The Plainfield Plan Commission met on Monday, August 6, 2007. In attendance were Mr. Satterfield, Mr. Matrana, Mr. McPhail, Mr. Brandgard, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Kirchoff and Ms. Whicker.
ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM
Mr. Carlucci administered the roll call.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
MINUTES
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to approve the minutes of the Plainfield Plan Commission of July 2, 2007 as submitted. Second by Mr. Gibbs. Motion carried.
OATH OF TESTIMONY
Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Testimony.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Ms. Whicker reviewed the Guidelines Governing the Conduct of Public Hearings. We have a petition that has requested a continuance this evening, which is petition DP-07-013.
Mr. James said first of all I would like to see if anyone is here representing that petition.
Ms. Whicker asked, is there anyone here to represent Dwinell's Visual Systems? (No one came forward).
Mr. James said this is for the wall sign for the new Red Robin Restaurant. When this request went before the Design Review Committee on July 17th, the Design Review Committee did not approve of the requested waiver. So, they said they had to change the sign so that it would comply with the approved wall sign. Hearing that the representatives said they would do just that; they would take down the existing sign and put up a sign that would comply with the approved plan. After that we have not heard back from the petitioner so knowing that we are going to go ahead and ask that this be continued to give them an opportunity to tell us exactly what they would like to do.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to continue DP-07-013, Dwinell's Visual Systems to next month. Second by Mr. Gibbs. Motion carried.
Mr. James said I'm also requesting a small change to the agenda. I would like to move the Town sponsored zone map change, RZ-07-006 to the last item under petitions for public hearings. (Consent given).
Ms. Whicker said we have a petition that was continued from July 2, 2007, petition DP-07-011.
Mr. James said that is our first petition tonight, the Meijer's request. Before I begin I'm going to pass out the zoning commitments. These were the zoning commitments made in 2005 when the 37.8 acres up in the northwest corner of Dan Jones and Main Street intersection was rezoned from OD, Office District to General Commercial. So, you have seen these before but I wanted to make sure you had those commitments tonight. So, with that I will begin my presentation.
This request was continued from the July hearing. The reason why it was continued was because they were unable to make it out of the Design Review Committee with a design for the main store that was pleasing to the Design Review Committee. So, this has been to the DRC twice. There have been several versions of the main store that we have worked through and I think we have finally come up with a version that the DRC likes and hopefully the Plan Commission will like tonight.
This request is for a main store. It is 190,000 square feet and five outlots and a 2,600 square foot gas/convenience market. The location of the gas/convenience market was determined by the zoning commitments that were made back in 2005. It could not be south of Walgreens and I believe it had to be at least 250 feet from the Dan Jones right-of-way.
The zoning commitments restricted several types of uses for this site. The commitments were modified I think in May to allow for the sale of alcohol just for the main store. The location is within 600 feet of a Gateway Corridor, which is Main Street, and also within 600 feet of three Residential Districts. You have residential to the north; that is the Blackthorne condominiums, which is a PUD. To the south I believe the zoning is R-3 across Main Street and then to the east across Dan Jones the zoning is R-4. But even though it is within these perimeters they did commit that any development on the site would have to meet the Gateway Corridor standards. Other commitments were use restrictions and perimeter landscaping. You have to have a Level 4 on Main Street and along Dan Jones Road and also along the Vandalia Trail to the north. It dictated where the gas station could be and convenience market and dictated the orientation of the loading docks and then there were other use restrictions for the outlots along Dan Jones Road.
As I mentioned, the supermarket design has evolved through two reviews with the Design Review Committee. They started out with a new store prototype that Meijer is introducing but DRC did not like that very much. So, at the first meeting they compared the new prototype to the store they did in Noblesville I think back in 2003. The Design Review Committee really liked the Noblesville store. They thought it was more compatible given the location of the site and the surrounding residential uses.
So, I'm going to take you through the versions. Here is the site at the corner. Here is the St. Susanna School right here and Walgreens on this corner. This is the 37 acres and Blackthorne to the north and here is the Duke property and the office building and their storage and then R-3 to the south and R-4 to the east.
The Comprehensive Plan recommends Mix Used Office Commercial for this site and General Commercial zoning is compatible with that recommendation. Here is the site plan. Here is the proposed main store, the gas station is right over here, which is determined by the zoning commitments. Then we have five outlots; two outlots here and three. This is an outlot here and three along Dan Jones and one here and one over here. The former day care, which used to be in this location right here, will be removed. Here is St. Suzanna right here and Main Street and Dan Jones and Walgreens.
This is the first version of the main store that we looked at. This is their new prototype and only the front facade complied with the building material percentages as required by the Gateway Corridor standards. This was the gas station presented with the first version. What Meijer likes to do is they want the gas station to architecturally resemble the main store.
And then here is the Noblesville store. They have the flat roof/hip roof at the main entrances and then they have this roof over the carts out front. This is the gas station in Noblesville. You can see how it has the little hip roof at the entrance to resemble the main store.
This is the second version. Brick was added and now only the rear elevation, which would be the west elevation, did not comply. Also, because you have the gateway to the south and you have the residential to the north all four elevations have to comply. This is the second version of the gas station. We bricked the columns. That was a change there.
This is the third version. Now only the north elevation didn't comply. That is the side with the loading docks and the south elevation has the garden center. They had the gable over the two entrances to hopefully give that a more residential look. DRC still didn't like the gables. They thought the scale of the building was out of proportion with the surrounding uses. Their concern was the height of the gables. They did add a cornice to the parapet, which DRC had requested. This is the gas station. They added a cornice to the top of the canopy and then they gave the gas station a hip roof to give it more of a residential look. They also removed a changeable copy sign that was on the front.
This is version number five. This is where we are today. The hip roof was added like the Noblesville store. They used a darker shade of the brown for the precast concrete, which is the primary material. DRC had requested that to sort of hide the lines of the precast concrete and they also asked for a darker shade for the roof. Also, all elevations now comply with the building material percentages. So, no waiver is needed for the building material percentages. But then they came back with another version and they lowered the height of the parapet by two feet. They wanted to do this I guess to lower the scale of the building and hopefully that would give it more of the Noblesville look. Also, they have added these roofs on the front here and I want to point this out; the main difference is they no longer have the carts outside of the store; they are now stored on the inside. This is one reason they had problems resembling the Noblesville store because of this new floor layout that they have with the new prototype store. So, this is the version we are at today. The only version from version five is it is two feet lower. The gas station the only change is they made the roof darker. All elevations of the gas station comply with the building material percentages and they kept the cornice on the canopy.
I'm going to go over some changes made to the site plan. The sidewalk width was changed to six feet as required in commercial areas. They added a sidewalk here on the north side so we now have a connection to the Vandalia Trail as required by the zoning commitments. We have a sidewalk connection to Main Street and we had asked for another connection from Dan Jones so they have added that. They added a bicycle rack in the front for people coming in off of the Vandalia Trail or off Dan Jones Road. We recommended striping the crossings. They used a brick imprint and they agreed to do that. They added more architectural details to the site plan. We added some parking lot items to this lot and this lot. They have the required Level 4 for landscaping on Main Street and Dan Jones Road and also along the Vandalia Trail. All perimeters comply. Overall the landscaping exceeds what is required by plant unit value of 21.9 and that is pretty significant. We are going to use an alternative landscaping plan for the foundation landscaping. It has been added to the parking lot. There are trees along here and we have more than enough parking lot trees so we took what was required for the sides and incorporated that into the parking lot. So, landscaping exceeds what is required. This is the trash enclosure for the gas station and it complies and meets the requirements. It has the cedar gate. The brick is the same as the gas station. They have a brick wrap around the bottom here and that is precast and it does meet the brick percentages. So, this will be the same color brick as the gas station. For the temporary seasonal display area we had asked how they were going to lay this out; how are they going to display this area; how will it be demarcated? So, they are going to use this white vinyl picket fence. It will be this area out in here, out in front of the garden center.
Revised plans and changes that have been made include the canopy lights and now comply. They committed to a black vinyl coated fence for the St. Susanna School. It's going to be right in here; they are going to fence that off. The Main Street integrated center sign now complies with the location and the size. They did the brick imprint with the crosswalks and the cart corral was a big issue. DRC really likes the cart corrals used at Wal-Mart and they have agreed to use the Wal-Mart style and have been added to the site plan. So, the remaining issues include still needing some sign variances. There is more than one changeable copy sign for the gas station, which is the gas price LED signs and for the size of those. Because they are separated they exceed the 40% that is allowed. After the meeting DRC had an issue with the blue accent band on the gas station canopy. I guess the color rendering probably makes it a lighter blue than what it actually is but that was a concern.
I have one correction. In the Staff Report I said the Main Street entrance would be a right-in/right-out only. Actually it will be right-in/right-out but it will not be closed and it will allow left turns into their entrance off of Main Street. Here is a median right here; it is going to be a partial median right there but I took a look at it this afternoon and looked at the aerials. We think it will allow a left turn for the resident across the street to the south. It is still basically is a right-in/right-out with a left turn in; you can't make a left turn out. Here is the cart corral; I don't know if that was in your site plan or not. This is the Wal-Mart style.
So, to summarize it is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. They still need some sign variances for the illumination after midnight and the size and number of the changeable copy signs on the gas station canopy. Within 600 feet of a Residential District signs cannot be illuminated after midnight so I think they will need them for the sign on Main Street and I believe the one on Dan Jones Road but I have to take another look at that and measure that. There may need to be one for the gas station canopy. The plans comply with the zoning commitments. Plans have been revised to address DRC's comments. All plans comply with the Gateway Corridor standards except for the waiver that is needed to allow for the orientation of loading docks toward Blackthorne. A traffic impact analysis has been submitted. Dan Jones Road was just recently improved to five lanes to accommodate this type of development and a traffic signal will be installed by the developer at the Beechwood Drive and Dan Jones Road intersection once it is warranted. It is a right-in/right-out to Main Street with a left turn from Main Street in. Outlots and main store setback provides for additional buffer from the residential to the south and east plus you have the Level 4 perimeter landscaping from Dan Jones and the main store setback about 600 feet and from Main Street it is set back almost 1,000 feet. I think considering the surrounding Residential Districts and the proximity of the St. Susanna School with the revised elevations for the supermarket and gas station they are now more compatible and harmonious. So, with that I will wrap it up. There are representatives here for Meijer and I'm sure they would be glad to answer any questions that you may have.
Mr. Paul Reese with the law firm of Boise, McKinney and Evans at 301 Pennsylvania Parkway, Suite 300, Indianapolis said I think Mr. James did an excellent job of summarizing the project as we have worked through this. I know that Meijer really appreciates all of the time and effort that Mr. James and Staff have put in as well as the members of the DRC to come up with what I believe everybody believes is going to be a much needed store there for Meijer. Also, provide a nice looking store for the community that is compatible with the residential area that is nearby as well as with the commercial areas to the west. Like Mr. James said we are happy to answer any questions that you have. We have our site engineer here and we have Mr. Richard from Meijer to answer any questions that you might have particularly with the company and operations, etc.
Ms. Whicker asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this matter?
Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Testimony to Stephanie Medford.
Ms. Stephanie Medford at 1403 East Main Street said going back to the map showing the plan my driveway is there right across the street from the turn-in. My concern is the traffic. We have a difficult time now getting in and out and knowing that there are going to be left turns into this we are going to have a constant row of traffic sitting in front of our house 24x7, which I guess is good for Meijer but not so good for the peace of my home. I'm also concerned about the signage. I would like a little more detail around the signage that is planned for Main Street.
Mr. Lee Vandermill with Progressive A&E said I have an exhibit of the sign. I think Mr. James may have it on one of his presentations but I can show this to Ms. Medford. This sign is basically perpendicular to the residents across the road so they are going to be basically seeing a brick column facing the residential and this will be the portion of the sign that will be east/west on Main Street. So, we feel the illumination will be directed down the roadway and not shinning across the street. This is the sign that we are asking for the lighting to be 24 hours if possible.
Mr. James asked, what is the orientation of the sign; is it north/south?
Mr. Vandermill said yes?
Mr. James said it is a north/south sign facing east/west.
Mr. Vandermill said that is correct.
Ms. Whicker asked, do you have a map that you could show where that is off of U.S. 40?
Mr. James said it is right here; it does comply with the required setbacks off of Main Street and off of the private drive. The other sign on Dan Jones I believe is right here. This was my presentation at DRC. At the time it was too large but they have since revised it and is at the appropriate size; it is only 200 square feet. It is the required size for the amount of frontage on Main Street.
Mr. Reese said regarding the traffic issue we are currently working with INDOT on that access point. The preliminary reading back from INDOT is we were proposing a concrete median across that area to prevent “left outs coming from our site. They came back and said that may not be appropriate because of the residential neighborhood to the south. They probably will not allow the concrete median there and we are probably just going to be channeling that right-out as shown on the drawings just to prevent that left turn movement. She is correct; there are going to be more traffic there. With development there is more traffic but we are going to allow access to our driveway from that center turn lane but during busy periods it is going to be difficult. There is nothing that we can really do about that.
Mr. Brandgard said in looking at that as busy as that road is I guess I have a question of why you would have a left turn in there instead of bringing people up to the light at Dan Jones and come in from that way.
Mr. Reese said it is to basically protect that intersection with Dan Jones. Right now that is close to capacity and by adding additional traffic for this development it would not help the situation. We feel this is a better solution to try to get some of that traffic off prior to getting to the intersection.
Ms. Whicker said with no one else coming forward the public portion of this matter is now closed and I will open it up for comments from the commission.
Mr. McPhail said I have a couple of quick comments on the entrances off of Dan Jones. Do they all align with the previous approved projects?
Mr. James said yes.
Ms. Whicker said I think for clarification with the sign question the sign design is not something that is in the motion this evening; just the fact of the illumination after midnight?
Mr. James said I think they still need variances, which are granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals. They have filed for these variances that will be heard at the August 20th meeting. They also have to get a Special Exception to allow for the sale of alcoholic beverages and a Special Exception to allow the outdoor display in front of the store. So, at the August 20th BZA will be the two Special Exceptions and the two sign variances. The sign plan is something that is shown on the development plan and is agreed to and that will be issued a separate permit.
Mr. Kirchoff said I know we have had some conversation with St. Susanna about drainage problems. Didn't we say when somebody came in with this that it would be appropriate to address that? Has that been taken into consideration with this?
Mr. Belcher said I have not been in direct conversations with St. Susanna but we are still in the process of working through the drainage on this site. They have made some progress and we have taken those comments into account. They intend to insure that will be part of their plan.
Mr. Kirchoff said I don't know if it was at the Plan Commission or the Town Council, I think it was the Plan Commission, where we talked about at that time we didn't know what was coming but when it did get developed, we wanted to make sure that we work with St. Susanna and have the drainage problems addressed.
Mr. Belcher said we will continue to carry that ball forward. We got that message from you a long time ago and from the church with issues out there.
Mr. James said we do make provisions on site drainage control and I believe there will be a retention pond back here. Is this a dry, retention or detention?
Mr. Reese said detention.
Mr. Brandgard said in looking at the U.S. 40 entrance with the left turn-in do you feel like that is going to be a problem or are we going to be able to post some other entrances along there?
Mr. McGillem said as I understand from the traffic study, their discussion with INDOT is I think initially they were looking at a right-in/right-out. The problem with the right-in/right-out is you almost have to go to a raised median down U.S. 40 to restrict that and the residential drives on the south side that becomes a real burden for them getting both in and out. As indicated initially, I think there was still a raised median that was developed along U.S. 40 in order to restrict that “left in. What they are trying to do is without the “left in you are forcing all eastbound traffic that wants to go to Meijer they have to go to the signal, which becomes a problem for timing and phasing and so forth. So, they want to send some of that traffic before it goes to the signal based on the Dan Jones signal to make a left. I can certainly understand the argument. To me the best situation is totally restricting the right-in/right-out and raise the median but that creates a problem for the people on the south side. If you do that, then address the additional left turning needs at the Dan Jones and bring them in with probably a double left at Dan Jones and additional movements there. Set the signal up in order to accommodate it. To do that you would create a significant burden on the residential property.
Mr. Kirchoff said since we have two former Cinergy employees we just happened to notice that it appears that the access to the Duke property the eastern access is still going to be there. As we read this, if I'm eastbound coming out of Duke, when I get there, I cannot make a left turn.
Mr. Reese said that is signage that Duke asked us to put on the drawing. What that signage is for is people come along that access drive and they don't want people turning into their driveway. Basically, it is for authorized personnel only so they are trying to restrict people from turning left into the Duke parking area. It is kind of hard to tell on that drawing but there is signage on the access drive and not on the Duke drive.
Mr. Kirchoff said again our conversation over here was I follow that to the northeast and as I get there, I'm going to turn left and head toward Meijer so I can get up to that stoplight. That intersection where the connector comes into the parking lot that looks to be pushing all of that Duke traffic that direction. You have no stop signs or anything there. We were saying that people are probably going to meander through there to get to the stoplight and I don't see any stoplights for traffic control.
Mr. Reese said if you look on DP1, there is a stop sign for traffic heading to the west. So, the north/south movement would have the right-of-way. So, somebody coming up to that access point coming from Duke would be able to take a right without stopping. Depending on where they are going when they come out of the Duke access point, they can take a right if they are going to be heading westbound on Main Street or if they need to go east on Main Street, they can take the first drive past the gas station and then take a right up to Dan Jones; right on Dan Jones up to Main Street. So, it is really just the northbound on Dan Jones where they might want to come down to the proposed signal location. All of the access points on Dan Jones are full access so they can take a right or a left when they get to Dan Jones or go straight depending on where they live or where they are headed.
Mr. McGillem said I think you can get out of that first drive easier with the signal at the main drive than you will currently. Duke lets out right now to get out on Dan Jones, which is their only access, they have to come out and go either right or left on Dan Jones. When we designed Dan Jones Road, we fully anticipated a full development on this site with a signal and they have accessed Dan Jones exactly the way we had envisioned. The other thing that you are going to do with the Duke when they are letting out or coming in, is even though the access on U.S. 40 is restricted anyone coming out of Duke who is wanting to go back west on U.S. 40 isn't going to come to Dan Jones. They are going to go out and access U.S. 40. The eastbound on U.S. 40 they will have to come out to Dan Jones and turn right and take a left on U.S. 40, which is what they do right now. Two concerns with the access points on Dan Jones again like I say the one on U.S. 40, which is controlled by INDOT, leaves something to be desired but the controlling factor on that is more so than what you do if you approve an access there in what you do to try to maintain the residential access down there.
Mr. Brandgard said I think part of the concern is if you back up from that to the west, what that is going to do. That could create the same problem the raised median is going to cause but it won't be there all of the time.
Mr. McGillem said and I think that will happen at times. There is definitely going to be that situation. We have that at times right now at St. Susanna depending on what time of day it is.
Ms. Whicker said Mr. James you had mentioned that the Design Review Committee had some questions or concerns about the color rendering on the convenience store. I know that they had mentioned that they put the convenience/gas store to be comparable and compatible with the main building. Did they use that blue strip like the Noblesville location?
Mr. James said at first it was to be illuminated; now it is not going to be illuminated; it is just a blue accent. I think they were concerned with the royal blue if it would stand out too much in this area. A lot of it has to do with the rendering. It makes it too blue but the blue is because it is part of the color scheme, which fits their logo. They can address that concern if it is the rendering that makes it look so blue.
Ms. Whicker said to be compatible with the main building I just know the blue are the dots on the “j and the “i. I didn't know if that was a concern for anyone else.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, Mr. McGillem as you looked at the traffic access, the entrance that we have been looking at, is that pretty much where it is going to be? It appears to be awfully close to the eastern entrance into St. Susanna.
Mr. McGillem said it is. Let me go back a step; from the standpoint that this development plan isn't fully a final design. One of the things that we are working with them on is additional inter-connecting access from St. Susanna into this site. St. Susanna is still working with Duke right now, as I understand it, to pick up the balance of the land to the north, between their north property line and the interior road. If they get that land to the north, there are still some discussions that will be happening with Meijer as we finalize the drainage. If we get the alternate access, then we may be even looking at working with St. Susanna on some different orientations associated with the drive. The good part about it is that St. Susanna's main body of usage comes off beat from Meijer. But the drive to the east is awfully close to what is being proposed. I'm kind of surprised at this point and time that INDOT has not requested that the drive go to that location to work with St. Susanna to possibly drop that down.
Mr. Brandgard said I think what we have here is a final design that may be modified based on more discussions with St. Susanna and INDOT.
Mr. Wally Carr at 1724 East Drive South said I'm the St. Susanna representative. We are receptive to discussing something relative to our east drive. There is probably something that we could possibly take an entrance off of their north/south drive and come across the front of our school; it might work and we would be receptive to that. We wouldn't want to incur any expenses as a result of doing that. I know the traffic will back up to the east when they come in for school and church. It will back up that main entrance that is proposed now for Meijer, which would tend to block the entrance. Something could probably be worked out there.
Mr. McGillem said INDOT has not issued a cut permit at this location. (Inaudible).
Mr. Kirchoff said as we have said before, we are always learning from our mistakes. We can look at those places where we didn't anticipate this, Village Pantry and those type places, and I just have a concern we are creating a potential bottleneck here that we ought to be doing a little better thinking.
Mr. McPhail said I think this site plan has a lot more potential solving that problem than the previous one where that drive on Main Street was farther to the east. Then you had a shorter space. I certainly think this has the potential of solving some of the drainage problems in that area and certainly a possibility of using some joint entrances. So, I think as it moves forward through the design, they will work their way out.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. Gibbs made a motion that the Plan Commission approve DP-07-011 as filed by Meijer, Inc. requesting Architectural & Site Design Review approval of a 191,436 square foot supermarket, a 2,640 square foot gas/convenience market and five (5) outlots on approximately 37.8 acres within 600 feet of 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 & 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 orientation of loading space toward a Residential District, the Plan Commission finds that:
1. The proposed development represents an innovative use of building and site design and landscaping 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 Site Plan, Lighting Plan, Light Fixtures, Trash Enclosure details, Landscaping Plan and Sign Plan submitted file dated July 25, 2007.
2. Substantial compliance with Building Elevations and Colored Renderings for both the main store and gas/convenience market submitted file dated July 30, 2007.
3. Once a traffic signal is warranted for the Beechwood Dr./Dan Jones Road intersection a traffic signal shall be installed by the developer, Meijer.
4. A four foot tall black, vinyl, chain-link fence shall be installed by the developer, Meijer to cordon off the play area for the St. Susanna School.
5. Variances are granted by the BZA to allow illumination after midnight for signs, more than one changeable copy sign and to allow changeable signs at over 40% of the total sign surface area.
6. Special Exceptions are granted by the BZA to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages by the supermarket and to allow outdoor display of temporary seasonal items.
Second by Mr. Kirchoff. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Satterfield – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Gibbs – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
(Minutes on the CD from 8:00 p.m. to 8:20 p.m. were silent and the audio quality for the remaining of the meeting was very poor).
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to continue RZ-07-004, Debora Cheek until the September 2007 Plan Commission meeting. Second by Mr. Brandgard. Motion carried.
Ms. Whicker said the next petition is RZ-07-005, Morton Buildings, Inc.
Mr. James said this request is to rezone approximately 2.39 acres from Agriculture to General Commercial to allow a proposed 4,590 square foot expansion to an existing legal nonconforming self-storage mini warehouse at 4586 South CR600E. A Variance of Use was granted by Hendricks County (inaudible). That is why it is legal nonconforming. When this property was annexed to Plainfield, it was given the AG zone. When we gave it the AG zone, we gave it the legal nonconforming because a self-storage mini warehouse is not a permitted use (inaudible). So, when the petitioner petitioned for the ILP, it was determined then that they would need a Variance of Use or a rezone to allow for the expansion. After reviewing setbacks it was determined the best course of action would be to go for a rezone to General Commercial because the AG District setbacks are 50 feet by the side and the rear. Setbacks for the General Commercial District are only 10 feet. So, since it was an existing use they were going to match the existing setbacks. They would have to get another variance for the setbacks or the best action was to go for the rezone to General Commercial to make it more conforming. But General Commercial still required a Special Exception because a mini storage is only allowed in the General Commercial by a Special Exception. They would also need a Variance of Use to allow the self-storage mini warehouse within 600 feet of a Gateway Corridor, which is CR600E.
Here is the site; the existing storage facility. Here is CR600E; here is U.S. 40. The proposed expansion would be at the rear of the property. These units are about 100 feet wide. With the expansion of three more units they would be about 50 feet wide. We have just recently rezoned the properties in this immediate area. Gilley's was just recently rezoned from AG to General Commercial to make it more conforming and then it abuts the property on the rear here. Also, we rezoned the Prock property, the adjacent property to the south, from AG to Commercial/Industrial to make it more conforming. This area does have an history of recent rezones to make the uses more conforming.
Here is the site; the Comprehensive Plan recommends Community/Commercial and General Commercial is an appropriate zoning district for Community/Commercial. Here is the site plan; it is not much of a site plan but it is what we have to work with. Here is Moon Road; here is the proposed expansion back here. They don't have to meet gateway standards as far as architecture because the proposed expansion has less than a 20% increase in the gross floor area of the site. And also at only 4,500 square feet it is less than 10,000 feet. Those are the benchmarks that kicks in a development plan review in the Gateway Corridor standards. So, this can be approved with an ILP but they do have to meet the perimeter landscaping requirements. The church over here to the north is the Jehovah Witness Kingdom to the north, which is zoned AG. It might be legal nonconforming too. It might be allowed in AG by Special Exception but anyway since it is AG this has to be a Level 3 landscaping, which is 5-6 foot tall evergreens based on the amount of the expansion. And over here is the Prock development, which was zoned C-I. This part over here is a Level 1, which is three evergreens and then there is a pretty heavy existing foliage to the rear here and we are going to use that for the Level 1 landscaping that is required on the west perimeter. It is pretty thick so it is a good screen and buffer for the rear of the property.
This is what they are proposing, which matches the existing building. There are metal doors and metal siding. There is an asphalt shingled roof just like the existing building. Here is a photograph of the existing buildings and this is a shot of the rear of the property where the proposed expansion would go. It would be 50 feet and then they would do another 10 foot asphalt for the access drives. Here is the existing foliage. Some of that will be taken out but enough will remain that we can use for the required landscaping. It is just a Level 1 for that west perimeter.
General Commercial is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. The adjoining uses west and south were just recently rezoned to make them more conforming. Again because the expansion was less than 10,000 square feet or less than a 20% increase in the gross floor area it can be approved with an ILP and an approved Location Permit. It does not have to go before the Plan Commission with a development plan review. The expansion would be at the rear of the building. They have the required landscaping and it will match the existing buildings. What conditions or commitments if needed, would provide the Plan Commission with an adequate comfort level for this approval. So, with that I will wrap it up and there are representatives here that I'm sure would be glad to answer any questions that you might have.
Mr. Carlucci said (inaudible).
Mr. Daniel said (inaudible).
Mr. Satterfield said (inaudible).
Mr. Daniel said (inaudible).
Mr. McGillem said (inaudible).
Mr. Daniel said (inaudible).
Mr. Dave Robillard with Morton Buildings said I'm the general contractor for this project. Mr. & Mrs. Cooper are the owners of this particular property. Something I did want to address is this is one of four properties that are storage facilities so I can't speak for Mr. & Mrs. Cooper but I don't think there is any intention to having anything other than a storage facility there. I just wanted to rest your minds on that.
Mr. Kent Cooper said they are correct on that. We thought we had a choice possibly of putting a building north and south but we chose to just add onto three existing buildings similar to what is currently there.
Mr. McPhail said I don't understand why we have to rezone the property for the expansion.
Mr. James said (inaudible).
Ms. Connie Cooper said my question would be that the contiguous property south adjoining this request was just rezoned commercial on July 30th, industrial. So, yes you are exactly right there is a whole pot full of things out there; you have a church; self-storage; you have more buildings going up here. Gilley's was just rezoned and it too was contiguous to the property; it is touching the property. The drywall company to the south is touching the property. We are just wanting commercial and what was it zoned when it was allowed to be put there that it reverted back to Agriculture or did it always remain Agriculture?
Mr. James said (inaudible).
Ms. Cooper said so the buildings were initially put there in an Agriculture zoning.
Mr. James said no. (Inaudible).
Ms. Cooper asked, so then when did it revert back to Agriculture?
Mr. James said when it was annexed.
Mr. Carlucci said (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail said I certainly don't have an issue with what you are trying to do to expand the current use. When you rezone it, maybe you will want to sell it down the road. Somebody could put anything in there that is in our General Commercial, which could be an issue.
Mr. Brandgard asked, is there a way, like we looked at on the other petition, where the petitioner would state that the only use would be this?
Mr. James said (inaudible).
Mr. Carlucci said (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail said if you move forward and sometime down the road you want to sell it and somebody wants to do something else, they have to come back and get approval.
Mr. Carlucci said (inaudible).
Mr. James said (inaudible).
Mr. Satterfield said (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail said I think the issue (inaudible). If the church wasn't there, I wouldn't have too much concern. (Inaudible).
Mr. Cooper said with that question in mind how does that compare with the property to the north?
Mr. McPhail said it is still AG.
Mr. James said (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail said I think somebody will come in in the future to do something to the north (inaudible).
(Inaudible).
Ms. Whicker 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 for discussion or a possible motion.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion that the Plan Commission certify the zone map amendment request RZ-07-005 as filed by Morton Buildings, Inc. requesting rezoning of approximately 2.39 acres at 4586 S. CR600E from AG, Agriculture to GC, General Commercial with a favorable recommendation subject to the following commitment being submitted on Exhibit “A form prior to certification to the Town Council:
1. The use of the subject property shall be only for a self-storage mini warehouse facility.
Second by Mr. McPhail. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Satterfield – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Gibbs – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Ms. Whicker said the next petition is DP-07-014, Bay Development.
Mr. James said this request is an Architecture & Site Design Review for compliance with Gateway Corridor standards for a proposed 107,060 square foot self-storage facility. This is not your typical mini storage warehouse facility. It is going to be a three story, 45 foot tall structure that is going to look more like an office building. If approved, it will be the first development in this 16 acre commercial subdivision. It is the body of the Plainfield Business Center at Airwest. The north, south and west elevations must comply due to the orientation of SR267, which is the Gateway Corridor. The primary building material Thru-brick; it is real brick. The south/east perimeters will have your traditional self-storage units and they will also be 100% Thru-brick. Because they have 100% brick they have to have two architectural elements and they added those, soldier course and pilasters. The building material for the primary building will be on the north, south and east elevations basically because of the storage unit doors. Because of the building orientation from SR267 the north, south and west elevations must comply with the building material percentages and the east elevation is exempt. If the storage doors are excluded like standard doors and windows, most of the building would be considered all brick and the north and south elevations would comply; the west elevation would not because it has EIFS. Since the storage doors are not typical doors and are an integral part of the facade and building Staff and DRC did not exclude them from the building material percentage. Therefore, a waiver is required. The waiver would be to allow the north, south and west elevations without a required secondary building material of at least 20%.
Here is the location; here is SR267; here is Cambridge Way. It will be extended up to Reeves Road. The site is about two acres. This is a 16 acre commercial subdivision. In the surrounding uses we have zoning to the north GC but the uses are two legal nonconforming homes and a church. Zoning to the south is GC and zoning to the west is AG but the Comprehensive Plan recommends Mixed Use Office/Commercial for this area near SR267.
Here is the site plan. It provides that they add a sidewalk connection and also make sure the gate and the trash enclosure are concealed. There is one entrance off of Cambridge Way. Traffic can be circulated in this direction, counterclockwise. They got a parking variance last month at the BZA to reduce the required number of parking spaces from 25 to 21 spaces. They also had to get a Variance of Use and a Special Exception. A Variance of Use is needed to allow the mini storage warehouse within 600 feet of a Gateway Corridor. The previous request has to do the same thing. They have to go to the BZA to get the Special Exception and also the Variance of Use for the same reason. The new aisle width complies. There is 24 in here. There will be a gate here so potential customers that come in here will not go through the gated section but we have the required width to allow ingress and egress. Traffic will be circulated one way in a one way pattern. They have the required loading space down here for a building this size. The building itself will be about 100,000 square feet. You have additional storage units on the perimeter here and here along this east perimeter. Since it is one way they only need a 12 foot aisle. They will still have parking on both sides. There will be doors all around the building at the bottom level. You can have some loading here and loading on the other side and still provide enough room.
Here are the colored elevations. That is the west elevation looking from SR267. (Inaudible). Here is the perimeter storage units and loading space down here. The third floor is going to be used initially for document storage but I think there are almost 700 units inside the building (inaudible). This may be one of its first kind in the Indianapolis area. Here is the south view. Here is the back of the perimeter with Thru-brick. The east elevation does not comply or does not have to comply; it is exempt from the gateway standards. Just the north, west and south elevations have to comply. Looking at it from SR267 you probably think that is an office building. So, again the north, west and south elevations have to get a waiver for the building material percentages. (Inaudible).
The landscaping plan complies. They used an alternative plan. We took the required foundation landscaping and added it to the perimeter. There are two trees over here to help screen this perimeter building. Based on the DRC comments they changed them. (Inaudible).
At the DRC meeting Staff asked for confirmation if the rooftop mechanical units would be fully screened from all elevations. The parapet wall will be three feet tall and the units will be six feet tall but they will not be located within 60 feet from the edge. A line-of-sight analysis was distributed showing that the units could be seen at a distance of 680 feet or greater. This would put the location at the other side of SR267 and with the increase in the elevation of SR267 it may not be an issue. Land use to the east will be warehouse distribution facilities. The petitioner agreed that if the units can be seen, they would screen them with rooftop panels. So, the Special Exception and the Variance of Use and the parking variance were granted by the BZA. The petitioner has agreed to screen the mechanical units if they can be seen. Except for the building material waiver all plans comply with the Gateway Corridor standards. (Inaudible). With that Mr. Sklare is here and would be glad to answer any questions that you might have.
Mr. Bruce Sklare with Bay Development Corporation at 10415 N. College Avenue, Indianapolis said we do have a little, I guess you would call a virtual tour, which might help you understand the building a little bit more. I think what Mr. James has showed so far is very good. The east side of the building that was mentioned was exempt from the Gateway Corridor standards because it faces east and it is going to face three large distribution buildings, one of which is now built. Opus, who is the landowner who we are buying our two acres from, is going to be building three large distribution buildings from, 300,000 to 600,000 square feet as our neighbor to the immediate east. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Ms. Whicker said (inaudible).
Mr. Sklare said the same people that would use the Morton Buildings, the previous petition, this is climate control and highly secured. It will probably be 70% residential users and 30% business users. The same people that would use any self-storage will be using this building. Our cost is actually just a little bit more than a standard self-storage facility. The difference is we are offering a much higher level I think value because of the climate control and it has much better security and much more customer service orientated and much more convenient to get to. These kinds of buildings are now being built frankly throughout the United States. We are finding that they are in almost any metropolitan area and you don't find them in the Greater Indianapolis area I think up until now because land cost here has been fairly low and our density of population is fairly also. That has been changed and our land prices are now rising more rapidly and the density of population is increasing also. There is one of these actually in downtown Zionsville. You are seeing these more frequently. They don't stand out because they look like nice office buildings so frankly if you are not a user of self-storage, you can drive right by this and you will see it as another nice looking office building.
Ms. Whicker said (inaudible).
Mr. Sklare said what happens is on the back side is a large canopy area that has infrared heating for the wintertime and to get to that canopy area you are going through a secure steel gate. When you come to the canopy area, you have to punch in the code again; the door opens and the elevators are inside along with large carts. You simply load your items into the carts. If you are on the second or third floor, you go to the elevator and go up. I will be honest with you again this is just antidotal; I just moved my daughter from here where she got a job in Washington D.C. I use this same type of facility and it works fine. I had no problems with it. I actually felt safer in this building than I do in an opened garage style facility.
Mr. Brandgard said (inaudible).
Mr. Sklare said the wrought iron fencing actually dives into the three perimeter buildings. In other words that is the fencing around the building but it dives into each building because there is no reason to fence the entire property because the brick building provide the security. The safety of persons and safety of the possessions are really the key things that this provides at almost the same cost as the standard self-storage facility. For what it is worth just to answer the question, this has nothing to do with the building, but when I was looking around for people to get involved with me, frankly everyone that I talked to, investors and partners, were very interested in doing this. The company that ended up being my partner is probably one of the oldest apartment developers in town and they thought this was a very good opportunity. They were waiting for something like this to come around. It is the direction that the industry is going.
Mr. McPhail said (inaudible).
Ms. Whicker 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 for discussion or a possible motion.
(Inaudible).
Mr. Sklare said a line-of-sight analysis was prepared but we really didn't have a chance to (Inaudible). We went through it with the DRC. That dimension is if a six foot rooftop unit was used. We don't plan to use a six foot rooftop unit so the profile we think is going to be a lot less. So, that is why it came up. If we used a six foot unit, you might be able to see it from the other side of SR267. If that case, we agreed to screen it. If we use a shorter less than a four foot unit, from that distance you won't be able to make out what it is.
Mr. James said (inaudible).
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion that the Plan Commission approve DP-07-014 as filed by Bay Development Corporation requesting Architectural & Site Design Review approval of a 107,060 square foot self-storage facility on approximately 2.0 acres at 5561 Cambridge Way within 600 feet of 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 & 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 secondary building material for the west, north and south elevations to be less than 20% the Plan Commission finds that:
1. The proposed development represents an innovative use of building material and brick color 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 Site Plan, Building Elevations, Colored Rendering, Lighting Plan, Light Fixtures, Trash Enclosure details, Sign Plan and Landscaping Plan file dated July 18, 2007.
2. If rooftop mechanical units can be seen from SR267, they shall be screened by rooftop mounted screening devices.
Second by Mr. Brandgard. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Satterfield – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Gibbs – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Ms. Whicker said next on the agenda is RZ-07-006, the Plainfield Plan Commission.
Mr. James said as I earlier reported, the Plan Commission is in the process of updating the zone map to change the zoning for parks and schools in Plainfield to the appropriate zoning district. The new zoning districts were created in 2005 but the zone map never got changed. Here is the hard copy of the zone map. It has been awhile since we updated it. I do have a working copy in my office. Ms. Sprague is our GIS expert. She created this map. The “P is for the Park District for the public parks and “S for the School District for the schools in Town.
(Inaudible).
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. James said we can add it between (inaudible).
Ms. Whicker said (inaudible).
Mr. James said this has to be approved by the Town Council so between now and before it goes to the Town Council we can circumvent any changes that need to be made. Later under new business I'm going to discuss some proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance that we would like to make. One of them is to amend the ordinance under Article 8 so that the GIS map becomes the official zoning map. By doing this we can make it more current. It will be a lot easier to update and in that way we can have a current zoning map for the citizens or whomever to look at on the website.
(Inaudible).
Mr. James said we are still working with Schneider to verify all of the parcels and to make sure we have it correct. It is something we need to get done.
Mr. Brandgard said (inaudible).
Mr. James said Schneider has built in security (inaudible).
Mr. Brandgard said (inaudible).
Mr. James said after it is updated we can keep that security in there.
(Inaudible).
Mr. James said yes to change the zoning to the School District and the Park District.
(Inaudible).
Mr. McPhail made a motion to forward RZ-07-006, the Plainfield Plan Commission requesting a zone map change to “P, Park District for the public parks as well as a change to add “S, School District for the schools in the Town including the future high school location to the Plainfield Town Council with a favorable recommendation. Second by Mr. Brandgard. None opposed. Motion carried.
OLD BUSINESS BUSINESS/NEW BUSINESS
Mr. James said under old business this concerns the Plainfield Village retail center on Main Street next to the Andy Mohr Chevrolet. We have an issue with the property to the west. It is somewhat unsightly and unkempt. They feel it is damaging their ability to lease out the retail center. So, what they propose is a shadowbox fence to screen this property. Once Broadbent told me about this issue I had Emily go out and take some photos and check it out. We sent them a letter and we have invited Mr. Goodman here tonight to hopefully take some action on cleaning up this property and helping out the Broadbent Company. The fence can be approved with an ILP. What type of fence is appropriate for a Gateway Corridor? In looking at the ordinance I don't think an eight foot tall fence is allowed; it would have to be six feet based on the landscaping standards but if it is 50% transparent, it can be 10 feet tall. So, I e-mailed this request to DRC and DRC thought the shadowbox fence would be appropriate along the Gateway Corridor. I received another site plan of the Plainfield Village property and at first they were going to bring the fence all the way to the right-of-way but now they want to start the fence back to the house and just do some landscaping out front here and maybe do a combination of a fence and landscaping or if you prefer, just do all landscaping at a Level 3 or whatever would be a enough to provide some adequate screening. Plus hopefully we can get the owner to clean up this property a little bit too and make it more appealing and presentable. There are some abandoned vehicles out here. After a letter was sent they have mowed the high grass. I'm sure the vehicles are not licensed and operable so they need to be moved. Whatever that structure is it needs to be removed. Mr. Goodman is not here so we can send him a citation if you would like.
(Inaudible).
Gentleman from the audience said again we are at the intersection of Plainfield Village Drive and U.S. 40. We constructed Plainfield Village Drive as part of our project when we developed the shopping center. The second page there is obviously the eight foot shadowbox fence we are proposing and then some tighter ground level shots of really what we are looking at when you sit in our parking field; not only our parking field but this is as you drive westbound on U.S. 40. This is not just an eyesore for us but it is an eyesore for your Gateway Corridor. So, when I approached Mr. James originally, we contracted with the fence contractor and we were going to install the fence and we went in for permitting and they told us we had to come back through the process. Our reluctance to put in landscaping here is because we really can't block the eyesore with landscaping. By the time we plant landscaping and it grows up to the point where you can't see those storage doors which face us and the junk that is piled up behind them we are 10 years down the road. So, our issue is that it is in disrepair. He did cut the grass but the junk cars are still there. He has actually taken that white trailer there and he has moved that to the front of his property and it is on his gravel driveway; I drove by there on my way up here. Obviously, it is an eyesore from U.S. 40, for the trailer, more so than where it was when I was complaining. I know that DRC is concerned because this is a Gateway Corridor and they didn't want us to bring that fence all the way to the right so we were suggesting that we would take it as far north to the northern edge of the residence. We just want to block the storage part. The house is okay. It has some issues too. There is an old mini barn behind there that is not in good repair but there are some junk cars right behind that but all we are really trying to do is take that fence down and around kind of to the back of our shopping center. You can see the red line where it comes back to the east to block the visibility. As far as landscaping, obviously we came back with our project and we did landscaping to meet the DRC's requirements. We built our shopping center the way that we were supposed to; all we are trying to do now is to hide an eyesore that we think would be advantageous to all of us. It looks bad. If you haven't been by, pull into our parking lot and take a look at it. We have a patio designed on the west end of that building for outdoor seating for a restaurant and it stares right into that. We are actually hoping at some point that property is redeveloped but I don't know how long we can wait for that to happen. So, we would like to put up the fence. We think that is better than landscaping because it will be several years before landscaping grows enough to really hide the problem.
Mr. Brandgard said (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail said I have never driven in there and looked that well. I'm always looked at the front of your building. I've never really looked at the west.
Mr. Brandgard said part of it may be if you are like me, you try to ignore it.
Mr. McPhail said (inaudible). Even if you move the junk, you are still going to look at beat up doors, etc. (Inaudible). The fence may be just as unsightly a few years down the road.
Mr. Brandgard said as you drive around, you can see areas where the fences, after several years, deteriorate. I would make sure it is maintained by the developer.
(Audio too poor to type until the following):
Mr. McPhail made a motion to approve a shadowbox fence for Plainfield Village west boundary not to encroach the southern boundary and the Planning Director review the initial fence two years after it is installed and make a report to the Plan Commission. Second by Mr. Satterfield. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Satterfield – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Gibbs – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Ms. Sprague said Premier Properties wants to put up signs over the stairways to the second floor of their buildings that tells the tenants of the second floor and the locations there. Basically, they are for the corners for the most part. This is what the sign looks like; it is a projecting sign. It would be like some of the signs that a lot of the tenants already have only a lot bigger. The size is similar to the internal directory sign and in this case it would be two-faced. (Inaudible). These are just some elevations and this is one of the signs and what it would look like. Since these are similar to the internal directory signs in size, and as far as all of the other signs go, it is very similar in design. We have interpreted this as being acceptable; it is just an ILP that doesn't need to be restated in the PUD. We just wanted to make sure that you agreed with that and that they look okay.
Mr. Brandgard said (inaudible).
Ms. Sprague said DRC said the same thing.
Mr. James said I have been working on some proposed text amendments to the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance. I gave you a summary of those. I mentioned earlier about amending the ordinance to allow the GIS map as the official zone map. I think I gave you some proposed language to do that. And to amend the landscaping requirements to require perimeter landscaping for residential subdivisions. I put in there required street trees but then after talking to Mr. Belcher we need some more work on that. We want to see how things work out at Oak Tree with those standards out there and make sure we don't have any conflicts with utilities with the roots. Other proposed amendments are standards for outdoor display. I don't really have any. (Inaudible). I wanted to make some standards for that. Right now we are allowing flea markets as a seasonal temporary use. Should we make them go through the Special Exception process to allow these in the General Commercial District? (Inaudible). Outdoor seating standards; I was out taking pictures Friday of outdoor seating areas and took some pictures at Starbucks. I took some pictures at the Metropolis and Premier has done a nice job of creating outdoor seating areas. We need to make sure they are separated from pedestrian-ways, etc. Some other standards are standards for recycling containers. Do we want to make them do trash enclosures? I think that defeats the purpose because they are recognized by their color. Other proposed amendments is change the approval duration to develop land. Right now it is at three years and change that to one year. A good example is the Meijer proposal. They don't have to start development now for three years. They said market dictates (inaudible). By then our standards are going to change so that would help speed up the process a little bit. Other standards are to allow banners (inaudible) uses. (Inaudible). So, that is a summary.
(Inaudible).
Mr. James said I have a volunteer from the DRC. I would like to get maybe another business owner and a developer to sit on the Ordinance Review Committee. We would just meet as needed and go over the proposed amendments and make changes or recommendations. If you have any comments, you can send me an e-mail. Send me your comments of what you would like to see and what changes you think are needed and we will certainly take a look at them and put some work into it.
Mr. McPhail asked, what is the process?
Mr. James said I would like to get this Ordinance Review Committee squared away and make any proposed amendments from them and then bring them back to the Plan Commission. Under old and new business have the Plan Commission take a look at them and then if we are okay with them, we would bring them back to the Plan Commission for a public hearing.
Mr. McPhail said (inaudible).
Ms. Whicker said (inaudible).
(Inaudible).
Mr. James said on the zoning compliance issues we are still working on Mr. Davenport's property on Maple Lane. We sent him another citation. We sent more citations on Harlan and Pickett. (Inaudible).
