proposed development is appropriate to the site and its surroundings; and,
3. That the proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Plainfield Zoning ordinance.
And that such approval is subject to the following condition:
1. Substantial compliance with the alternate landscaping plan; submitted file date March 16, 2012.
Mr. Brandgard: I will second.
Mr. Gibbs: A motion and a second, Mr. Carlucci would you poll the board.
Mr. Carlucci: The motion was made by 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. DP-12-005.
Mr. James: This is similar to the last petition, this is not within 600' of a gateway corridor, and they are requesting a waiver to not do the orientation of loading space development incentive for a proposed 600,835 square foot warehouse. It is more than 600' from State Road 267, so it did not require a Plan Commission approval of a development plan of compliance with all the gateway corridor standards and like the last petition they are seeking tax abatement so it had to go to DRC. DRC did review it for compliance with all of the gateway standards and DRC recommended approval with the revised landscaping plan and revised elevations. Since the DRC meeting they have revised elevations and DRC has looked at them and approved of the revised elevations. Loading space will be oriented toward Reeves Road which is a collector, the revised landscaping plan called for moving extra parking lot trees to the west perimeter and also exchanging those trees for evergreens to provide year round screening at that west perimeter. The west perimeter would be facing State Road 267, and it has been enhanced with a 6' tall berm along that west perimeter so that upgrades that perimeter to more than a level two or almost a level two. They do have a proposed 200,000' expansion to the west side of the building and the required landscaping for the whole site would be equal at plant unit value of 117.4 in what they have and that includes what would be needed for the expansion, and what they have is 136.105 is provided. With the waiver it would be more than what is required for the overall landscaping. So with the alternative plan does that justify the waiver? Here is the site, Reeves Road and 267, Cambridge Way. This is the Airwest 11 building, it is the Scheutz, Firestone, and then you've got Becton Dickinson to the north. Hartford Avenue is here and Opus brought this in a few years ago, this was platted for industrial uses and this was rezoned for commercial uses. This will be a commercial out lots. So at some time in the future like the previous petition, there will be development between 267 and this site. Here is the zoning, this is all general commercial and this is all I-2 light industrial. Again I want to show you what the building is going to look like. This is the office corner elevation and then here is the revised elevation and they have added these architectural features, design features to help break up the large mass of that long elevation and DRC was ok with the changes. This is the original landscaping plan, they had way more landscaping in the parking lot than what they needed so DRC recommended them taking the extra landscaping and putting some of it here to screen the docks here and then to put some over here on this west perimeter to help provide some screening over here. Then this is the revised landscaping, you can see that they have increased landscaping here and then they have added the landscaping over here with the 6' tall berms, so with the waiver you would approve this alternative landscaping plan. So with that I will have a seat. Ryan Lindley is here with Banning Engineering representing the petitioner, I'm sure he would be glad to answer any questions you might have.
Mr. Gibbs: Ryan would you like to address the board?
Mr. Lindley: Ryan Lindley Banning Engineering, 853 Columbia Road, Plainfield. Joe has always done a great job, I'd be more than happy to answer any questions you might have.
Mr. Kirchoff: Ryan how far back is (inaudible) from Reeves Road?
Mr. Lindley: That is a good question; the truck load is 140' so you are well over 200 at 12'. That pond is going to be quite the pond. There is going to be a lot of great change on this property.
Mr. Gibbs: Thank you. At this time I will open it up to anyone wants to approach the board in favor or opposing this petition. If not I will close the public portion and open it back up for the board for discussion or a motion.
Mr. McPhail: The March 16th landscaping plan is the ultimate right?
Mr. James: Yes, that is correct.
Mr. McPhail: Mr. President I move the Plan Commission approve, DP-12-005 as filed by Opus Development Corporation, a waiver to allow the orientation loading space between a building and front lot line without the use of development incentive landscaping finding that:
1. The proposed development represents an innovative use of landscaping that will enhance the use of value of area properties;
2. The proposed development is consistent with and compatible with other Development located along the Gateway Corridor; and,
3. The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
And, that such approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Substantial compliance with landscaping plan submitted file date March 16, 2012.
Mr. Duncan: Second.
Mr. Gibbs: I have a motion and a second, Mr. Carlucci would you poll the board.
Mr. Carlucci: The motion was made by Mr. McPhail, and was 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 TA-12-001.
Mr. James: This is a text amendment sponsored by the Town. An amendment to the zoning ordinance, regarding article 4.1, setbacks for accessory uses and articles of 4.11 which concerns the orientation loading space development incentive, which is timely. So the first amendment to article 4.11 for accessory uses, we amended the zoning ordinance a couple of years ago to require that accessory uses had to be equal too or behind the primary building and this was mainly done for residential or commercial zoning districts. I guess we didn't put enough thought into it and we realized looking at these plans that we made it to where guard house and a club house couldn't be in front of the building and of course we get a lot of guard houses with these warehouses so then that would require that they would have to go for a variance so we would amend article 4.1 and then exempt guard houses and pump houses from having to comply with that requirement that they are at least equal too or behind the primary building. Then the second amendment concerns the orientation loading space. We amended that a couple of years ago, we changed it; it used to be it was required for any street, and then we amended it to a required gateway corridor. This is mainly done because of AllPoints Midwest where you could have an internal private street in between two buildings and then that would require the level 5 development incentive for each of those properties and we thought that was a little overkill so we changed it to just a gateway corridor, but then reviewing some recent plans one was the Caymus project here at Stanley and Perry, that is a collector and we thought maybe that we should require some landscaping for that street because that is a main thoroughfare being a collector and then Reeves Road which is a collector and then we have another site that is a gateway corridor so that would take care of that off of Hadley Road and then this site has already been planned where this is within 200' of 267, so we already did the landscaping for that building. What I did was I looked at all of the potential industrial sites left north of I-70 and I came up with about 25 sites. This would be sites north of Stafford Road, there is about 10 sites here, and they could have docks facing Metropolis Parkway which a gateway corridor will take care of that, here is Stafford and Ronald Reagan, those gateway corridors so that will take care of that. This site that is a gateway corridor depending on how it is oriented, if it is oriented toward Columbia then it wouldn't be required. This is another site, this is the Stout Farm and here is another site, of course if they oriented east west then it wouldn't be an issue but if they orient it north south then the Ronald Reagan will take care of that, but Airtech Parkway so if they oriented that toward Airtech Parkway it will have to be required if we do change this, but the way it is now it wouldn't be required. This site that we just got approval for, it is not an issue because they are oriented east west. Then here are some more sites, that would be an extension of Airtech Parkway which would be a collector, but today it wouldn't be required. This is Allpoints Midwest, this is a collector, this is Ronald Reagan once it goes through and this is a collector at 200 south, so if they are facing 200 south if we did amend it, it would be required. Here is an example of why we changed it, the internal street between the two properties now, it is not required. We've got two sites over here, this is not a collector so it wouldn't be required if they were facing 100 I believe that is.
Mr. McPhail: Is 900 a collector?
Mr. James: 900 is a collector, yes. So we have about 25 sites and about 5 which have already been planned which leaves 20 unplanned sites and of all remaining potential I had 2 sites on the internal streets on Allpoints Midwest and then the sites see 10 and 11 will not be on a collector. Do we amend that to require the orientation for a collector or above or do we leave it the way it is for the required gateway corridor?
Mr. McPhail: It makes sense to me to add the collector and remain thoroughfares and (inaudible).
Mr. Brandgard: I think part of the key is what we do here. You know of 20 additional sites but there is going to be more to come that haven't been platted anywhere.
Mr. Kirchoff: Does distance from the road impact this in anyway? Where I am coming from is, I remember if I drive up Perry Road and I think I am at the northwest corner of Perry and Reeves, and that building is real close there, and we put a berm in front of it, but it still doesn't work very well, so proximity could play a role in what we might be considering.
Mr. James: Yes, if it is within 600' of a gateway corridor.
