The Board of Zoning Appeals met on Monday, May 16, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. In attendance were Mr. Monnett, Mr. Blevins, Mr. Cavanaugh, Mr. Haase and Mr. Matrana.
ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM
Mr. Carlucci administered the roll call.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Haase stated that he was in attendance at the April 18, 2005 meeting. With that I make a motion to approve the April 18, 2005 minutes of the Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals as amended. Second by Mr. Monnett. Motion carried.
Mr. Cavanaugh abstained from voting on the minutes since he was not present at the April 18, 2005 meeting.
OATH OF TESTIMONY
Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Testimony.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mr. Matrana reviewed the Guidelines Governing the Conduct of Public Hearings. The first hearing tonight is BZA-05-003.
Mr. Valanzano said before we get started on BZA-05-003, if you don’t mind, regarding BZA-05-004, Mid-States Engineering I just talked to Mr. Milliner and apparently they neglected to send out the legal notice to the adjoining property owners and to post a notice card on the property. So, I believe this petition would need to be continued to your June 20th hearing with notice to be sent to surrounding property owners and to be posted on the property. The published notice was done but the mailed notice and the posted notice were not done.
Mr. Haase asked, can we republish that?
Mr. Valanzano said if you wish, we can.
Mr. Haase said I think it would be tidy to do it all at once. That would be my motion. Second by Cavanaugh. Motion carried.
Mr. Valanzano said the first petition on your docket is BZA-05-003 by William Cherry. This is a continuation of a variance that was first filed in 1994 where Mr. Cherry needs to come back whenever he has a new tenant in his office building. He now proposes to lease space to Indiana Periodontics at 1860 Stafford Road. The big question is whether or not a quasi-dentist type of office is an appropriate use in that office building.
Mr. Carlucci asked, isn’t there a dentist in there already?
Mr. Valanzano said I think so.
Mr. William Cherry said I own two office buildings from 1854 to 1860. The address is at Stafford Road. I really don’t know too much more to tell you. It is a husband and wife dentist team and then there is a third doctor that makes up the Indiana Periodontics, LLC. They have one office in Greenwood now and one office on the north side. There is no periodontist office on the west side. The closest one is 38th and I-465 so they thought it would probably be a good idea to put one out here. In talking with the doctors they are anticipating, at least initially, only being there and opened two days a week until they see what the flow is. And it will probably expand to three or four days once they get the cliental established.
Mr. Matrana asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this matter? Being no one coming forward we will close the public hearing and open it up for discussion.
Mr. Monnett asked, if the variance is granted, is it understood that Mr. Cherry will have to come back in if this tenant leaves?
Mr. Matrana said under the variance I think he has to come back for each tenant.
Mr. Haase made a motion that the Board of Zoning Appeals approve the request of William Cherry to lease a tenant space at 1860 Stafford Road to Indiana Periodontics, LLC. Second by Mr. Blevins. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Monnett – yes
Mr. Blevins – yes
Mr. Cavanaugh – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
5-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Matrana said the next matter before the board is BZA-05-005, KDS Real Estate, LLC.
Mr. Cavanaugh said before we get started with this particular petition I would like the record to show that I’m going to recuse myself from this hearing.
Mr. Valanzano said the next variance before you was filed by KDS Real Estate, LLC. This is for property in Andico Park. If you can look at the aerial photo that I put on the base map and compare that to the base map that I had right next to it, you can see there is a drive that comes up north of Andico Road and this property is the vacant lot to the west of that drive. The other lot that I referred to in the Staff Report, as the other remaining vacant lot, is directly east of that private drive that you can also see on the aerial photo as being a vacant lot.
The petitioner recently filed approvals with the Plan Commission to propose construction of a 20,000 square foot warehouse/office building on the property. The plan that is on the bottom on the board shows a complying landscape plan with a hedgerow across the front of this parking area toward that private drive. The perimeter yard and foundation landscaping is across the rear and across the west side of the property.
At the time they proposed the construction of this building, they went through DRC and there was discussion in front of the DRC as to whether or not this building should have compliance with landscaping requirements because a lot of other properties at Andico Park were not built under our current ordinance standards and don’t have full compliance with the landscape requirements. So, they filed this landscaping plan, which is on the top and should be the one that you have in your packets. It omits the hedgerow across the front of the parking spaces toward the west of their property toward the vacant lot. So, one of the questions that I listed in the Staff Report is if this is done away with and this area gets developed, what can or should we expect out of what is going to happen on this property? They have also done away with any foundation landscaping and, for the most part, all perimeter landscaping to the north and to the west. There have been two reasons that have really been identified for that. One has been nobody else in Andico Park has been in that type of landscaping so why should we? The other one is you can see outlined here are areas that are going to be impacted as part of the drainage requirements. There was a question whether or not if landscaping materials are going to be put in there and they are holding back that storm water in those areas, the area is going to be too wet for landscaping to survive. Those are the issues that they have raised to express their concerns for whether or not landscaping should be installed.
One of the other things that I did not know until after this variance was filed is this property has also requested a tax abatement. The tax abatement does kick in an additional level of review by the Design Review Committee and brings in their concerns as well. The Tax Abatement Ordinance requires their approval of plants. When this case was in front of the Design Review Committee, they had asked about the reduction of landscaping. The Design Review Committee looked at it and said we really think that just because there may be a violation somewhere else in that park where they haven’t been brought up to standards doesn’t mean we should reduce yours. It means we should have an enforcement action there and you should at least meet the bear minimums. I just wanted to give you that background into what happened and to let you know that, not only will your actions be required but the Design Review Committee would also have to approve it under the Tax Abatement Ordinance. With both of those we could probably move forward but the Plan Commission also reviewed the same as the Design Review Committee reviewed so we have those three types of approval running parallel there. So, it is really up to the petitioner to state a case that works here at the Board of Zoning Appeals on what is special about this particular property and why is there a hardship on the landscaping. Also overcome the Design Review Committee’s concerns and to address the issue of what the Plan Commission has approved. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Matrana asked, who brought up the issue of landscaping not surviving in a wet situation?
Mr. Valanzano said the landscape architect, Mark Meyerholtz who is here tonight. The plant materials that they have suggested, the couple that are there, they are proposing to be the bulb Cyprus, which do grow in those areas. I know DRC has expressed the concern over the use of bulb Cyprus in the past but this may be a situation that considering the location and considering the soil conditions this may be one of those exceptions to the rule in terms of that particular plant specie.
Mr. Mark Meyerholtz with Banning Engineering at 698 Tower Road, Suite 100, Plainfield said one of the criteria that we had to meet recently was the drainage. As you can see, in blue that is the off site drainage of what we have to store on our site that is not our drainage. In the green is what we are going to be holding from our building so that drainage can go into the drainage in the future. Also, these are the last two lots in Andico Park and, with the reduction in the landscaping, we feel like we will be meeting the minimums that have already been done. Andico Road is the main thoroughfare going through the site. If you are going to do some business in the site, you know where you are going to be heading. As well as this connector road just goes to one warehouse building here in the back. That is what we are also asking for the reduction of the perimeter landscaping as well as in these areas. The reason being the plant material surviving in a wet area. We are requesting a reduction in the foundation plantings as well. What has happened around the building, with the drainage being so close to the building, the foundation plantings in these areas will not survive as well because of the wet conditions and the plantings in the swales being wet as well. So, that is why we used the bulb Cyprus in these areas.
One other thing that I would like to tell you is on the point unit value with this plan 16.86 is required and what we have done before was a little over 19 because of the trees adding up being a little bit over. The point value for the amended one we are a little bit more than 11 points so we are pretty close to the 16. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Matrana asked, is the primary reason asking for this variance is just because of the wet conditions?
Mr. Meyerholtz said the wet conditions and the drainage since we are also the first in that Andico Park II we would be held to the drainage regulations within Andico Park and we need an area to store water. One thing that we don’t want to do is restrict the flow also of the water in that area.
Mr. Matrana asked, is there anyone in the audience who has any comments for or against this matter?
Mr. Jeff Banning with Banning Engineering at 8031 S. CR675E, Mooresville said I’m kind of in a unique position here this evening since my firm is also doing the presentation but I’m also a property owner in this subdivision. I wanted to throw out a couple of viewpoints from my prospective, if I could. We actually own the property that would sit right over here. Cole Engineering or all of the buildings on their complex sit to the west and then our building is actually down here. If you have been out there, you know this road takes a sharp left-hand turn to the south and becomes Tower Road off of Andico Road. Being an engineer for the project to an extent and being a property owner in the subdivision and a friend to the developers and knowing the history of the area our office building has been there a little over 10 years now. So, we have seen pretty much everything that has been developed in that subdivision in the last 10 years. Of course, working formerly at Lewis Engineering I was involved with the subdivision of this particular lot as well as the properties, the five lots that were created to the south of this. Part of the history in this development and probably one of the reasons for this variance is that this was approved, I think this subdivision was actually platted probably 20-25 years ago. When the re-plat, what I will call, Lot 5, which is one of the lots that we sit on, the five lots that were to the south and west of this, when those were subdivided, there was drainage required when those lots were subdivided. The existing lots, which would include the post office, Jeco Plastics, the license branch, even John Anderson’s property, which is north of here, which isn’t actually part of Andico, there was minimal or no drainage improvements required. So, I guess one of the things that I’m trying to bring up here is with Brian Kempf and his group coming in to bring this building before you is that because of the restrictions of lack of drainage previously he is being impacted by having to do a significant amount of drainage for his site. Now a lot of that drainage improvement that he is being required to do is required because of his building. That is a good thing. It is also helping our situation, as being a property owner downstream of that. So, I’m definitely for that and I think that is a good thing but I think one of the things that needs to be brought out is because of those improvements being required I think poses a significant impact on his property, therefore, some reduction in the landscaping.
I think one of the other things, if you drive through the subdivision, let’s start at the post office. I think it’s probably been a couple of years ago, if anybody remembers, when the post office used to have all of these ugly shrubs up along the post office. They ripped those out a couple of years ago. They haven’t put anything back. If you go down that roadway, I think if you look at all the small businesses in there, I think they have done a pretty good job of landscaping. They brought it upon their own selves without any kind of ordinance to go through and landscape the properties. I guess where I’m going with that I think what is required per the ordinance is way above and beyond maybe what is in the area. How do you request a variance of that? How do you put a value on that? That is a tough thing, it really is, but I think if you look at the buildings in there, they have done a pretty nice job of landscaping for the type of uses that are in that development. We are on a dead-end cul-de-sac street. I just think it is a situation that the request that they are proposing, in my mind, is acceptable being an adjoining property owner.
I guess one of the other things that I would like to throw out is this is probably the last place in Town where we can have a small business come in and do an industrial type of complex. We are fortunately or unfortunately probably going to be moving out of the area just because we have outgrown the space we are in. But I think that is going to open up another building in the area. There is one more lot, actually there are two more lots, Tom Holzknecht owns a lot in there that I think will eventually be developed. So, there are going to be a couple of other projects, I think, that will come before you that we are going to have similar type issues. I guess what I’m trying to point out is I think a reduction with what the ordinance actually requires I think it should be an allowable issue given when this was approved, there were no drainage requirements, there were no landscaping requirements. Small business owners, homegrown business owners take pride in their businesses and what they are doing. I think that shows in how they have done their landscaping and how they have taken care of their properties. Like I said I’m in a unique position. I didn’t mean to make a presentation necessarily. I feel like I have to an extent but I’m saying this more from a business owner owning property in the subdivision situation. Thank you for hearing me out.
Mr. Brian Kempf at 6136 E. CR700S, Plainfield said I currently own two other properties in this area in the industrial park. I just would like you guys to approve the downscale landscaping here because I think it fits the area to what is out there now. I think everybody has done a pretty good job at landscaping now. It fits the area nice and I think we have also sacrificed quite a bit of our property for this drainage issues that came upon us. After we purchased the property we found out about all of the drainage issues. It didn’t work the way that we had intended when we originally started to plan this thing out. It scaled us back from our future plans of what we wanted to do on this property. But we had to sacrifice that to make it acceptable for the drainage area. I feel that we have given quite a bit too and I hope that you guys would see that the landscaping here fits the area well. It won’t offend anybody in the area at all to downscale the landscaping and I would like to see you guys approve that as it is there. I think Mr. Banning has covered everything otherwise pretty well.
Mr. Haase said on this pending enforcement issue on the neighboring property can you refresh me on that with what is pending on that and how that relates to this.
Mr. Valanzano said that is the Cole property immediately to the west. It is the foundation plantings that are along the new building, the “L” shaped building. Foundation plantings are required at the front of these two buildings. So, we have that issue on all three of those buildings.
In the back when they put the additions on, they were required to maintain a 25-foot buffer yard back there and pull their driveways out of that area. They have some gravel and stuff that has gotten into that area and in some trash dumpster locations.
Mr. Haase said my question is the level of landscaping on this property verses the level of landscaping on that property.
Mr. Valanzano said as to what was approved and should be there, both under the ordinance, should be a Level 1 for the perimeter and the foundations, which would be comparable.
Mr. Haase said to what was originally proposed.
Mr. Valanzano said correct and again that would be per the ordinance.
Mr. Haase said to deal with the Town’s tax abatement I know the Town looks at figures and salaries and productions and all of that stuff. Does the Town Council look at the landscaping and the building and all that?
Mr. Carlucci said they don’t.
Mr. Haase said so that’s not an issue.
Mr. Carlucci said no but the Tax Abatement Ordinance says that a building permit cannot be issued on tax-abated property without the approval of the Design Review Committee. They specifically put that in there because they wanted to raise the quality. There would have been some circumstances where they would not be on a Gateway Corridor, which I don’t think this one is but they did want to make sure that they are going to pay property taxes on these properties so they wanted those buildings to be at a higher level. The only way to get them all under the DRC was to say any tax abatement property has to go through the DRC process.
Mr. Haase asked, will this have to go back to the DRC? Will it have to go back before the Plan Commission?
Mr. Valanzano said I would say if this body and the DRC both approve it, I would just administratively approve it for the Plan Commission on those two steps.
Mr. Monnett asked, who owns the property to the north?
Mr. Valanzano said John Anderson.
Mr. Carlucci said I may be wrong but wasn’t that John Anderson’s property to begin with, which is what they are on here.
Mr. Banning said yes.
Mr. Haase said I’m not real clear on what they are not wanting to put in.
Mr. Valanzano said what was previously approved was foundation plantings. There is a group of three trees here and another tree here on the west side of the building and a couple of perimeter trees on the west side. On the north side there are a couple of trees here and a couple of trees here so that’s another four trees along the north side plus another tree over in here so that’s five on the north side. And then the hedgerow that is required when you have parking spaces facing a drive or a street on the east edge of the parking. So, this is not being put in, the five or so trees on the north side are not being put in, the four-six trees on the west side. And there are some minor changes to the landscaping on the south side.
Mr. Monnett said so the real property tax abatement has already been approved is that correct.
Mr. Carlucci said yes. And I believe they filed for a personal property tax abatement for some equipment late last week but the Town Council has not reviewed any of that yet. If my memory serves me right, the new Wal-Mart store we required foundation plantings and we required that they have them right next to the front of the building. The Wal-Mart people said it’s about the worse place you could put them because they will get trampled on. They said they are big ash trays is basically what they are. They would be walked over. The Plan Commission said they could cluster those plantings somewhere else on the site, which I think they did.
Mr. Valanzano said yes they did.
Mr. Carlucci asked, is there any opportunity to do any clustering here?
Mr. Valanzano said we do have the opportunity in the ordinance now to approve an alternate landscape plan where those materials could be spread out. Again, these areas they are still claiming they are somewhat impacted although they still have some oak trees and other species in here. But to answer your question there could be an alternate plan approved for foundation plantings. The back side of the building can be moved to the front, to the south and west side where they are visible and we can also administratively approve relocation of the perimeter yard landscaping to the other areas on the property where they are visible. The one thing we don’t have an opportunity to do is there is three parts to this variance, the perimeter, the foundation, parking lot screening, the hedgerow. The only thing we don’t have an opportunity administratively to just relocate somewhere else is the variance on the hedgerow portion of it.
Mr. Monnett asked, is there going to be a sign for this facility?
Mr. Valanzano said out by the main entrance.
Mr. Carlucci asked, does the petitioner propose any kind of clustering at all?
Mr. Valanzano said not yet.
Mr. Haase said I’m going to agree with what you just said. I probably don’t have any trouble doing away with the perimeter yard landscaping. The parking lot screening, although it just faces a small private drive, I think is a significant part to soften the blow of the front of the building and the cars even coming down the street. But it would seem like they could take the foundation landscaping and go along that south part there, which would be along the roadway. That would then soften the building from the roadway. I guess it would turn into perimeter landscaping.
Mr. Valanzano said there are two storage tanks. The HVAC here and here, those are screened. I was trying to get plant materials in this area to screen the two tanks that are going to be on the southwest corner of the building on the west side.
Mr. Haase said I guess landscaping is a lot like sidewalks. When it wasn’t required when it first went in, as we develop it and redo it, it does. The property to the west has been redone. I believe that is going to be enforced on that if the Plan Commission has anything to do with it, it will be. So, every time a building is redone to some extent or added onto it betters the entire park. I don’t have any problems doing away with what they had in their original plans for the perimeter landscaping, if we could take some of those reduced foundation landscaping out of the areas that have detention and move them to the street or Andico Road side of the property and still put those in. That is what I would be in favor of.
Mr. Brian Kempf said I don’t oppose doing some clustering or something like that, if that would fit your need over there. I don’t want to be adding a whole lot because I think it has gone way beyond the entire area. We can cluster some together if you think that would help the situation.
Mr. Haase asked, do we have an entire value that we have to be at for this property? Or do we have values for each individual increment?
Mr. Valanzano said that is the way that it is set up for each incremental. What is the dimensions on the building Mr. Meyerholtz?
Mr. Meyerholtz said it is 200 feet by 100 feet.
Mr. Valanzano said that is a total of three points that would be required for the north side and the west side.
Mr. Haase said I guess one of the major differences this property has where the property to the west doesn’t incur is the retention and detention areas. As it was redeveloped, it still was not required and would not meet the tripping trigger to require for added retentions. This property has had that thrust upon them due to its development. The perimeter foundations that they are wanting to delete on this I see a cluster of three back there and another one by the storage tanks. We really aren’t taking out that much of the foundation plantings.
Mr. Valanzano said two ornamental trees on the backside is what is needed for the point value and four ornamental trees along this side.
Mr. Monnett asked, where is the dumpster going to be located?
Mr. Valanzano said in this area here.
Mr. Monnett said there will be plantings around that.
Mr. Valanzano said there is still hedge type plantings around there. On the original plan there was another tree over here that helped screen it but that has been taken away.
Mr. Meyerholtz said one thing with the foundation planting up against the building we are still working with drainage in that area so it will be wet in this area all the way up through here. So, the root system will get wet as well if we consider the foundation planting along that.
Mr. Haase said with the HVAC unit out there you are going to have to keep that level in there.
Mr. Meyerholtz said right but it will still slope off it.
Mr. Haase said after you reach the end of the concrete pad.
Mr. Meyerholtz said right.
Mr. Haase said there are actually less foundation plantings being reduced than what I thought there probably was required.
Mr. Monnett asked, what is the outside of the building material?
Mr. Valanzano said it is metal two-tone. They had asked for a waiver at the Plan Commission to not use masonry and have the two-tone. So, they were granted that waiver.
Mr. Haase said most of the building back in there are that same type of material. I would still like to have the parking lot screening and I can live without the perimeter yard screening and reduce the foundation landscaping. We may be back in here in two years because it may not live. We have had a couple of incidents in Town where we have had that happen. Even though the ordinance wants it the plant doesn’t know that and it doesn’t grow. So, with that said I’m prepared to make a motion.
I move that the Board of Zoning Appeals grant the Variance of Development Standards as filed by KDS Real Estate for a reduction in required perimeter yard landscaping and foundation landscaping at 770 Andico Road subject to the following:
Substantial compliance with the landscape plan file dated April 15, 2005.
The parking lot landscaping shall be installed to ordinance standards as previously approved by the Plan Commission.
Mr. Matrana said the next matter before the board is Duke Construction, BZA-05-006.
Mr. Valanzano said I think on this one we have received some amended plans. The petitioner has made some changes to it. If I can draw your attention to the map on front of the Staff Report, you can see the area that is identified with the proposed I-2 and is boxed into part of the R-3 on the north and out of Town on the south. That is the subject property. It is about 63 acres that is being proposed for industrial development. The area immediately to the south of that property, south of Reeves Road, that is also in white, is still under the jurisdiction of the County. The area that is out of Town that is on this particular property is subject to rezoning and annexation and those are pending before the Town Council. So, we are looking at those as being under the Town’s jurisdiction. The variance that we have now boils down to very simply saying we would like to treat the properties south of Reeves Road, that is in the County, as if it was zoned Industrial rather and residential because the airport has bought this property. The airport will not allow it to be developed residential anymore. The Comprehensive Plan is for light industrial development and the surrounding zoning that is in the Town is for light industrial development. So, can we landscape our south property line as if it is light industrial zoned. That is what the whole variance boils down to, plain and simple. Based on the amended plans that I provided you an amended motion that would affect that occurrence here tonight.
Mr. Blaine Paul with Duke Construction said I can answer questions that you have. I have a copy of the Power Point presentation that I can go through with you. One thing that I do want to pass out is I have amended versions of the Findings of Fact, which indicate that part two of the variance regarding orientation of loading spaces has been withdrawn by the petitioner.
Mr. Matrana asked, is there anyone in the audience who would like to comment on this matter. Being no one coming forward the public portion of this hearing is closed and opened up for discussion or a possible motion.
Mr. Monnett said this property is pending review and approval of plat vacate petition two rezone petitions and primary platting.
Mr. Carlucci said and annexation.
Mr. Valanzano said and we have a development plan on file that is schedule for a hearing June 6.
Mr. Monnett asked, so would that be all in one landscaping out there?
Mr. Valanzano said all in front.
Mr. Monnett said on everything.
Mr. Paul said actually that’s not entirely accurate.
Mr. Valanzano said only what would be required.
Mr. Paul said that is correct. There is a tree preservation out there also.
Mr. Carlucci said just to the right of that in terms of park property is where the Duke building five is located. It has that huge mound along Reeves Road. They did a pretty good job of landscaping. The property to the south of this wide area south of Reeves Road that the airport owns the pink area south of there is the Damon Jones property. He has that property for sale. It has been listed. They are marketing the property. Damon Jones or his family have land on Six Points Road that the airport would like to swap with them for the airport property that is along Reeves Road. So, what would happen is that the area that the airport owns would be part of the Damon Jones property, if they go through with that swap. But it will never be houses again. We went through this same exact same thing, I think it had to do with Griot’s Garage. We kept looking at that R-3 in the yellow and the EMJ and we granted them variances because even though that zoning was still there it had not been rezoned but it was impacting those businesses to the north of it. This is really the same situation that we have here. It is impacting a business unnecessarily because it is never going to be residential anymore. I think Griot’s Garage was one of them. There was the other business that is next to Griot’s, EMJ and there is another business in there too that distributes food products, etc. They are all located right along that edge so every time they came in they had to deal with that R-3 and having landscaping on something that couldn’t be residential. We were doing it to the north. I think we are just trying to be consistent here.
Mr. Cavanaugh asked, is there any issue with approving this subject to the approval of the plat vacation, etc.? I’m a little bit leery of having a variance approved without the rest of the process actually being in place.
Mr. Daniel asked, that doesn’t create a problem for you does it Mr. Paul?
Mr. Paul said but actually the plat vacate was approved at the May 2nd Plan Commission hearing and annexation is the only portion, I believe, of what we are going through that is pending.
Mr. Daniel said and that was passed subject to the annexation so it is all in the process.
Mr. Carlucci said they are reading the rezoning ordinance at the same time but that hasn’t gone through the final reading. The rezoning and the annexation will be finalized at the May 23rd meeting.
Mr. Cavanaugh made a motion that the Board of Zoning Appeals approve the Variance of Development Standards BZA-05-006 as amended filed by Duke Construction Limited Partnership to provide for a reduction in front yard landscaping along Reeves Road by treating the residentially zoned property located south of Reeves Road as if that property were zoned light industrial rather than residential subject to the following conditions:
The approval of the two rezone petitions, primary platting and annexation proceedings currently filed with the Town of Plainfield.
Final landscaping plan design and plant material selections shall be subject to DRC and Plan Commission approval as part of the required architectural and site design review for the project.
Second by Mr. Haase. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Monnett – yes
Mr. Blevins – yes
Mr. Cavanaugh – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
5-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Valanzano said Mr. Paul wants to come back at a special meeting to facilitate this project. In doing a detailed review of the development plans we find that they are short on their number of parking spaces. In order to stay on the deadline or the time line that they proposed and based on when their closing deadlines are by contract on the property they would need to have a decision made on that variance one way or another prior to the time the board would meet at its regularly meeting next month. They would like, if at all possible, to tie that in as closely feasible with the approval, or least review and recommendation by the Plan Commission. Having said all of that they have requested that this board convene for a special meeting on Monday, June 6 at 6:00 p.m. just prior to the Plan Commission meeting to hear a variance that they have just put on file that would address the number of required parking spaces. We can get into a lot more detail of that at that point and time but the request is to have a special meeting on June 6th at the Board of Zoning Appeals to hear another element of this that they cannot get timely before this board tonight.
Mr. Haase asked, would it take a motion to do that?
Mr. Valanzano said yes and with all five members here all it would take is a motion at this particular meeting to set that and we would not need to do any further actions or anything else.
Mr. Haase made a motion to hold a special meeting of the Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals on June 6, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. Second by Mr. Monnett. None opposed. Motion carried.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Valanzano said I have a couple of pieces of paper to pass around to get signed. One of them is Findings of Fact for a variance that was heard in 2003 that the petitioner’s attorney or bank that have asked for a letter saying that the action was done by the Board of Zoning Appeals and approved. There are two separate letters on that. Now they are coming back and asking for the Findings of Fact. The Findings of Fact were filed but they were not signed. So, I ask that you please sign these Findings of Fact.
The next one is for a variance that was heard earlier this year in April and I wanted to get the record clear for 2005 so if your name is on a yellow sticky, please sign it and pass it to your left. The second one that I passed around was for the Homewood Suites, a Special Exception to allow them to serve alcoholic beverages to their customers.
The third one that I’m passing around is for the Stan Bassett pole sign. That was the first case that you heard this year.
The next two are for the Findings of Fact two cases that you heard this evening for KDS as filed by the petitioner and Duke Construction as filed by the petitioner.
OLD BUSINESS/NEW BUSINESS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Haase made a motion to adjourn. Second by Mr. Cavanaugh. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned.
________________________________________
Mr. Rick Matrana, President
