The Plainfield Plan Commission met on Monday, February 2, 2009. In attendance were Mr. Satterfield, Mr. McPhail, Mr. Brandgard, Mr. Kirchoff, Mr. Gibbs and Mr. Dunkin.
ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORIUM
Mr. Carlucci administered the Roll Call.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Dunkin made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 5, 2009 Plainfield Plan Commission meeting as submitted. Second by Mr. Brandgard. Motion carried.
Mr. Kirchoff and Mr. Gibbs abstained from voting since they were not present at the meeting.
OATH OF TESTIMONY
Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Testimony.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mr. Gibbs reviewed the Guidelines Governing the Conduct of Public Hearings.
Mr. James said we have two petitions on tonight's agenda. Ms. Sprague, the planner gets to tell us about both of these petitions. So, I will let Jill give you a summary of these petitions.
Ms. Sprague said the first petition we heard about the actual building itself a few months ago. It is for the LaQuinta Inn, which is on Clarks Creek Road and Manchester on the southwest corner. They had been working with their franchise to try to come up with a solution to meet the ordinance requirement, which is individual letter signs. The franchise actually only allows box signs and they sent a letter the last time, I don't know if you remember from your packets, that confirms that there are no other LaQuinta Inns in the United States that have individual letter signs. So, they require a waiver from the Gateway Corridor standards to have box signs rather than individual letter signs.
Three of the signs will be located on the towers on the east, north and south elevations. The signs are only going to be 43' square feet. They meet all other standards. Then the other one is on the west end. They had previously proposed it on the north edge of the building and they are proposing to move it to the south end. There is a question whether or not you think that is a better location than where it was previously. These are the north and south ends that show where the tower is. Also, on the tower the box signs are inset somewhat into the building. They are actually maintained from the inside of the tower, however, they still do stick out something like six inches.
Currently this site is surrounded by mostly older properties that did not have to comply with the Gateway Corridor standards. There are a couple of exceptions; mostly the Cambridge Suites and one of the questions is whether or not you believe integration of the signs into the tower looks more like an architectural feature than part of a box sign stuck on a wall?
The Design Review Committee did request that the sign on the west facade be moved to the tower but the petitioner found that they would have to raise the height of the tower to require a variance from the building height standards in order for that sign to be visible.
Do you feel that the north and south end of the west side would be a better location for that box sign?
Lastly but maybe not least is would these box signs set a precedent for the area? This is one of the undeveloped properties in that area of the Town so it might be something to consider. I believe the petitioner is here if you have any questions.
Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Testimony to Mr. Patel.
Mr. Patel said I'm at 6107 Cambridge Way, Plainfield, Indiana. We tried to meet the Town's requirements with the single letter signs. We went through the channels with the franchisees and they were absolutely against the single channel signs. The tower signs are found in most of their new properties.
Mr. McPhail said I would just like to make a couple of comments. It seems to me we had this on our agenda at the last meeting and didn't hear it. I have a letter, which I failed to bring from the corporation, which indicated this was their sign. There was one caveat in there where it made a statement that if it was a nonconforming older sign or something and local ordinances didn't allow it, they would make a waiver for it. I remember the last time I was told that the corporate signs couldn't be changed and approved that. As a member of the BZA I found out just a few months later that it was not true; that corporate signs met our standards in other parts of the country. I understand what the letter said but I am still concerned that we accept that from any corporation because I think if you tell them no, they will meet our standards. I don't know how much of this sign is outside of our standards but I do remember that one particular thing and that particular letter there was an out for the owner and this is a situation with a local owner building a product but trying to meet the national franchise.
Mr. Brandgard asked, Joe do you have a copy of that letter?
Ms. Sprague said it is brief if you would like for me to read it. “As you requested, the purpose of this letter is to confirm that there are no LaQuinta Inn and Suites lodging facilities in the United States that use channel letters on the tower and building. Please let me know if you need anything further. That's the entire body of the letter.
Mr. McPhail said I had an attachment to that.
Mr. Daniel said I think what you're talking about is when they first submitted this, there was some materials that they submitted because of their sign package. And there were some references in there that said you have to meet all of the local building requirements.
Mr. McPhail said it was part of the original submittal that I had.
Mr. Daniel said Joe may have a copy of that in the file.
Mr. McPhail said I think it did reference something about reusing a sign or something like that.
Mr. Brandgard said I remember that instance a couple of years ago. The corporation didn't allow (inaudible). The other part of this that bothers me is this comes up and we approve a project and then it comes back and immediately they want to change the signage. (Inaudible). If the developers do their job, and I assume that they do a good job, they know what the rules and regulations are required when they start their projects or at least go through and try to get variances or whatever they need before they start the project. I look at this and in the corporate world (inaudible). From the precedent side I think if we allow this, we set a precedent and as mentioned it is an area where there are signs that were developed before the sign ordinance. They know if they come and change the signs, they have to conform with the new ordinance. (Inaudible). I'm afraid that if we allow this, we have opened the whole area. You can say it is not setting a precedent but anytime you do something it is a precedent (inaudible).
Mr. Daniel said there is no question about it to the extent that anytime you allow a waiver or something like this you open up yourself to the argument that to the extent that you allow this then you have set a precedent that you are not going to enforce this standard unless there is really some hardship or it is unusual or different.
Mr. Brandgard said with that said I'm a believer in businesses ought to be able to have their types of signs. I'm also a believer in the question was asked do they have or do they not have and they did not answer the question do they allow a different sign.
Mr. McPhail asked, what would it take for this sign to comply?
Mr. James said they would have to have a plaque with individual letters on the plaque if they wanted a similar type sign to the box sign.
Mr. McPhail said in the packet that they submitted there were a couple of areas; one in the note said all installations must comply with all local and applicable codes and requirements and the national electric code. And then here's the one that I remembered. It says custom faces and signs: consistent signage is an important element of successful marketing. In those instances where restrictive codes will not allow the installation of a new sign without loss of either size or height face replacements to existing cabinets but only if you have received prior to approval. It seems to me that we have a code that they can't meet and if we accept this if they were someplace else and they were trying to reuse an old sign, they have used it whether it met the standards or not. It seems to me that they can get the same appearance of that sign and meet our requirements. I'm not a sign expert but we certainly have people that meet it all of the time.
Mr. James asked, does this tower solution go far enough in an attempt with our standards? The signs on the building has a width of about a foot. With the inset it will stick out five to six inches.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail asked, what about the other signs on the building?
Mr. James said they have the same signs at I-465 and Emerson and they are box signs with the depth of about 12 inches and they are proposing to just have one on this southwest facade. We asked that they put it up here on the tower but this roof is going to partially block the view of that tower. The tower height is already at 74' feet and 11 inches. The maximum height in a General Commercial District is 75' feet so they don't have any room to go any higher without another variance.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. James said it faces SR267 and I'm not sure of the distance from SR267 if it could be seen legibly.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. James said it will be four or five stories.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. James said that hotel will not block the entire facade; that is why they are proposing to put it on the southwest corner. The insert into the tower goes far enough complying with our ordinance than I think they could make an attempt to comply with our ordinance for the one sign on the west facade.
Mr. Brandgard said the reason we don't want these types of signs is because they stick out (inaudible). If that is the intent of what we are trying to do here, if that was flush with the building (inaudible).
Mr. Rich (inaudible) said I represent the manufacturer of the (inaudible). As far as the actual recessed our cabinets are about 10 inches wide. What would protrude from the fascia of the opening is actually three inches. To go back to the question could it be completely flushed the problem there is we have drain holes in the very bottom thus the reason why we have the three inches for the drain hole when the moisture builds up inside the sign. The only other thing I would like to throw out about that is as I was listening is the background of the sign cabinet it has a very dark green background. So, the only thing that you are going to see is the illuminated LaQuinta Inn letters in white, which very much gives an appearance of your channel letters. In the evening you are not going to recognize it is a box cabinet. It would be integrated into the recessed portion of the wall. It would be a lot less than a channel letter would be (inaudible).
Mr. Satterfield asked, is the only reason you can't meet the ordinance because the company is dictating to you what kind of sign you have to have? The sign that meets our ordinance would work.
Mr. (inaudible) said based on the width of the tower and being a tower of that height we never have done channel letters so what they eluded to in this letter is accurate. The wall elevation that is three or four stories (inaudible). That would open up the options of channel letters. (Inaudible). The maintenance and the upkeep of them (inaudible).
Mr. Gibbs asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this matter? Being no one coming forward I will close the public portion of this hearing and open it up to discussion or a possible motion.
Mr. McPhail said it seems to me if they can recess those in the tower, that certainly eliminates the issue that we have with the box signs. Certainly one on the wall would seem to me they can't do anything to make that even close to conforming. I believe by recessing those in the tower it meets the intent of what we are trying to achieve in the ordinance. There is no problem with size or anything like that; it is just the cabinet sticking out. If it is only sticking out about that far, that's not like that.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. James said we are pretty confident that this will be blocked by the other building. From what I heard it sounds like they can do the channel letters to allow the ones in the towers and channel letters on the green background for this one.
Mr. McPhail made a motion that the Plan Commission approve DP-08-014 as filed by M&I Hospitality, LLC requesting an Architecture & Site Design Review waiver approval for the installation of box signs in the tower only along a Gateway Corridor 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. The proposed 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 regarding a waiver to allow the installation of a box sign along a Gateway Corridor the Plan Commission finds that:
1. The proposed development represents an innovative use of building sign which 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.
3. 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 elevations and sign plans file dated December 19, 2008 for a tower sign only.
Second by Mr. Kirchoff. (Inaudible). Roll call vote called.
Mr. Satterfield – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Dunkin – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Gibbs – yes
6-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Kirchoff said so what we're saying is they need to come back with something to meet our standards for the wall (inaudible).
Mr. Gibbs said or they wouldn't have to come back if they meet our ordinance.
Mr. Patel said I know the reason why we moved the sign on the west elevation to the building was because we were obstructing the view of that sign. But what if we just go ahead and put the sign on the back of the building and let the roof cut off at the sign? Would that work?
Mr. Gibbs asked, behind the structure?
Mr. Kirchoff said just put it on three sides of the tower (inaudible).
Mr. Daniel said I think the way the motion is made…………
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. Daniel said as long as it stays on the tower.
Mr. McPhail said recessed in the tower and restrict the number of those.
Mr. Gibbs said the only exception to that would be in my opinion the motion is stated as file dated December 19th only shows two signs.
Mr. Daniel said three signs.
Mr. McPhail said I would certainly amend my motion to allow all four sides of the tower if that meets all of our standards. Does that meet all of the other standards Mr. James?
Mr. James said yes.
Mr. McPhail said I would certainly amend my motion to allow signs in all four sides of the tower if they desire. Second by Mr. Kirchoff. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Satterfield – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Dunkin – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Gibbs – yes
6-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent.
Mr. Gibbs said the next item on the agenda is DP-09-001.
Ms. Sprague said this is for a gas station proposed to go out in front of the existing Kroger store right on Main Street. The site is zoned General Commercial. The Kroger itself has residential to the rear but where the gas station will be is surrounded by General Commercial. They are proposing to put the gas station in the southwest corner of the current Kroger site. The process would include tearing down the old National City and putting some parking there to replace what would be removed by the gas station. This site doesn't quite meet the parking count but they can add some here and they are missing some ADA spaces but they were planning on getting me an updated version of that as well. This drive along here in the front requires a variance to the development standards because our ordinance does not normally allow an interior access drive to run along the front yard building setback. They used to have parking there and since they removed the parking and are putting in a drive access right along the front of the property we have asked them to apply for a variance for that. They either need a waiver or they need to agree to do an alternate plan for the pedestrian connection. Staff has asked them to give us an easement for a trail along the Clarks Creek instead of requiring a pedestrian connection to a gas station.
They have had some comments from DRC and various neighbors about the parking that is going to be taking up. A lot of people feel that this is pretty prime parking for the store so they have given us some reasons why they can't either put it over here where the National City was or back here. They have mentioned that besides the whole gray area there is a floodway and they are not encouraged to put the gas tanks in the floodway. As well as this area in the back here they don't want to put it there partly because of the floodway but also because I will show you in the next slide the radius around the main entrance includes a lot of parking up there. Also, because the semis for filling the gas tanks would be a little hard to circulate around the back of the lot.
In addition, on this site plan they have shown some things that Staff has asked them to help to improve circulation on that site. One of the things was to remove this parking here so you don't have to swerve around it to drive through so now it's a straight shot. And also this parking here they have angled both sides instead of I believe this side was 90 degrees as well in order to help people not to get so confused at the entrance itself where the stoplight is. Those are just a few of the things that they have done at the request of the TAC.
This is the building entry circle where most of the prime parking is considered to be within 200 feet of the entry. So, this is the lot of the parking they are trying to avoid taking up and this triangle in red here is the amount of parking the proposed site plan would take.
Also, we have asked them to put any of the required landscaping for the new areas up front along U.S. 40.
These are the building elevations; they comply. The Design Review Committee asked them to brick the columns at which point they no longer needed a building materials waiver. So, now all of the elevations comply. They have also agreed that the brick that they will put on the building will match the current building.
This is in your Staff Report but apparently they had proposed a canopy light that actually protrudes a little bit but in the elevation view the canopy itself was going to shield those. Apparently they found one of those that will still be directional but recessed into the canopy. So, this actually isn't an issue.
So, in conclusion the site is surrounded by commercial and then with a little bit of residential behind the Kroger itself. Many of the issues they have corrected since DRC include some of the parking, landscaping, building materials and signage issues. Staff has proposed that alternative plan for the pedestrian connection with the easement along the Clarks Creek and then the spotlight canopy light. Apparently they have come up with a different cut sheet for that so we really don't have an issue with that anymore. Also, the primary concern that we have heard from DRC and also from the neighbors was the location and the parking that it is going to be taking up. In light of that is the gas station appropriate for the site and its surroundings; I think that is the main question that we have. I know the petitioner is here and if you have any questions, I'm sure they can answer them.
Mr. Mike Quinn said I'm a lawyer with offices at 180 Indiana Square in downtown Indianapolis on behalf of the Kroger Company. The petitioner today has asked me to represent them and point out a couple of things and I will try to be brief as I can. I think the only thing that we are asking for is first of all the variance that goes before the Board of Zoning Appeals on the 19th of this month. That is to put in the access road along the frontage in place of the existing parking in which it would be in between the fuel center and U.S. 40 or Main Street. Then the other waiver is the waiver for the pedestrian sidewalk, which I believe your Staff has recommended approval. Those are the only two issues. I know that there is an issue as to the location that the Kroger proposes for the fueling center. As Jill has pointed out to you we have three reasons for that. As you know, Kroger has over 150 stores in this region. There are two representatives from the Kroger Company if you have any questions about the operations and could probably answer them better than I. Suffice to say we have three reasons why we wish to have the fuel center where it is proposed on this plan for you tonight as opposed to the east side of the property over by where the removal of the National City Bank is to occur. As you know, the ground does slope from the building, if you will, on the front part of the property down towards the creek. Of course, that slope will be somewhat mitigated when the building would be removed and that site would be graded for additional parking. Incidentally with that additional parking please understand that we would then have parking that does meet code.
Probably the three things about putting this over there is first of all for circulation. We do have to get tanker trucks in to put gas in. Kroger is like any other retailer; most retailers are going to the one stop shopping as much as possible as I'm sure you know. This is part of the business plan for all Kroger stores nationally. Wherever they can they wish to put in a fuel center, which is not unique to this particular site. So, you have a circulation problem. You have the fact that as Jill pointed out to you, you do have a floodplain issue on this part of the property and it would be extremely difficult to get approval to put tanks in the ground and get approval from DNR, etc. to be able to put the fueling center over there. Lastly, and probably most importantly we probably would lose more of what Kroger likes to call and any retailer likes to call your prime parking spaces and any other spaces within 200 feet of your entry. If we move the facility over to the east side of the property where the proposed new parking is or in that general area, we would probably lose more of the parking spaces within 200 feet of the entry to the Kroger store than we are going to lose as you see in the triangle that your Staff has put up there for you. So, we really feel that this is probably better and let's face it Kroger is very concerned about its customer count as any retailer should be. We feel where we have it really facilities our customers as well as the customers of the proposed fueling center and again customers in the grocery.
We do feel that this is an appropriate use for this site. I had the opportunity this afternoon to meet with Mr. Mitch Haase who owns the adjoining property next door and I must say to you that we had a very good conversation and agreed to disagree. I know Mr. Haase is here to speak to you tonight and that's fine. That's certainly his right and privilege. Suffice to say we do feel that the fueling center should go here where it is. We feel we are losing the minimum that we would lose in terms of prime parking spaces. We have designed the site to meet the code as far as the number of parking spaces required. We will have one minor change in this plan and I think Mr. James did sight that to you. We are missing on there two handicap spaces. We have done a site plan; we have not filed it with your department yet but we have done a site plan. Of course, we know we have to be compliant with the requirements for the handicap parking spaces. It is federal law and you can't get variances for that if you tried. But suffices to say we will do that. We do have those three issues that cause concern about moving the particular location of the fuel center. We would like to keep it where it is. We hope that you would see it our way. Again, the only variance that is required is first of all the waiver of the pedestrian right-of-way along Main Street and the variance that we will present to the Board of Zoning Appeals on February 19th. So, with that I will try to answer any questions that you might have.
Mr. Gibbs asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this matter?
Mr. Mitch Haase at 7095 Hickory Hallow Court, Plainfield, Indiana said I'm representing the property owners directly to the west; both the property owners and the tenants that reside within those. I am also one of those tenants. I respect Kroger's right to want to put this gas station there. I respect their ability to adapt to market conditions and everything but parking lots in general are the most dangerous place you are going to drive. This parking lot has always been an issue with that big entrance at SR267; there is no question about it. The safety factor with that gas station located there I think will cause more problems. They discussed having trucks coming in to fuel the gas station and I think there is more of a problem with a truck coming in over here and fueling this gas station than if it is over here. Their loading docks are in the northeast corner. They seem to get enough trucks in and out of there on a daily basis.
I don't know anything about flood zones and underground tanks. I don't know if you can put the underground tanks in the none flood zone areas and then locate the gas station pumping facilities in the flood zone. I don't know; maybe you can; maybe you can't.
The new added parking while that is great you'll never get customers to park down there.
Then to the tenants that our facility rents to with that coming that close to Ritter's; Ritter's may or may not always be there. That may not always be a food venue but that gas facility that close to a food venue will quite frankly probably be the kiss of death for that place than anything else. I know monetary is not always the issue but with the lack of visibility due to the canopy the rent values in my shopping center will be reduced somewhat I think because of the visibility that it is blocked by it. So, with that said I appreciate being heard. If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them.
Mr. Gibbs said with no one else coming forward I will close the public portion of this hearing and open it up to the board for discussion.
Mr. Brandgard said (inaudible). As long as the parking area has been there (inaudible). Moving around in there is dangerous. (Inaudible). That location even though you change the direction of the parking area that is not going to help (inaudible). Personally I don't go there because of the parking. I know a lot of other people that don't either. Anytime I hear anything about Kroger the first thing that is said is about that parking. Moving the parking down into the floodplain down there people aren't going to park there to go into the store. (Inaudible). The location of the entrance and the exit and the proximity of that gas station is going to be a mess with people trying to get in and out of the filling station.
Mr. McPhail said I frequent the Kroger store quite often. My wife shops there on a regular basis. I also frequent the other businesses in the shopping center. I can tell you that there is no place on this site that is appropriate for a gas station. The traffic flow and the movement there is no place on that site that I think is appropriate. I don't think the site is appropriate in any way. There certainly is not a need for the general public to be serviced by an additional gas station in the area. I believe in the business plan. If you can grow your business on site, that is one thing but I absolutely believe that there is no place on this site that is appropriate for proper traffic flow. I think it would be dangerous at this particular location. It certainly will impede traffic in and out of the adjoining shopping center. Dumping anymore traffic into that intersection coming in and out of that parking lot is just not appropriate for the site.
Mr. Gibbs said I echo some of the same concerns. I went out there Saturday and just kind of pictured that gas station there and how the traffic would flow through there. I have a hard time understanding how that is going to work and not create problems especially with tankers coming in and out of there and the line up and lack of space for vehicles to line up at the stoplight to exit. I don't see it working without creating major problems. Do we have any records that say how often that area floods?
Mr. Haase said I don't know how frequent it does but I have banked at that bank for probably 20 years and before they moved and I think two or maybe three times that bank was flooded that I remember. It has happened and it will happen again.
Mr. Kirchoff said help me understand where the property lines are and the access points. (Inaudible). You have this entrance that we see here and then you have the one to the west, which is right there.
Mr. Haase said that shows it very well.
Mr. Kirchoff said at Ritter's who controls that access point?
Mr. Haase said that would be the Plainfield Plaza, which would be myself as opposed to Kroger.
Mr. Kirchoff said and then you have the one directly into Plainfield Plaza, which is on the west.
Mr. Haase said that is correct.
Mr. Kirchoff said so that particular access point is not controlled by Kroger's.
Mr. Haase said correct. We have cross access easements. They were assigned in 1978 and I have copies for everybody if they would like to see those.
Mr. Kirchoff said if I go to CVS, I have to be careful getting across into your main entrance and then in front of Ritter's is a challenge and across is a challenge.
Mr. Haase said the Kroger parking lot has always been a challenge and it is not Kroger. The State's requirements for the end of the two lanes or the four lane SR267 is required to carry that forward into that next parcel. So, that is why they cannot go down to a single entrance. So, a lot of that is put upon them. We want to be good neighbors and we would love to see them have this gas station located on the property but we just don't feel like this is appropriate.
Mr. Satterfield said it is my understanding that the main objection is the traffic and safety vehicles going in and out of there.
Mr. Brandgard said at that location.
(Inaudible).
Mr. Satterfield asked, did we take that into consideration with Ritter's and CVS?
Mr. Brandgard said again Ritter's was a building that was already there.
Mr. Satterfield said well Taco Bell.
Mr. Brandgard said that access drive (inaudible). Then you can go out the main entrance or you can (inaudible). With the gas station you are going to have a lot more traffic in that small entrance.
Mr. Dunkin asked, is there any objection on the amount of increased traffic flow coming in with this gas station?
Mr. James said I talked to Mr. McGillem about that if we should get a traffic impact study and he thought no because with something like that it is probably not that warranted.
Mr. Brandgard said I think with looking at the CVS (inaudible). CVS doesn't have near the traffic.
Mr. Satterfield asked, is the Transportation Department saying that also?
Mr. Brandgard said the Transportation Department deals with the internal and doesn't deal with the traffic external.
Mr. Satterfield said coming in and out of there would be external.
Mr. James said taking out the parking out here and creating an internal access way through here it will help to provide some structure. For this entrance we could provide a stop sign here for traffic control but what is different in this site is like Murphy Oil at Wal-Mart they were planned as outlots or different types of uses on one site. The traffic flow and circulation was taken into account at the time the plan was approved. I don't know how the plaza was laid out if the Ritter's was an outlot or the CVS.
Mr. Brandgard said the CVS was (inaudible).
Mr. McGillem said I think with the traffic all of you indicated that the traffic is a problem there. One of the reasons that traffic is a problem here is just like what was said that Mr. Haase indicated from the standpoint of the INDOT requirements for geometrics coming off of a four lane divided and matching up and going into a parking lot. You have to offset in there. I use this parking lot all of the time. My wife shops there and I take her there; I feel I'm very familiar with the traffic flows in that parking lot and the problems associated with it. One of the things that we had asked is if the fuel area is located in this area, we asked for that clear access drive across the front to be maintained and taking the parking out to allow the access into Mitch's area, Plainfield Plaza. For one reason the stoplight and the intersection being there at this location creates a problem from a standpoint of what you have at any stoplight today when you have people that are going northbound on SR267 that wants to go to Kroger and they see a yellow light flashing, they are speeding up to get through that signal and run into that parking lot. So, you need some kind of offset rather than just shooting right into the thing. This helps to slow the traffic down but they are speeding through that intersection off of SR267 going in, which creates part of the traffic problem inside that parking lot. The other thing that the signal does for you is it creates an out for not only Kroger's but also Plainfield Plaza. If you sit down there and especially during the peak hour, anybody that is trying to come out of the Plainfield Plaza that is wanting to go east, is coming through the Kroger lot to get to this signal. So, that was one of the reasons that we wanted to have the clear driveway across the south end of the parking lot to get this signal. This is a big part of the traffic problem that is generating in this parking lot is the flow of traffic that is coming out of the Plainfield Plaza. So, the signal creates a positive to the overall parking lot of the Plainfield Plaza and Kroger but it also creates a negative from the standpoint of the entrance at the safety within. From my experience that the angled parking coming out if you sit in there the way the parking lot currently is, you have angled parking coming in on the inbound lane that is existing that will set you up as a one way entrance into the thing. With the perpendicular parking 90 degree parking on the other aisle right now you have people trying to go both directions in an area that you need to go one direction.
Mr. Brandgard said I suggested that the angled parking would help that.
Mr. McGillem said but basically we asked for the angled parking in order to try to get the better flow in because you also get a lot of people that come out of the Plainfield Plaza that comes down in the drive access right in front of the building and then goes out. They are not parking in that lot but then they go out to access the signal. So, I'm not saying this is the best place for the fuel station in the area but if the fuel station was approved to go in at this location, I think with the interior access and what they have done and what they have done at our request will help the flow within that parking lot. You are never going to have decent flow in that parking lot as long as you have the entrance right off the end of a four lane highway going through a signal. That is the biggest problem with the whole access.
Mr. Satterfield said it is my understanding that they are asking for a waiver of that access drive, is that correct?
Mr. James said no; the only waiver now required would be to not have a pedestrian connection to Main Street. But if they agree to the trail easement along the property line of the creek, we would do away with the waiver and approve that as an alternative pedestrian plan.
Mr. McGillem said one other thing I would like to point out to you because I don't know if you all realize it but the drive that Mr. Haase was talking about, the first drive west of the main entrance here, that is a right in/right out only. There is a solid median at that driveway so to utilize that there is no left turn eastbound traffic that can utilize that drive. So, it is strictly a right in/right out at that location. Then you have a full access at the main drive into the Plainfield Plaza at the other location.
Mr. Gibbs said as I look at this motion this evening it is approval of the development plan.
Ms. Sprague said and the interior access drive is actually a variance request that will go to the BZA.
Mr. Gibbs said I just wanted to bring that up.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Ms. Sprague said where they remove the parking here; they turn that into the drive.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, how close are they on the parking spaces (inaudible)?
Ms. Sprague said this plan I think I counted three parking spaces short and they said they could just add some up here like they have.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible). Would there be any value that you could get straight into that lot (inaudible) within a few feet you had to turn or left? Don do you see what I'm saying? As I read through this there were two things that I wrote down; traffic flow and safety. I think that is what has come up here. I'm very careful when I drive through there because you have people going whichever direction.
Mr. McGillem said I'm not sure that we would create a bigger accident situation right there as you are coming if you are putting them up against a barrier. I have a few people that are going straight across the center of the roundabout. I wish we could throttle it down some. That is what would be great but again you are basically controlled by the INDOT standards. You see the property right-of-way line, which is the dark dash line right at the beginning of the islands coming out of the parking lot; that is the INDOT right-of-way line. So, essentially INDOT is going to dictate what you put in up to that point. You almost have to come off of it and then try to fit things in and this again is where it is part of the problem. Like I say the signal creates a problem but it also creates a positive aspect of getting people out of the parking lot. And with the fuel station located at this point I think to be very honest with you with as much traffic problem that you have with everything else in the parking lot is the maneuvering of the tanker trucks trying to get in and around. The other thing that you would create with a fuel station at this location, which is a little bit of a problem; I don't know if it will happen that much, but in the TAC meeting I told them that I felt my biggest fear is if they come in any day with gas at twenty-five cents a gallon less than anybody else, you would have traffic stacked up all over the place in there and create a real problem.
Mr. Brandgard said the issue that I have is as you come in to get to that gas station you are going to have a do a left and you are going to be running into people wanting to come out, which that is going to jam up people coming in. That is somewhat of an issue today. Then you are introducing more people trying to get out than what you have today. That is going to jam that whole entrance up pretty bad.
Mr. McGillem said if you get that kind of attraction, I try to associate the Wal-Mart fuel area with what is going in here. I have used the fuel station at Wal-Mart and I have never been in there when it really was stacked up.
Mr. Brandgard said I think the key at Wal-Mart is it stacks up in Wal-Mart (inaudible). My concern is you are going to have them stacked up (inaudible).
Mr. Haase said I've been in business for 26 years (inaudible). I use this cross through to (inaudible). There is no question about it. The biggest conflict is people coming in here and they made this wider, I don't know if they are going to make it wider again, but the biggest thing is when people come in here, they are staring us down and we are staring them down. These people here they have a stop sign (inaudible). Then people are coming out here and then you are going to have more vehicles coming out here and (inaudible). This area right in here (inaudible).
(Inaudible).
Ms. Sprague said that is a couple of other things that they did do that I forgot to mention. This area is the new area; the gray is where the curb used to be. They are going to have to cut that down to get the trucks in there at the very least.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Ms. Sprague said yes the gray is there now and then (inaudible).
Mr. Quinn said first of all to clarify the concern about what the proposal is there will only be three tankers a week. So, it is only three times a week that we need to be concerned about the issue of (inaudible). Generally we would expect them to come in this entry here and go around here and go over here and the tanks would be over here on this side and go back out this exit here. So, that is one of the main reasons that we like this location because it keeps the tanker trucks basically out of the parking area. If we put it over on the east side, not only do we get into the parking area but we get into the traffic of the trucks that come in and unload back at the loading dock bringing in products in that go into the store and that could cause a lot more confusion than we have (inaudible).
Mr. Brandgard said with that said if a tanker truck comes in on that west side, are they going to be able to park and unload without being in the drive on the west side of the property line?
Mr. Quinn said the old design layout is such that the tanker trucks at the time they are coming in and unloading are not any of the parking spaces or interfere with any of the parking spaces. That is one of the reasons and purposes of designing it to avoid that very thing.
Mr. Brandgard said my concern is the access drive is on the west side.
Mr. Quinn said in other words do we keep the radius of the turn on the Kroger property, is that your question sir?
Mr. Brandgard said and parking of the truck while it is unloading.
Mr. Quinn said yes sir, I'm sorry if I misunderstood you.
Mr. McGillem said I might also say that what Mitch has just voiced and Robin also there is very likely those conflicts that will be created at times if you would have a truck or someone that is stacked up coming out during a peak time. Where you have people coming in and you have enough cars that want to go to the service station you could stack up out in the other. It is something that definitely could happen. That conflict is created in there with the cross traffic and the exiting traffic is not going to go away and probably will be aggravated with the situation. I'm not sure with having to redesign and reconstruct the parking lot and basically create a lane all the way in to force your circulation and totally eliminate the intersection of any cross traffic with that front area would be the only way to eliminate it and then you are pushing everything back to the front door in the Kroger lot.
Mr. Carlucci said this may or may not happen and I'm not trying to be negative by this at all but we have truck drivers all over the Town going places where they shouldn't be going. We can't keep them off Center Street. What I'm concerned about is some of these fuel truck drivers, now Kroger will tell them they can't do this, will they just go down a little bit on U.S. 40 to the west and turn around and come back in? Will they go right through the middle of the parking lot in front of the Ace Hardware to come in? There is nothing that can stop them from doing this. Truck drivers always find the easiest way to get in there. If they start seeing the conflicts there as they are coming in and taking a left and see that, they will find another way to get to those pumps. It may not happen but based on what I see these guys do around Town first of all some can't find out where they are supposed to be. So, they are going to take the easiest way to turn those trucks to get into that site. If they have to go down a little bit west and turn back in, that is what they will do. It may not happen but it could.
Mr. McPhail made a motion that the Plan Commission deny DP-09-001 as filed by SSOE, Inc. requesting approval of a development plan for a five pump gas station and new parking area on the Kroger property at 1930 E. Main Street finding that:
1. The proposed development is not appropriate to the site and its surroundings.
Second by Mr. Brandgard. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, can I ask for a clarification? If we deny the plan, what is the final (inaudible)?
Mr. Daniel said they have six months.
Mr. Gibbs said Mr. Carlucci would you poll the board.
Mr. Quinn said point of order Mr. President if I may, because of the concerns that have been raised by the commission and because of the concerns that you have and I believe Mr. Daniel or one of you may have said that a denial of this could put off for six months any refiling of this I certainly understand. I'm wondering if we might have, and I apologize for the lateness of this, but I think it is worthwhile for Kroger to go back to the drawing board and see if we can come up with something and come back before you again. I believe Mr. Haase said he had a problem (inaudible).
Mr. Haase said (inaudible).
Mr. Quinn asked, could we continue this until April?
Mr. Haase said (inaudible).
Mr. Quinn said the only reason that I would like to continue this is (inaudible).
Mr. Carlucci said Mr. James is looking it up because Joe is looking for the sections but it may be too late to withdraw it at this point. Maybe a continuance would make sense.
Mr. Quinn said that is what I asked for because it is my understanding that the rules do state that you can ask for a continuance up until the time that you vote. So, that is why I came up before you before you got to that point.
Mr. Daniel said actually Mr. Quinn I think the rules require that you ask for a continuance before the petition starts but the board can waive that requirement.
Mr. Quinn said I was not aware of that. I appreciate you straightening me out on that.
Mr. Kirchoff said it would need to be a significant change for us to reconsider and I'm hearing serious concerns.
Mr. Quinn said I understand.
Mr. Kirchoff said just simply tweaking to me is not valuable to your time or to ours.
Mr. Quinn said Mr. Kirchoff said I understand and I think rather than coming back before you with a gussy up version of what we have would be a waste of your time and Kroger's time. So, we would not look forward to doing that.
Mr. Kirchoff said my responsibility on the Council is a liaison to transportation. For me to consider something to be significantly different is for you to really look at transportation. I think you are going to have to do something really significant to overcome our concerns about transportation. This is already a problem and you are going to aggravate it first of all.
(Inaudible).
Mr. McPhail said in all fairness to everybody I will agree to withdraw my motion but I still believe it is an inappropriate site any place. They may change my mind with something but relocating it on this site is not going to change my mind but I will withdraw my motion and agree to a continuance if the commission wants to do that.
Mr. Brandgard said I will withdraw my second with the same conditions.
Mr. Kirchoff said just to reiterate I think you agree with what I'm saying in that it has to be a significant change addressing our concerns appropriately or your voice and time and energy is (inaudible).
Mr. Satterfield made a motion to suspend the rules to allow a continuance of DP-09-001 to the April Plan Commission meeting. Second by Mr. McPhail. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Satterfield – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Dunkin – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Gibbs – yes
6-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Quinn said I have one more question; is that with or without notice for the meeting?
Mr. Daniel said there will be no requirement for a new notice. Anybody in the audience who wants to hear this the next time needs to understand there will be no new notice sent out on this.
OLD BUSINESS/NEW BUSINESS
Mr. James said in the Staff Report I gave you a copy of the proposed Town Center Facade Rehabilitation Program. Hopefully, you have had a chance to look it over and tell me what you think if you think some changes are needed for this. This program is going after some community development block grant funds to fund this facade rehabilitation program from the office of Community and Rural Affairs. Hopefully, we will hear something about the funds in May so I would like to have a program in place and ready to hit the ground running if we do get the grant. Some questions in the memo is what do you think the next step should be in getting this approved? Should we form a committee to take a look at it? How should the funding be distributed? Should we issue the funds and then get reimbursed or should we reimburse the property owner? So, there are some questions that need to be answered with this program and I would like to hear your comments.
Mr. Gibbs said in the proposal presented are there any property owners involved in this proposal?
Mr. James said yes we met in December. I passed out a draft of this program and asked for their comments to review it and I also gave them a draft of the facade easements to have them take a look at those and get back with us with any comments. We are going to have another meeting February 12th with the property owners to update them on the grant process and then at that time they will have their opportunity to give us any comments about the draft.
Mr. Kirchoff said for clarification I'm looking at 2.0E, the Town of Plainfield should be responsible for procuring all estimates.
Mr. James said with the U.S. 40 Main Street streetscape program we got estimates at that time back in 2004. That is why we are going with the facade easements so we can get these easements if they can do the improvements based on the streetscape plan.
Mr. Kirchoff said help me understand why I should be comfortable if you gave me an estimate (inaudible).
Mr. James said we want to do the improvements based on the streetscape plan.
Mr. Kirchoff said I understand that (inaudible).
Mr. James said we are going to fund 80% of it; we should have more of a say in how that money is spent.
Mr. Kirchoff said then in 2G I assume when you say the Town of Plainfield shall be responsible for payment of 80%, those dollars are solely grant dollars.
Mr. James said correct.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail said I do think you have a point Bill that maybe we ought to approve the estimate but I'm not sure we should be responsible to get that estimate.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. Gibbs said you are opening a can of worms for any legal problems associated with that (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail said I think we should have some oversight there but I don't think we should be responsible for getting this.
Mr. Kirchoff said I was just asking the question.
Mr. McPhail said I hadn't thought about that but it seems valid to me.
Mr. Kirchoff said on 5.og as I read through that it says if the bid has been awarded, the project (inaudible) shall be worked out with the property owner and the Town (inaudible). It seemed to me to be pretty one sided in all of this and again maybe it is because (inaudible). It appears to me that it is the Town's projects and not the owner's projects. Again if I'm a property owner, how much of that do I want to turn over (inaudible).
Mr. Brandgard said if you are the property owner and you are accepting 80% of the cost from the Town, you give up a certain amount.
Mr. Satterfield said 80% worth.
Mr. Kirchoff said I guess I'm looking more for a cooperative agreement.
Mr. McPhail said if I'm understanding the easement, we are really in control of what happens to that project if they sign that easement.
Mr. Daniel said that is correct.
Mr. Carlucci said I also think it means if improvements are done and later on they are not maintained, we can enforce that easement and enforce them to fix it.
Mr. Kirchoff said I read that but I was trying to look at if I was the property owner, how much would I give permission (inaudible).
Mr. Brandgard said I guess the thing is we will be giving them a plan (inaudible). We want to make sure (inaudible)……produce a project that from a quality standpoint (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail said it would seem to me that if the guy is doing the facade, he is probably doing other things. But that would probably only be part of the bid that he is trying to get. You want to take that facade work out of scope by itself and end up being two jobs.
Mr. Brandgard said I think the important part is that we have the ability to improve any estimate.
Mr. Kirchoff said I understand. The only other thing that I had was on (inaudible) the property owner will reimburse the Town (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail asked, why wouldn't we get their 20% up front? What if you get it done (inaudible).
Mr. Kirchoff said I would assume that would be part of the agreement that (inaudible).
Mr. Daniel said enforce that and I think the easement agreement just gives us rights as far as control in the ability to take control of it. I don't think it has anything to do with payment. I don't recall anything in the easement because that is sort of a separate part of the project. The easement was the rights.
Mr. Brandgard said (inaudible).
Mr. Daniel said right.
Mr. Brandgard said (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail said maybe that comes in I don't know. I just don't want anybody scooting out.
Mr. James asked, do you think we ought to form a committee and get the property owners involved and put some more work into it?
Mr. Carlucci said (inaudible).
Mr. James said it would probably be helpful. I'm just trying to stay ahead of the game.
Mr. McPhail asked, do we have to have a process in place to qualify for this?
Mr. James said I think that is part of it.
Mr. Kirchoff said put a team together and do your planning because I think (inaudible). I'm not comfortable (inaudible).
Mr. James said we will create a committee and do some more work on it.
The next item is under old business and concerns the Plainfield Animal Hospital at 2916 E. Main Street. We were sent these photographs a couple of weeks ago and they were sent to the chamber also by the Plainfield Auto Sales, which is a neighbor to this property to the west. He is at wits end regarding the condition of this property and says that he is going to take matters into his own hands. He has talked to the Hendricks County Prosecuting Attorney to see what can be done with this property. We have had Dr. Butler in before the Plan Commission on several occasions. I worked with Dr. Butler and the Health Department this past summer to try to clean up the property. He did get some weeds and grass mowed. There is still an issue of all of these items on the property. It is basically a junk yard. I don't know how much is legal nonconforming and how much was there when the Zoning Ordinance went into affect.
Mr. Carlucci said businesses can be legal nonconforming but junk isn't.
Mr. Brandgard said most of that was probably there before he came into Town but nonetheless it is in the Town now.
Mr. James asked, what is the proper method to try to clean this property up? What is junk, trash and debris? Our ordinance doesn't define it.
Mr. McPhail said I don't think he denied that it was junk; he promised to clean it up didn't he?
Mr. Gibbs said he did.
Mr. McPhail said he just hasn't done it. I don't remember what time schedule we gave him but it was considerable twice. Didn't we have him in twice?
Mr. Carlucci said (inaudible).
Mr. Satterfield asked, what is the question? What rule do we follow to enforce it, is that the question?
Mr. James said yes. Do we call it junk, trash and debris and enforce it by Article 12.6 or do we consider it a junk yard and an illegal use in the General Commercial District?
Mr. Daniel said I think probably junk, trash and debris comes a lot closer to what we have there than a junk yard.
Mr. James asked, what do we call junk or trash?
Mr. Daniel said the standard dictionary defines junk or whatever it is. There's not anything too complicated about that.
Mr. Carlucci said we have gone to court before (inaudible)……with junk and debris with Mr. Shouse and take it to the Town Court.
Mr. Daniel said yes. Let's write him a letter and give him 30 days or otherwise the Plan Commission has authorized us to file with the Town Court. It's winter.
Mr. Brandgard said on the other hand the ground may be hard enough and easier to get it out.
Mr. Daniel said that is true.
Mr. Brandgard said (inaudible).
Mr. James said 30 days or we take him to court?
Mr. McPhail made a motion to notify Dr. Butler to clean his property up within the next 30 days or we are going to take him to court. Second by Mr. Satterfield.
Mr. Satterfield – yes
Mr. McPhail yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Dunkin – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Gibbs – yes
6-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Daniel said I think it might have been more interesting to see what the County Prosecutor would have done. I don't think there is probably any criminal statutes that Pat Baldwin could enforce on that but it would be interesting to see what she might have said.
Mr. James said the next items are invitations to the Plan Commission. I've been working with Indy, Park and Ride and Fly to try to get them to comply with their signs on Ronald Reagan Parkway. The signs they have are too large and the temporary signs are not the right type of temporary signs. They are in the right-of-way setbacks so I've been working with Lee Faulkner with Plainfield Signs to come up with a sign plan for them. I met with their attorney, Mr. Brian Tuohy today out in the blizzard conditions. Mr. Tuohy proposed an interesting question. The existing sign that they have now based on the size it is the right distance from the Ronald Reagan Parkway right-of-way but it is not from the entrance. We don't have right-of-way out there yet, is that correct?
Mr. McGillem said (inaudible).
Mr. James said they are working with the airport to try to get the corner property so they can put a sign at the corner. But they have an existing sign out there now so it's not in the right-of-way but it is on the property that Verus owns on the north. So, Mr. Tuohy asked if they could give us an agreement that would indemnify the Town and allow the existing sign to remain on the Verus property.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. James said the large temporary sign that they have on the vehicle or truck or whatever it is that is going to be moved. That is going away.
Mr. Daniel asked, what is the problem with the permanent sign?
Mr. James said it is a temporary sign but the way that I look at it it doesn't comply with the setbacks. It has the 22 feet off the right-of-way but we don't really have right-of-way off the Metropolis yet. So, I told him at least 22 feet off back of the curb but that puts them in the airport's line.
Mr. Brandgard said the temporary solution to this is to go on the north side of the drive (inaudible).
Mr. James said Verus owns the strip on the south side.
Mr. McGillem said (inaudible).
Mr. Carlucci said let me just pose a question. I don't know how this board can do this anyway. Wouldn't they have to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals?
Mr. James said (inaudible).
Mr. Tuohy said if I could approach, this is the Ronald Reagan Parkway (inaudible). We have been negotiating with the airport to buy (inaudible). That way (inaudible). We need to move it back about four feet so it is 22 feet off of the right-of-way (inaudible). We can move that current temporary sign four feet back so it is off the right-of-way (inaudible). The airport has very deliberate with our dealings with them. We have a proposal from them to sale us this land. There are still a few details to be ironed out about that proposal. I feel we are optimistic that we will work that out so when we acquire that, we will have a sign 22 feet back from the right-of-way (inaudible). The surveyor tells me it is about six feet south of (inaudible).
Mr. McGillem asked, is that because they just haven't done the final plat and the right-of-way dedicated because the right-of-way when dedicated, should go all the way to the airport property line. There should not be any strip left in there owned by Verus between the current south curb line and the airport once it is platted.
Mr. Tuohy said (inaudible). If that happens while that temporary sign is in that six foot area, (inaudible). As soon as we acquire this property from the airport, then we will move that 22 feet back (inaudible). One of the ways that the airport has deliberated is they said they would sell us all of this lot but they wanted to retain a one foot strip running the length from the Metropolis all the way back to the end of the land that they own separating that land from Ronald Reagan. (Inaudible).
Mr. Daniel asked, did the word “access come up?
Mr. Tuohy said it has been a deliberate process that we are still in the middle of but like I said I'm optimistic and we would agree that once we acquire (inaudible). We will get rid of that sign on wheels. (Inaudible). Once that right-of-way gets acquired we need a variance (inaudible).
Mr. Brandgard asked, would it be possible to get a temporary easement (inaudible).
Mr. James said Verus has their sign, the integrated center sign.
Mr. Tuohy said Verus has allowed us to be on the property now (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail said that is currently a private drive.
Mr. McGillem said yes it hasn't been final platted to where the right-of-way has been dedicated so essentially it is owned by Verus at this point and time. I think there is an ingress/egress agreement approval with Indy, Park and Ride for use of it at this point and time.
Mr. James said I have one more item that wasn't in the report that also deals with signs. I sent Andy Mohr Used Cars a notice; they have had a banner up for 45 days. It is a “grand opening banner and that time has passed. So, I would like to go ahead and send them a citation. (Consent given).
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to adjourn. Second by Mr. Satterfield. Motion carried.
_______________________________________
Mr. Dennis Gibbs, President
