The Plainfield Plan Commission met on Monday, November 7, 2005.
In attendance were Mr. Thibo, Mr. McPhail, Mr. Brandgard, Ms. Whicker,
Mr. Kirchoff and Mr. Matrana.
ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM
Mr. Carlucci administered the roll call.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
MINUTES
Mr. Thibo made a motion to approve the October 3, 2005 Plan
Commission minutes as submitted. Second by Mr. Kirchoff. Motion
carried.
OATH OF TESTIMONY
Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Testimony.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mr. Matrana reviewed the Guidelines Governing the Conduct of
Public Hearings. Tonight we have a number of expedited petitions the
first one being PP-05-011 concerning Ryan Kingseed.
[Note: The podium mic was not turned on during this meeting, which
resulted in using “inaudible”]
Mr. Valanzano said for those of you who picked up the agenda you
will notice that we do have a large number of cases tonight. The Plan
Commission tries to get through them the best that they can but they
sometimes cannot always do it all in one night. We have four cases on
the bottom on the front of the first page that we are planning to ask
the Plan Commission for a special meeting for Thursday night to hear
those four cases. Is there anybody here in the audience for any of
those cases that were unaware of this request?
Lady from the audience said (inaudible).
Mr. Daniel said I think the agenda has three on the next page
too.
Mr. Valanzano said those were continued from a prior meeting.
All the other cases we are going to do our best to get through them
this evening. With that said I believe we will take a vote from the
Plan Commission to determine what time frame that you want to have your
meeting.
Mr. Carlucci said we would call it a continuation of this meeting
and not a special meeting.
Mr. Valanzano said in order to set the time and date for the
continuance of this hearing to hear those four cases that are on the
bottom of the first page.
Mr. Brandgard made a motion to continue the four petitions as
designated to be continued to November 10 to meet at 6:30 p.m. to
consider those. Second by Mr. McPhail. Motion carried.
Mr. Valanzano said we have three expedited petitions. The first
one is a minor plat on behalf of Ryan Kingseed. The property involved
is the large box in the middle of the South Street to split that into
two lots. I believe the Staff Report is self-explanatory on that. The
last time we went through all three of them at once. Would that be your
preference again tonight? Consent given.
The second one that we have is a rezoning for two additional
parcels to be added to the Whitmore place Subdivision. We have seen
the name Whitmore Place (inaudible).
Mr. Matrana asked, does this take a motion or are these just
going to be expedited unless there are any complaints?
Mr. Valanzano said even though they are expedited I think they
need a motion for approval.
Mr. Matrana asked, do there need to be three separate motions?
Mr. Valanzano said you can do one that covers all three that is
fine.
Mr. Carlucci said you might suggest if anybody wants to be heard.
Mr. Matrana asked, is there anyone in the audience who would like
to say anything for or against the following expedited petitions?
Being no one coming forward we will close the public portion of the
hearings and entertain a motion on these three expedited petitions.
Ms. Whicker made a motion to approve the following three
expedited petitions, PP-05-011, Ryan Kingseed; RZ-05-015, Whitmore
Place; and PP-05-010, Whitmore Place with the change of date of Primary
Plat dated September 2, 2005 as written in the Staff Report. Second by
Mr. McPhail. Motion carried.
Mr. Matrana said the first petition before the board tonight
would be RZ-05-013, Opus North Corporation, which was continued from
last month.
Mr. Valanzano said the first petition that we have for a public
hearing is RZ-05-013, Opus North Corporation to rezone approximately
61.68 acres. If you will look on the front of the Staff Report, I
tried to outline the area that is proposed for rezoning. The graphic
on the left in the Staff Report shows the existing zoning for the
eastern two-thirds of the property zoned I-1 and the western about onethird
is going to be zoned General Commercial. This 61.68 acres would
take all the I-1 and a portion of the GC to the I-2 classification.
This petition was continued from a meeting last month on October
3rd. It was primarily continued because two of the adjacent property
owners didn’t receive notice. The notice has been taken care of. At
the October meeting there was also a remonstrator that showed up but it
is my understanding from having discussion with the remonstrator’s
representative and the petitioner that really the issues that were
being talked about at that point and time, in terms of remonstrance,
deal with the line of sight in the remonstrator’s property from SR267.
As I understand it, the remonstrator’s property, one of the primary
concerns, is here and in this area. The second property of the
rezoning is in this area. The concern was over line of sight into
these properties from SR267. Existing development already occurs. Your
line of sight opportunity probably comes in from this angle. To be
honest with you in looking at this I cannot see how development on this
property affects line of sight from SR267 to the neighbor’s property to
the south. I will let you make your own determination on that.
The second issue had to do with the loading docks or the
orientation of the buildings whether loading docks would be facing
south and whether that would present a quality image to the neighboring
property to the south as it develops. While there may be some validity
to that issue from a property owner’s prospective I have pointed out to
the parties when I talked to them, that there is a competing interest
of the Town that the image of SR267 that is presented by any
development that occurs on the property as well as these is of utmost
importance. We are primarily concerned that we protect the image of
SR267 and we have provisions in our ordinance to deal with appropriate
landscaping treatments between adjacent uses. So, from that
prospective there may be competition between remonstrator’s concerns
and the Town’s overriding concern about the orientation of the
buildings.
On page 2 of the Staff Report there is a graphic there of the
Comprehensive Plan. The petition does pretty much line up with the
recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan for office one industrial type
uses.
There is a potential issue that the Town Engineer, Mr. Belcher
has made the petitioners aware regarding the master plan for the Town
in terms of providing sewer access from the west. This is details that
we can probably work out by the platting but we just wanted to put all
the cards on the table and let you know what is going on. Manholes are
existing in this location and we will be asking them to extend that
across their property to provide for the next property owner to connect
on and provide sewer service to the area to the east.
There has also has been a traffic study that has not been
requested yet but since we don’t know the exact nature of the
development that is going to be coming to this site we suggested that
the traffic study for this site be submitted. So, that we can have an
evaluation and recommendation in connection with the primary plat that
would come in or development plan that would be coming in for the
entire property in one shot.
We have a concern about these lots along Reeves Road. We
understand that the property owner from which Opus has bought these
have been talking to the airport about swapping property and taking
these from the airport in which case these might become available. We
would love to see that happen. We would strongly encourage Opus and
all property owners to do what is necessary to allow that to occur. We
think that would make the most efficient development for this whole
area and would also solve potential future problems. There are a lot
of pluses that can be worked out. I would just like to encourage
everybody to work toward that goal by creating these lots that are
acquired so that they can be incorporated into whatever development
occurs on the larger tracts to the south. Having said that the major
issues that the Staff Report deals with, in terms of requesting
conditions and commitments on this property, are very similar to what
we found on some other properties where commercial or industrial in the
I-2 classification has encroached into the commercial areas. And the
requested commitments for enhanced architectural treatments on the west
side of the building and also memorialize the agreement that the
traffic study would be provided since it was waived by the Director of
Transportation at the time of this re-filing with the rezoning. But to
make sure to memorialize that we do have the opportunity to get that
traffic study whenever platting occurs on the property. With that I
would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. John Cumming with Opus North Corporation said I’m a Senior
Real Estate Director for Opus at 10333 N. Meridian St., Indianapolis,
IN 46290. I will try not to repeat what Mr. Valanzano has said with
his presentation. I think you have a copy of some conceptual site plans
that we have done showing how we would possibly lay out this site with
the industrial and retail application. These are conceptual. We have
had our architectural engineers’ group put this together for a rough
idea. As Mr. Valanzano had mentioned, the 16.38 acres that would be
remaining along SR267, we would look for a retail type use similar to
what you see along SR267 now with banks, restaurants, a retail center,
hotels recognizing there needs to be a buffer between our industrial
development and SR267. We established with this request of the rezone
a line between the industrial, the I-2 zoning and the commercial, to
really be consistent with what we are seeing along SR267 in terms of
the distance from SR267 back to industrial use. If you look at the
Becton Dickinson plan on the global aerial map, the distance from SR267
to that industrial site is about the same as we have on our site. So,
we are trying to stay consistent. This happens to show a layout of two
industrial buildings. We also have the possibility of laying out a
building more east and west, a longer building, to be perpendicular to
SR267. As Mr. Valanzano said, whether we would run the building north
or south or east and west, we would look to and make commitments to
make the architectural look of that western elevation of the building
to upgrade it to be consistent with that frontage out there.
From the last meeting we followed up with the remonstration group
and on October 17th met with Mr. White and Mr. Small with Equicor who is
the owner to the south and tried to get an idea of what his concern was
at that point. As Mr. Valanzano mentioned, it seemed to be the
visibility of the site that Equicor owns from SR267 and how our site
will affect that. We went back and moved our building to the west and
farther to the east by about 150 feet, plus or minus, to see what
affect that possibly could have on visibility from SR267. We also did a
study to what that did to us economically when we reduced the square
footage that could be built on the site. What we found was that it did
have a negative affect but more importantly we felt that it provided
little advantage difference in the visibility of the Equicor owned land
on SR267 whether the building is in one place or the other. But I
wanted to confirm that we did meet with the remonstrators to come to
some sort of agreement.
Let me also pick up on the comment on the traffic study. We
already had discussions with the entity that is doing the traffic study
so we will certainly cooperate in any way that we can with that traffic
study as well as any discussions with the Town and Mr. Belcher with
utilities. That is ongoing. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Kirchoff said I am assuming that if you are successful in
getting those lots, this changes the configuration and usage.
Mr. Cumming said it does. The two outlots are about a total of
14 acres and really our thought is that we probably won’t start on any
development for this site until we know whether we have those sites or
not because it really affects our site plan. We have not closed on
this land with the current owner. We plan to near the end of this year
and the current owner has been in discussions with the airport on
exchange and everyone feels very optimistic at this point that the
exchange will take place. Logic would tell you that we would probably
close on those additional outlots sometime in the first or second
quarter of 2006.
Mr. Matrana asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care
to speak on this matter?
Mr. Tim Oakes with Ice Miller with offices at One American
Square, Box 82001, Indianapolis, IN said we are present on behalf of
Plainfield Partners, Equicor and Greg Small. We did meet with Opus and
we would like to thank them publicly for that. I think Mr. Valanzano
stated several potential concerns that we have. It quickly became
apparent to us that the reason that we are struggling with this project
is because of the lack of detail. Quite honestly it is probably not
appropriate at this level to deal with those issues. Our real concern
is not with the zoning classifications. Our concern is in the details.
This site could be done in a manner, which we could stand up and
applaud. It can also be done in a manner, which isn’t so good for us.
We just want to make sure that it is done so that the Town’s interest
and our interest and Opus’ interest could all be considered. I’m not
sure if it is appropriate at this level. We just simply cannot respond
to things with the conceptual plans. It needs to be more real for us to
have substantial input. With that being said we do not oppose this
rezoning. We simply ask that very simple conditions be attached to
this, which is when the site comes before the Design Review Committee,
that Opus simply provide us with prior written notice of the meeting so
that we can attend it. It is at that meeting where there will be a
level of details sufficient for us to engage with Opus and the Town to
make sure that we are dealing with all of the issues that need to be
dealt with. So, that is all we are requesting. It is rather a simple
request. With that I would be happy to answer any questions that the
commission might have.
Mr. Valanzano said what I marked on here is approximately 600
feet from SR267. If you notice, that line is extremely close to being
exactly where the rezoning line is depending on how that falls in terms
of measurement. If it is over 600 feet, this site would not
technically be subject to review under the Gateway Corridor standards
under our ordinance. But if they do request a tax abatement for the
development of the site, they would have to go through the exact same
review under our Tax Abatement Ordinance except that review would not
be noticed to surrounding property owners. I think that is why he is
asking for an agreement or handshake from Opus that we will give you
notice when we go to DRC. That is just for clarification.
Mr. Joe Bailey said I’m the property owner at 9233 E. CR575,
which is immediately east of the proposed development site. I have the
four and a half acres. So, I have around 200 foot in the red that
joins the existing development unless they go ahead and get the other
parcels. My concern is buffering and there are some current trees
along the 200-foot strip but there are several trees along the smaller
parcel that adjoins my four and a half acres. I would like to make
sure that those trees stay in tact regardless of what kind of
development we have. I talked to Mr. Cumming last month and telling
him my concern was buffering and the lights and if he has a lot of
outside parking, I wouldn’t like the trucks, of course. But when Duke
developed the parcel across the street from me, we ended up with five
foot earth and berm relative to the road but their parking docking
facilities is another three feet lower. So, consequently I ended up
with a good eight-foot buffer relative to the driveway over to Duke.
I’m not concerned with trees and landscaping from my sideline
development but I would be interested in seeing a similar type berm
installed just from a visual aspect. I realize there is nothing
permanent to decide at this point but I just wanted to express my
concern about the buffering so that Opus could take that into
consideration.
Mr. Matrana said with no one else stepping forward I would like
to close the public portion of this hearing and open it up to the board
for possible and a motion on Opus North rezoning.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, is it correct to assume that both of the
concerns discussed would be heard when we go to the next step?
Mr. Matrana said the platting stage yes. This is just a rezoning
petition.
Mr. Valanzano said the only issue would be whether or not it is
an internal staff review and review by DRC or whether it is reviewed at
the Plan Commission. Mr. Bailey’s property you saw the proposal of
those two lots, that would end up being Staff review and DRC review and
proper notice (inaudible) unless we came within 600 feet of Perry Road.
Mr. Carlucci said the DRC is a public meeting and you can comment
at that meeting.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, is it noticed?
Mr. Carlucci said no it wouldn’t be noticed but it is a public
meeting.
1.
The west facade of any industrial building oriented toward
the GC District along the SR267 frontage shall include
substantial architectural treatments more in keeping with
an office or commercial development under the Architectural
& Site Design requirements of the Plainfield Zoning
Ordinance rather than a typical end or loading dock
elevation of an industrial warehouse development.
2.
A traffic study shall be filed in connection with the
submission of either a Primary Plat or Development Plan for
the subject property, whichever occurs first.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. Matrana said the next item before the board concerns Saratoga
Associates, LLC regarding RZ-05-016 and PP-05-007.
Mr. Valanzano said this property involves rezoning a plat and is
approximately 13 acres located north of the railroad tracks east of
Saratoga Boulevard and south of the Plainfield Manor and west of the
Willow Pointe Subdivision. The proposal has been amended over the last
couple of months. The proposal that you have in front of you would be
for a 32-lot subdivision. When it was first filed, it was for 37 or 39
lots but it is now at 32 lots with a density of approximately 2 to 4
units per acre.
The development statement that has been filed has been amended on
several occasions and the latest copy I received this afternoon. It
indicates the commitment to the lots at Willow Pointe on the east being
a minimum of 17,000 square feet. That would be lots 14; 15; 16 and 17
that is on the primary plat that you have in your packets. Lots three
through eight and lot 13, which would be on the north side of the
subdivision in this area that abuts the Plainfield Manor Subdivision
and has a minimum lot size requirement of 14,500 square feet and the
remaining lots throughout the subdivision would have a minimum lot size
of 12,495 square feet. So, those lot sizes have been significantly
increased from the presentation that we had a few months back.
In the Staff Report we referred to Homestead and Saratoga. The
information that I looked at quickly is which subdivision had what
name. It is a little bit confusing. This is the subdivision that I
was referring to, which is actually Saratoga Place and not Homestead
Saratoga. When I mentioned the lot sizes of the abutting subdivision,
it was 17,400. The Homestead at Saratoga runs in this area along the
remaining common border of Plainfield Manor. That has lot sizes that
go down more to the 12,000 square foot. What I was attempting to do
was draw a comparison (inaudible). So, I apologize for that error in
the report.
The architectural standards that are being proposed, if you
recall, our residential design guidelines have a basic standard of
17,000 square foot homes, 85% brick wrap for one-story and 100% brick
on the first floor. That standard has been agreed to for all the lots
in Plainfield Manor and Willow Pointe. The remainder of the homes we
have other architectural guidelines in there that don’t necessarily
have the same square footage and don’t necessarily require as much
brick as this does but does have a series of other things that you can
pick and choose from. That has been proposed for the remainder of the
homes but there has been an option left in there by the developer that
should a home builder come in and wants to propose an alternate or
design or architectural design guideline for their product, they can do
that but they have to come back to the Plan Commission in a full public
hearing and lay all their cards on the table and have that reviewed at
subsequent meetings. At that point and time Saratoga Associates will
probably be out of it and you are going to have a homebuilder here
either buying it on contract or already bought it. They are going to
have a product in hand in what they are going to show you for that
modification.
We have had quite a bit of discussion with this project the last
time around in terms of the buffer. That would be indicated along these
boundaries. The text, part of the original rezoning for Saratoga
initiated to be five tress for every 100 feet with three of them being
evergreen. We still have that same language carried over here. The
petitioner has refined that a little bit in terms of identifying the
species of evergreens that will be used. They do, however, still want
to use one specie of deciduous trees that is undersized per our Zoning
Ordinance’s minimum standard. I think the Staff’s recommendation would
still be to stick with the minimum standard of the ordinance of 1_-inch
caliper as opposed to the one inch proposed by the petitioner.
For your point of information there is an existing drainage
easement across the east/west on the property. It runs to the south.
That is an existing easement that needs to be coordinated. It is a
drainage easement that needs to be coordinated with the development of
this plat and releases of that will need to be obtained before the
property can be recorded. The drainage easements would obviously take
precedent.
On the west plat I reviewed there is a 50-foot building setback
line along Lisa Lane coming around on both sides of the street. One of
the comments in the Staff Report indicates that the setback line on
this lot in here should be adjusted to line up with the 50 foot
building setback line of that line to help provide a transition. I
would ask the petitioner to indicate for us whether or not that change
had been agreed to or not. I apologize for being a little sketchy on
some details but I was on vacation last week and some of this
information came in today so I had a lot of catch up today so I
apologize to all of you for a lack or coherency in some of my comments.
Since we did have a lot discussion about landscaping at the last
meeting about the landscaping that had or had not been installed on all
of these property lines with Plainfield Manor we have made a suggestion
that might be appropriate to look at. The developer has agreed to put
in landscaping up front with the development of the subdivision as
opposed to waiting for each individual lot. Since the developer would
be putting that in the question is do you want a maintenance bond or
obligation that the landscaping from the developer to maintain that for
a period of time?
A lot of discussion we had had to deal when the roadway comes in
and eventually winds through the subdivision and connects up to Lisa
Lane, how is that connection made? There is a lot of question about
whether or not it should occur or not? From the Staff’s prospective we
would like to see that connection made. We think it is in the best
interest of everybody short-term and long-term because there was a lot
of discussion at the Plan Commission the last time about not having
that connection or at least not having that connection until such time
as Plainfield Manor would be annexed into the Town. Obviously, that is
your decision. The Staff’s recommendation is for the connection to be
made for the purposes of public safety. We think it also provides
access for the people in Plainfield Manor due to the retail that is
going to be coming in Saratoga and U.S. 40. That is an issue for your
decision. We suggest that possibly one additional condition would be
appropriate. As part of the plat there is a waiver requested to not
provide for the secondary means of access. The Subdivision Control
Ordinance requires a secondary means of access when you have 30 lots or
more. So, they have filed for a waiver in that respect. Their
justification is based on line of site there isn’t enough room for two
access points. An alternate way to handle that would be to put a
median divider through the main entrance to the first intersection.
They have elected not to do that citing the fact that it would cause
difficulties potentially for the development for the first two lots.
And then should this be connected there would be no need for a waiver.
But after you connect for through traffic there would still be the
requirement for a waiver. We have asked the petitioner to detail in
their development statement what that connection or lack of connection
would consist of. I think we are to the point that the physical
connection of the roadway would be there. It would be in place but if
your determination is that this should not be connected, bollards would
be placed across there to keep that connection from occurring. For
pedestrian traffic those bollards can be removed or folded down for
emergency vehicles to be able to get through, if you need to, to save a
lot of time in terms of emergency response.
One other issue that had come up in our discussions with Staff is
initially our discussions were that all the pedestrian connectivity
through the subdivision would go through the sidewalks out to the trail
system that is along Saratoga Parkway coming into the railroad corridor
system, through that route. Comments were raised recently and that was
whether or not there should be a need provided as Grand Avenue comes in
and comes across here. Somewhere along here you are provided internal
connections similar to what we have done in Willow Pointe. I believe
Yorktown may also have one. Yorktown is the next subdivision over.
The petitioner has indicated that they really don’t want to provide
that connection. They would rather deal with the changes that are
necessary to provide the connection along Saratoga Parkway. I’m not
sure what your drawings show at the termination point for Grand Avenue
as we come close to the intersection of Lisa Lane. There was
discussions about whether or not that would be an open cul-de-sac.
There are a couple of things that we want to accomplish. One is in
terms of 911 having a clear definition of where Grand Avenue would end
and Lisa Lane would begin in case there is a need for a 911 response.
So, we don’t have a continuation of a street with a name change. We
don’t want to have that happen. We want a clear definition and also
providing a way to turn traffic around in the interim period of time
should the road be closed off and when the road does get opened, if and
when the road gets opened, to provide a traffic calming so that people
who currently live on Lisa Lane, especially in this area, traffic that
goes past their homes will have to slow down. So, this helps to
negotiate that roundabout and we will be able to keep through traffic
to a slower and more residential speed as opposed to having people
going through there. Mr. McGillem had recommended a roundabout as a
choice. There have been some design recommendations proposed but we
would like to have the final design of the roundabout subject to the
Director of Transportation to make sure that it will work.
Mr. Brandgard said a comment or clarification on the connection
between Grand Avenue and Lisa Lane I think you said something about
having a roadbed in but no road. Would that be a grassy area between
the roundabouts?
Mr. Valanzano said as I understand it, where we are now and what
is being presented to you is the road would be in. I believe that
section we talked about being a concrete section so there would be a
transition from the asphalt to the road segment that would go into the
roundabout. The bollards would be at the end of the transition between
the asphalt to the concrete section.
Mr. Brandgard said as a thought with that, if you are going to
have removable bollards and you are going to have a solid connection
there, you know what is going to happen. Those bollards will get
removed and you will have the connection. I would suggest instead of
having that concrete pad in there to go with the grassy area with the
sub-straight material so it can withstand the weight of an emergency
vehicle that it is not so apparent that it is a roadway, a real
connection. If you have removable bollards and you have a solid
connection, it is going to become a connection. People move them once
they figure that out.
Mr. Carlucci said I’m guessing they are similar to what we have
in Franklin Park that keep the cars off the trail. You have to unlock
them at the bottom to get them to get out of there at all. That is not
easy to get in and unlock them. There is nobody that can remove that
unless it is the fire department that wants them removed to get through
there. There is just no way to do it. Conceivably anybody could crash
through there with anything but that is what we have now. We have two
bollards there.
Mr. Brandgard said but this is a different situation. It is a
different situation than the park but I will leave that open for
discussion.
Mr. McPhail said my guess is if they pull a bollard, they would
drive through the grass.
Mr. Dave Harstad from Denison Properties at 3815 River Crossing
Parkway, Suite 160, Indianapolis, IN 46240 said first I just want to
thank the commission and Staff for all of their patience and hard work
in helping us to get this petition to a place that I think it is going
to be a great resolve for the Town. It has been a long process but I
think the collaboration has resulted into a good product.
To specifically address some of the things that were raised first
of all Mr. Valanzano mentioned the issue of having a lot line on Lot 14
to line up with the 50-foot building setback line adjacent to
Plainfield Manor. That was simply an oversight and we will make that
correction.
Regarding the maintenance bond for the trees respectfully we
would pretty much not like to do that. Once we sell the lots, the
developer or individual new homeowners, (inaudible). It is just not
something that we can control. The covenants of the subdivision
include a requirement that damaged or diseased trees be replaced by the
then lot owners. So, the homeowners will be responsible. We will fill
our obligation by planting the trees.
Regarding the cul-de-sac, we hired a traffic engineer, Chet
Skwarcan, who I’m sure many of you know, he did the roundabout by the
aquatic center. Included in the preliminary plan part of the details
that he recommended with radius, etc. said we probably still need some
further staff review and approval. It is something that we have spent
a lot of time on in trying to get right. I think we are there.
As far as the issue of how to key things up for future connection
but not actually do so until there is a decision that it be done, we
are certainly open to what the commission would like to see. We could
put a curb at the end of Lisa Lane and a curb around the cul-de-sac and
you could have some colored concrete, etc. We will certainly do
whatever the Town sees fit in how to handle that 10-foot area between
the end of Lisa Lane and our property line where the cul-de-sac
currently is.
Regarding the possibility of providing a pedestrian connection
somewhere down here I’m a big cyclist enthusiast and when I first
started looking at this, that is something that I thought about. I
talked to a couple of brokers and homebuilders and they said their
experiences have been that they have had a tough time selling the lots.
So, our preference is to not do it. It is not a huge subdivision. It
is not going to be that far for people to travel. It is not going to
require a crossing Saratoga Parkway with kids, etc. It certainly will
be accessible for all of those lot owners who are adjacent to
(inaudible). So, our preference is to not make that connection, at
least a public easement in that area.
Regarding the landscaping, Mr. Valanzano correctly stated that
one of the trees that we would like to put in is a Service Berry. I
don’t know if you have had experience with Service Berry but it is a
kind of tree that has multiple trunks. It is a small fine-grain tree.
It is a very attractive tree. You see it a lot in a lot of different
settings. It is just not a big tree. So, I respect what the ordinance
says but I think a 1_ caliper for a deciduous tree it just simply isn’t
a (inaudible). It’s an ornamental tree that has multiple trunks. But
the bottom line is if it is 1_, the chances are we are not going to be
able to plant the tree because it is a pretty large service area
according to the landscape people.
I think Mr. Valanzano has covered all the changes that we have
made, which is amazing considering, as he said, a lot of these things
came at the eleventh hour and I apologize for that.
I would like to provide the connection with a draft motion, which
just slightly amends the motion Staff has prepared for the commission.
It certainly isn’t anything that has been signed off by Staff. I just
thought I would put it on paper rather than us trying to wordsmith it
back and forth that I would provide this to you and it would be
acceptable from my standpoint. Basically, there are a few changes that
you will see in red to the rezone motion and the changes to the plat
motion is to simply strike condition number seven, which has the
pedestrian easement somewhere between Lots 18 and 26. I will pass this
to the commission for your review and I will certainly do whatever you
want. With that I’m certainly available for any questions that you
might have. I have specific exhibits for the roundabout and the trees
and that sort of thing if you would like to look at them more.
Mr. Matrana asked, is there anyone in the audience who would have
anything to say for or against this matter?
Mr. Otto Kolditz said I live at 9201 Log Run Dr. South,
Indianapolis, 46234. Nothing has been addressed in terms of Willow
Pointe Subdivision. I own three lots there, two of which are under
contract. That would be Lot 30. That is Lot 30 right there. I have
under contract, that is Lot 23 and Lot 11. I am basically, in
principal, I don’t have any objections to the subdivision except I
believe he should have some kind of (inaudible). If you look at it, we
are looking at $400,000.00 to $500,000.00 homes verses $160,000 to
$200,000.00.
In addition to that there should be at least some mounding
between Willow Pointe and then a privacy fence there too. Perhaps that
would kind of help us because I have a contract and there is a
gentleman that I have a contract with on Lot 23, which is a $400,000.00
home and adjacent to Lot 30, which is 29 there is already a $400,000.00
or $500,000.00 home built. The people from California haven’t moved in
yet. So, overall what I have heard that they are planning in the
adjacent lots even though they are 180 foot deep that they are planning
on a two-story, a 2,000 square foot home. On the present rising,
depending, it ranges from $78.00 per square foot to $140.00 depending
on how integrate you get. I’m assuming that being that this is more a
pre-fabricated home that it would run anywhere in the $79.00 to $80.00
range per square foot.
So, what I would suggest and what I think should be done they
should have on the two-story on the first level a 1,200 square foot
minimum. They can put a 1,000 on the second floor so that would become
a minimum, if they copy the first floor, 2,400 two-story and pitch up
the roof to a 8/12, which gives it a little more massive look without
too much of an added expense. On the one-story you could get by with
1,800 square feet providing that it is only on the perimeter lots that
they have there. So, the lots that we actually have here would be east
of the cul-de-sac. And if they have a 1,800 square foot ranch, they
should pitch that up to a 10/12 to give it a little more massive look
and won’t be so bad at all when you look at it. Because after all when
you build there and you are in the back property you look at that
subdivision everyday. With the people there investing as much as they
do I think at this point it is very prudent to kind of have some kind
of a buffer zone incorporated in that subdivision to protect us and our
values.
Presently I live in (inaudible) Estates. I built in a time in
those days, this was 20 years ago, I built a $300,000.00 home, which is
equivalent today of a $600,000.00 home. (Inaudible). Obviously, today
my home is only worth $350,000.00 to $400,000.00. It is a 8,800 square
foot home. I have a 10,000 square foot home that I built next door to
me and that thing just sold about eight years ago for only $350,000.00
because of that. So, obviously the properties in Willow Pointe will
see some kind of depreciation unless we do something to prohibit this
from happening. I could have been paying over $12,000.00 on my home
had it been appraised at the right price but through the price
structure because the (inaudible) I’m only paying $6,000.00-$7,000.00.
So, there are some economic ramifications. Overall there is a market
response here with what we are doing in terms of building lesser homes
but adjacent to the higher-end homes. I think at this point I request
that at least there be some modifications. It is not that costly to
do. I think you added into the motion that they will do that and only
to those lots adjacent to Willow Pointe.
Mr. Tim Cottrell said my house backs up to what will be Lot
(inaudible). I just wanted to remind you that we turned in a petition.
I know this thing has continued several times. We just want to
reiterate that we are definitely bringing the traffic down that street.
With the roundabout the only thing that caught my attention was talking
about it would slow down traffic. Just from my observations at the new
roundabout down by the aquatic center it is not slowing down kids.
They are actually doing donuts on the bricks out there and they are
flying through there. There are a lot of young children on the bricks
out there and they are flying through there. We have a lot of young
children on our street that ride up and down with bikes and stuff. So,
I just wanted to make sure that we had turned this in. We are also
having trouble receiving notification letters. I didn’t find out about
this until last night and apparently most people on our street didn’t.
I don’t know why we didn’t receive them. A couple of our neighbors
did. I finally got a call last night so I wasn’t able to contact the
rest of the people in the neighborhood.
Mr. Matrana said this was a continued meeting.
Mr. Kirchoff said with notice.
Mr. Cottrell said my only concern is I want to make sure that
nobody here thinks that we are not concerned. It is just the fact that
we weren’t prepared for this with such a late notice.
Ms. Shirley O’Conner at Plainfield Manor, Section 2, Lot 37 said
you keep talking about tying our street down because of the safety
matter. If we call the sheriff, he is coming from Danville. He is not
coming through Saratoga by Plainfield. I seriously doubt that he would
want to cross over into the Saratoga section. His jurisdiction ends at
Lisa Lane and if you call the fire department, I think they would come
down Vestal Road faster than you would through Saratoga. If you put up
the barricades with some means for them to knock them down if they had
to get through, they would definitely get to us faster if they go down
Vestal Road. I just don’t see the extra traffic or any safety on our
side and you said your roundabout is going to slow them down, their
speed limits are 30-40 mph at Saratoga, ours is 20. I mean if you are
going to set it up so in the future when you annex us and give us City
water, City sewers, sidewalks, street lights and then you tie us all
in, I just hope the speed limits are all the same. I guess my point is
I just don’t see where it is supposed to be a safety issue for us
because it looks like our safety issue is going out the door. You are
going to double our speed limits and if you think the fire department
is going to take the scenic route to get to us. Thank you.
Mr. Carlucci said we did receive a letter in the first hearing
from the fire department requesting that it be opened all the way
through. That came from the fire department. Because this came up
again the Staff did include it in the report to the Plan Commission
because we are obligated to do that to bring that to their attention
again. That doesn’t mean it is going to get approved.
Ms. O’Conner said so we should notify our insurance companies now
that the fire department would rather take the scenic route to get to
us instead of coming the most direct route?
Mr. Brandgard said let me answer your statement and your
question. The direct route would be to come down U.S. 40 and Saratoga
and through Grand Avenue into it. That is the shortest route for the
fire department to get to Lisa Lane and not going up to Vestal and
coming out. Now the safety issue comes in if something happens along
Lisa Lane that blocks that road, those who are on the south end of that
can’t get in or out today. As we are going right now, we will block
that off so you can’t get in or out. Also, it does not allow for other
safety equipment, if it has to, another way to get into it. That is
where the safety concerns are.
Ms. O’Conner asked, what other safety equipment besides the
police department and the sheriff?
Mr. Brandgard said the fire department. In our planning we
require connectivity between areas for public safety and the sheriff’s
department could come from the south and not necessarily from the north
because they do have sheriff coverage in Guilford Township that is not
incorporated. So, it could come from any direction.
Mr. Kirchoff said it can come from the west.
Mr. Brandgard said but I think the point is what we are talking
about tonight is having a roundabout with a barrier.
Ms. O’Conner said (inaudible).
Mr. Brandgard said with a barrier that can come down and allow
them through it, if need to.
Ms. O’Conner asked, do they send out somebody ahead of their fire
truck to drop that barrier?
Mr. Carlucci said I can tell you for a fact that if they need to
get through there, they can go through it. If they feel that it is an
important enough emergency, they won’t take the time to drop the
barrier, they will just go through it.
Ms. O’Conner said I see it as an accident waiting to happen, I’m
sorry.
Mr. Harstad said I just want to very briefly address some of the
comments. First, regarding notice I think Mr. Valanzano has gone
through it but I used the Hendricks County GIS tax records and pulled
all the addresses and signed an affidavit that I sent them in a timely
manner, the addresses listed on the tax records. I think that is the
best that I could do. I also posted, as required, at the end of Lisa
Lane and at two places along Saratoga Parkway.
Just briefly on these bollards one way you can do it is have a
padlock. Another way to do them, which is a little more expensive is
you can use a hydrant wrench and actually just take them down with a
hydrant wrench. If you are worried about that, it would certainly be
an option.
Lastly, on the issue of buffering to Willow Pointe, Willow Pointe
is a wonderful subdivision. I have worked really hard and have agreed
to do the all brick wrap on the homes that abut Willow Pointe and we
would plant a tree every 20 feet. So, that is how we addressed the
buffering there. In addition to that I can’t go into specifics but I
will say that those lots for sale if you want to talk to me about
buying them and investing their investments at Willow Pointe, I would
be glad to talk to them.
Mr. Matrana said with no one else coming forward we will close
the public portion of the meeting and I would like to open the meeting
up to the board for discussion and a possible motion.
Mr. Kirchoff said I’m not sure I understood the bond. I guess I
heard some confusion. I expected that to be done and the petitioner’s
comments indicated that it would be more for the maintenance long-term.
Mr. Valanzano said both things are wrapped in that. One part of
it was that the developer was responsible for installing landscaping up
front. The way that the documents are set up right now each individual
purchaser of a lot, whether it is a homebuilder or if you were to buy a
lot in there, you would be responsible for the maintenance of those
trees as soon as you bought that property. Our thought was that they
were put in as part of the subdivision development. There may not be
an owner of that lot per se for some period of time.
Mr. Kirchoff said so the bond would go until it is sold.
Mr. Valanzano said that is one way to do it. Our thought was
that even if it was sold, would be to have the owner or the developer
be responsible for maintaining that strip for a period of time. Long
enough to make sure that they are there and they are growing and they
keep growing as opposed to putting that burden to a homeowner who buys
it and is doing their landscaping and they see a tree in the back yard
and have no idea there is a commitment on it and don’t bother to
replace it. That would be an enforcement situation on a homeowner in a
couple of five years.
I know it’s a little out of order but one thing that Mr. McGillem
and I had talked about that I forgot to mention was should you go with
the idea of putting the bollards in or some sort of barricade there, as
part of the conditions of approval of the waiver, the very last thing
in the Staff Report at the very end, it might be appropriate that if
Plainfield Manor is ever annexed into the Town of Plainfield and Grand
Avenue and Lisa Lane (inaudible) through traffic. That would be clear
that that would not happen. If you got with the option of closing it
off, then put the language in there that if it is ever annexed into the
Town, the roadway connection would be (inaudible).
Mr. Kirchoff asked, Mr. Daniel do you have any other questions
about the notice?
Mr. Daniel said no.
Mr. Valanzano said I went through the cards that Mr. Harstad
submitted and there are 15 cards that have addresses that are
specifically Lisa Lane addresses on them. There are a lot of other
addresses obviously but there are about 15 or 16, and if you count the
number of lots that are within two ownerships of the common property
line, there are 15 or 16. So, it appears proper notice was sent to the
Lisa Lane area.
Mr. McPhail asked, do you have any comments on this tree size and
the type of tree? I don’t understand one type of tree from another.
Mr. Valanzano said I know for sure that a crab apple is a single
stunt plant and that should be definitely the 1_ caliper. Service
Berry it may be one of the plants that are a clump variety and we don’t
have anything specific in our ordinance to deal with a clump version,
which is a tree that basically shoots a bunch of thin branches out and
how you measure that, to be honest with you, I would have to refer to
someone else to know if that was appropriate. What would be the
appropriate size in that particular item? Maybe the appropriate thing
there to do is if they are dead set on having that particular plant
material, would be to leave the sizing of that to the Design Review
Committee landscape specialist to see how we should size them? Should
it be done by height? Should it be done by the number of stems? I
understand Mr. Harstad’s concern and that is a legitimate concern.
One last item the preliminary plan that is referred to in the
rezoning notice in the motion that you have would be October 24th. They
have submitted changes this afternoon so you might want to change that
to November 7th. A number of changes have been incorporated. I’m not
even sure if the motion that Mr. Harstad gave you, if we change that to
November 7th, you might not have (inaudible).
Mr. Harstad said (inaudible).
Ms. Whicker said I have a question on what you had submitted in
your motion and a change in point number four. I’m referring to tree
preservation areas. In the Staff Report under the motion it refers to
Lots 17 and 18 as being subject to the tree preservation areas. Where
you had made a change to allow the developer to designate part of Lots
17 and 18 as being subject to tree preservation areas. Am I correct in
assuming that would give the developer the right to take away part of
those trees and not have it fully be a preserved tree area?
Mr. Harstad said I was originally trying to figure out a way to
give credit for trees for the landscape easement area that weren’t in
the landscape easement area. I thought this was getting far to
complicated so I withdrew that. So, what I have done is I established
these tree preservation areas and showed them on the plat. This is
completely separate from the landscape easement. All it does now is
say you can’t cut down trees over four inches in that area. Really it
is just added protection to make sure that we don’t go in there and
clear-cut it and preserve the trees.
Mr. Kirchoff said that’s not true over on Lot 4 is that correct?
Mr. Harstad on Lots 4 and 5 I’m just carte blanche saying that
those will be included and will be in the tree preservation area.
(Inaudible).
Mr. Kirchoff asked, where is that addressed?
Mr. Harstad said that is in the preliminary plan.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, how about that trail connection? I don’t see
that they need it. That is not that deep of a subdivision. That is a
fun place to ride so I don’t see that being an issue.
Mr. McPhail said I wouldn’t support cutting through those lots
when you are really pretty close anyway.
Mr. Brandgard said this is just a technical question. In looking
at the plat that Banning has provided for this subdivision it shows in
Willow Pointe between 26 and 27 a 30-foot gas pipeline easement. Where
does that go? It comes up to this property and stops.
Mr. Harstad said we had the property surveyed and there is no
easement that showed up.
Mr. Brandgard said I’m not concerned about the easement portion
on your property but is there a gas line in there and if there is, does
it go into your property? That’s what I’m wondering.
Mr. Kirchoff said it may go north and south.
Mr. Harstad said (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail asked, does the gas line run parallel with the trail?
Mr. Carlucci said I wouldn’t be surprised if it is up there
because I think it runs along the side of the trail.
Mr. Valanzano said (inaudible). I’m not familiar with that and
Mr. McGillem is not familiar with that.
Mr. Brandgard said it is just a technical curiosity question
looking at the plat.
Mr. McPhail said at the aquatic center it runs just about through
where our path goes around. In fact, our paths are over the top of it
on the south side of the aquatic center.
Mr. Carlucci said it just crosses the path. It is actually
between the top of the parking lot and the path, it is in that area
there.
Mr. McPhail said it probably does go across there to Willow
Pointe and probably up and down the railroad bed I would imagine
because there is one in that general vicinity.
Mr. Kirchoff said help me understand this connectivity and public
safety. I know they are concerned we are going to dump traffic on their
road. Can you help me think about that, our connectivity and all that?
Mr. Brandgard said our planning for a long time has been for the
connectivity between subdivisions with roads. That is why a lot of
times you go to subdivisions and the roads stop at a field because the
thought planning is if and when that field is ever developed, a road
there will connect to the other one to allow for flow for traffic
basically for safety. Again, in other areas we do have the breakthrough
barriers where we didn’t necessarily want to have the crossthrough
traffic. That is usually because you are going from a private
area to a public area. I mean private being an apartment area with
private streets in it into a subdivision with public streets. You
don’t want to have all the traffic going through a private area. So,
we have put the barriers in with grassy areas there.
Mr. Kirchoff said one would have to assume, of course, hindsight
is 20/20, but one would have to assume that the developers of Lisa Lane
planned that to connect to whatever developed. Am I thinking right?
Mr. Brandgard said I think overall public safety has come in and
asked for that to be connected through there. Going with what we are
looking at here is acceptable because it still allows them to break
through to get into it.
Mr. Kirchoff said but discourages through traffic.
Mr. Brandgard said it discourages through traffic. It is not
exactly what they want but it is better than not at all. It really
isn’t an impediment because if they need to, they can go through it.
Ms. Whicker said the actual barrier though does not reflect any
grassy area. Would it just be asphalt or concrete?
Mr. Brandgard said I think that remains to be developed according
to what we saw here. I think in the amendment I saw that in there.
Mr. Valanzano said I believe the text that has been written up
for you provides for a physical (inaudible). If that is the way that
the Plan Commission wants to go, it suggests in your motion an
alternate (inaudible).
Mr. Brandgard said where I was at is if we make it a solid
connection, I’m just somewhat concerned knowing how things work. But
going forward looking at someday that is going to be connected it makes
sense to put the solid down.
Mr. Valanzano said one of the other concerns that Staff looked at
is if that area ever does connect, how can it be connected with a
(inaudible) investment for the Town to make that connection but also
the minimal disruption to the residents along Grand Avenue and Lisa
Lane in getting heavy equipment in there to build it. If there were
bollards or something else acceptable that would stop the traffic flow,
that would allow us to have a truck come in there with some equipment
to remove the bollards and if necessary, put a couple of patches in.
There would be no disruption to the residents along the way and would
be the simplest way to provide the connection later on.
Mr. Kirchoff said I guess I’m hearing that we are not going to
require the pedestrian connection. I’m hearing consensus that we want
the connection to Lisa Lane but we will have some kind of bollard
restriction on it. And the only thing I don’t know is about the
bonding for the trees. We haven’t talked about that. What is the best
way to protect the trees that get installed? We have had several
situations where we go back and six months later they are gone or they
died and nothing happens. I understand what we are trying to do here
but I’m not sure how we want to do this. Do you put a time limit on
it? How do you typically see this done?
Mr. Brandgard asked, are you expecting a homeowners association
in that area?
Mr. Harstad said yes we certainly will.
Mr. Brandgard said the reason that I ask is my concern goes even
further. What happens downstream when maybe the original property
owner understands what those trees are but you go downstream several
property owners and it gets lost? I think we would have something
connected to the developer that gets transferred to the homeowners
association as responsible for maintaining those tree buffer areas as
designed in the plat.
Mr. Kirchoff said because we have seen that as a weakness in some
areas. That is a good point.
Mr. Harstad said I will certainly agree to require that all
builders put a snow fence or construction (inaudible) and require that
they not store any materials, construction materials or parking
construction vehicles under the trip line. The documents are already
drafted so that the association, at their discretion, could install
trees and have a special assessment against the owner of that lot if
they fail to install the trees after they die.
Mr. Valanzano said I think what Mr. Harstad said basically
highlights your issue. If a developer puts in the trees and builds the
house and is gone, you are right, as the homeowners association turns
it over to the homeowners, the documents that will be recorded to the
plat that established the homeowners association will include language
that the homeowners association is responsible for replacing the trees.
Typically, nursery stock has a one-year guarantee on it. As my
neighbor just found out, his tree just died about a week after the oneyear
ran out. Yet to try to avoid a situation like that, even if the
snow fencing is put up and the trees are put in, if the tree survives
every time, you are good. My suggestion was that the developers put in
all the trees at once. They provide a maintenance bond, which is
typically ten cents on the dollar for the value of what is there. They
provide us with the estimate of what it cost to put it in. That
translates into the value of a maintenance bond for the landscaping.
That is held for a period of three years. After the three years if the
trees are in, we do an inspection and we release the bond. If there
are dead trees out there, we call the homeowners association. If they
are not formed yet or any fees available to do anything, do we let the
dead trees stay there or do we get a portion of the bond and replace
the dead trees? That is the reason for the suggestion of the threeyear
maintenance bond to provide for that period. Hopefully, three
years after they are put in they are going to be stable enough that
they are going to take off and they are going to grow and they are
going to be there.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, where is that addressed?
Mr. Valanzano said I had it discussed in the body of the report.
I don’t think I had necessarily a specific statement to that affect in
the proposed motion. I believe we were talking about since the
developer is going to be doing this that it should be done as part of
the platting process since that is when the bond is typically
associated with. We probably replaced condition number seven with
respect to the pedestrian easement and say that the developer should
provide for a three year maintenance bond for all required landscaping
or landscaping within the landscape easement.
1.
Paragraph #4 of the Preliminary Plan be amended to reflect
the correct ordinance minimum standards for landscaping at
the time of planting.
2.
To avoid conflict with Paragraph #3 of the Preliminary
Plan, Paragraph #4 be amended to clearly indicate that the
landscaping would be “along all lot lines that abut the
common boundary with Plainfield Manor and Willow Pointe
Subdivisions”.
3.
Paragraph #4 of the Preliminary Plan be amended to agree
with covenants and Primary Plat regarding the tree
preservation areas.
4.
Paragraph #5 be amended to also refer to Lots 17 and 18 as
being subject to the tree preservation areas.
5.
Paragraph #6 be amended to clearly indicate that the
landscape maintenance and replacement obligation also
refers to lots which are subject to the tree preservation
area as well as those subject to the landscape easement.
6.
Paragraph #3 of the Preliminary Plan be amended to clearly
state that the right-of-way of Grand Avenue will be
extended to the north line of Kenwood in alignment of Lisa
Lane.
7.
Paragraph #3 of the Preliminary Plan be amended to add a
clarification to indicate that the pavement for Grand
Avenue would abut the existing pavement for Lisa Lane with
a stamped concrete section with bollards as the traffic
deterrent. And that such traffic deterrent will be
permanently removed at the time that Plainfield Manor will
be annexed to the Town of Plainfield.
8.
Paragraph #3 be amended to specify and require the
roundabout at the end of Grand Avenue with design details
subject to the approval of the Director of Transportation.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. Kirchoff asked, in the next motion do we want to refer to the
same annexation provision on the very last item, number one on the
waiver?
Mr. Valanzano said (inaudible).
1.
Adequate provisions have been made for regulation of
minimum lot width, minimum lot depth and minimum lot area.
2.
Adequate provisions have been made for the widths, grades,
curves and coordination of subdivision public ways with
current and planned public ways.
3.
Adequate provisions have been made for the extension of
water, sewer and other municipal services.
1.
Compliance with the Town standards, including but not
limited to: Plainfield Ordinance No. 1-96 regarding
Floodplain Management; Plainfield Ordinance Nos. 4-94 and
3-86 regarding Sewage Works; Plainfield Ordinance No. 17-97
regarding Drainage; Plainfield Ordinance No. 19-97
regarding Municipal Waterworks and Plainfield Ordinance No.
18-97 regarding Access Permits.
2.
Compliance with the standards and specifications of the
Plainfield Subdivision Control Ordinance.
3.
A release of the existing drainage easements which bisect
the parcel from north to south and which parallels the
north property line shall be recorded prior to the
recording of any secondary plat within Kenwood at Saratoga.
4.
A recorded copy of the “Declaration of Easement, Covenants
and Restrictions of Kenwood at Saratoga”, which includes
references to compliance with the appropriate provisions of
the Residential Design Guidelines and landscape
preservation and maintenance requirements, substantially as
filed on October 21, 2005 shall be provided to Staff and
cross-referenced on the Secondary Plats submitted for final
approval and recording.
5.
The building setback line on Lot 14 shall be adjusted to
match up with the building setback lot existing on Lot 33
of Plainfield Manor.
6.
A final address plan, acceptable to Staff, shall be filed
prior to the release of affected Secondary Plats for
recording.
7.
The developer shall provide a three-year maintenance bond
for all required landscaping and landscape easements.
1.
The granting of the waiver will not be detrimental to the
public safety, health or welfare or injurious to other
property.
2.
The conditions upon which the request for a waiver is based
are unique to the property for which a waiver is sought and
are not applicable general to other property.
3.
Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape or
topographical conditions of the specific property involved,
a particular hardship to the owner would result as
distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict
letter of these regulations are carried out.
4.
The waiver will not contravene the provisions of the
Plainfield Zoning Ordinance or the Comprehensive Plan.
1.
Final design of the Grand Avenue roundabout and connection
to Lisa Lane, including bollard details, shall be subject
to the review and approval by the Director of
Transportation.
2.
Upon the annexation of Plainfield Manor the traffic
restriction will be removed between Lisa Lane and Grand
Avenue.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. Matrana said at this time I would like to reconvene the
November meeting of the Plan Commission and the next item of business
concerns Duke Construction Primary Plat PP-05-009 and Development Plat
DP-05-034.
Mr. Valanzano said there are two petitions. There is a Primary
Plat for 13 acres approximately and a Development Plan for 592 space
surface parking lot. The Development Plan is for the area outlined in
red on the aerial to the left for a development of 592 car parking
spaces. In addition to the development of the parking garage there are
two guard shacks being proposed that matches the architectural of the
building. Those have been reviewed by DRC and are ready for approval.
There is also a small parking area just off the northeast corner of the
building up in this area that is going to be expanded by 25 spaces.
But the majority of the project and the focus of the entire
review is for this portion, which would be Lot 1 of the plat, which
would be subject to the Development Plan review. So, the parking lot
is just going to be in that portion outlined in red. The entire area
that is outlined in red was recently bought by Duke from the
Indianapolis Airport Authority. There is still a piece of ground that
is in between the southeast line of this property that was bought by
Duke and the right-of-way of I-70. So, technically we don’t have a
front yard facing the interstate but practically we do. What that does
is set up a yard depth of only 10 feet at the side yard by ordinance
but in practicality we need a lot more depth and a lot more
landscaping. They have a need for a certain amount of parking spaces
that they want to put on the side. I will let them go over the details
of the spaces, etc. But what all that boils down to is they needed
more ground to put in landscaping that was practically necessary as
opposed to technically necessary. So, they couldn’t fit it all into 10
feet so what they have done is propose a significant amount of mounding
and landscaping along that south boundary line.
This building has loading dock space to the south and there was
some mounding in basically the western half to two-thirds of this
building. There is some existing mounding and landscaping in this
area. That is going to be taken out to provide for this road or
internal drive to go around the loading dock area, which will be fenced
off and screened off and secured from the rest of the property. When
you put this drive through, the mound comes out. Once the mound comes
out it kicks in that we had a practical need when the landscaping and
mounding was there. They have proposed a 40-foot landscape easement
that goes onto the airport property. All the approvals that you are
looking at tonight and the plan that you are looking at tonight they
probably assume your approval here but they assume the approval of the
airport authority for a 40-foot landscape onto the airport property.
And there has also been discussions between the airport authority and
the Town to acquire that strip and then it would also kick in the
approval of the Town Council for that landscaping. So, everything is
rolled into one rather large package.
On the north side once you dimension out with how wide this
property was and put in two back-to-back things of parking you
basically used up the entire width of the property. So, what they are
doing is running basically to the property line on this north side.
This is a common area for the plat, Duke building one, which is the
Hitachi building and this is a common area that was platted as part of
the Regional Aerospace building. Basically, they are right at the lot
line with development and as it crosses over into those common areas
with a little bit of pedestrian way that they are connecting and the
landscaping that is going to be put in that is required around a lot
perimeter. So, that is going to require approval from the Town Council
for consent of a drainage easement in favor of the Town of Plainfield.
It will also require approval by the Board of Zoning Appeals for a
variance to reduce the setback to zero and then for the Town Council
later to encroach into the drainage easement. All of the documents for
that have been filed. It is a matter of which one comes first. If
everything goes well tonight, it will be under the BZA later in
November for the variances and it will be in front of the Town Council
possibly at the next meeting after that to discuss the encroachments
for the easements. Having talked to Mr. Belcher about those
encroachments the pond areas are far enough back and the ponds are
sized to take care of the needs. So, he did not have a concern with
the type of structure that is being proposed.
Just to give you a couple of highlights on the landscape plan, as
I indicated, there is a significant level of landscaping into the
property line, pretty much at the top edge or the back edge of the
landscaping. There would be a wrought fence or simulated wrought iron
fencing along the east and west sides of the parking lot and behind the
landscaping. The majority of the landscaping would be on the upper
part of the berm. Blaine will show you a series of lines of sights
based on the elevation of the interstate, the elevations of the berm
without the landscaping and where the loading docks are indicating that
the line of sight is basically going to shield the loading dock areas
for the entire length of the building. I think it should be an
improvement compared to what we have now where you have screening that
is pretty good for the southern edge, fair in the middle and not too
good as you get to the east edge of the building.
As a part of the development proposal with 492 parking spaces and
some 600 employees coming in on a number of shifts a traffic study was
requested of the petitioner. You have an addendum I believe that was
distributed to you by Mr. McGillem that summarizes the result of the
traffic study. We would suggest that in addition to what is listed in
the Staff Report that one additional condition be added to the
recommendations in the development plan section. That the roadway
improvements set forth in the traffic study will be implemented subject
to the agreement of the Town Council. There is some grant money
involved, some reimbursement that will be going on and I’m not fully
aware how all of that is going to break down. But I do think Mr.
McGillem and I knew enough that the improvements, as indicated in the
traffic study, should tie into this and that it be further subject to
the Town Council as to exactly how that will be implemented.
One other point, when you look at the motion, when it talks about
the plat, it talks about a waiver that is needed. The ordinance
requires that any plat have access to a public street or gain access to
that public street through that plat. In this case we don’t have that
because the right-of-way for the county road doesn’t quite come down in
a sufficient amount to provide access to this site. There will be an
easement in this area that goes across that common area down to the
county road. The county road will be improved up to at least Reeves
Road and then there will be some other side improvements indicated in
Mr. McGillem’s memo. The reason for the plat waiver is that this
right-of-way will not be in place. The petitioner has agreed to
reserve an area of right-of-way here for a 35 foot half right-of-way,
which if necessary, for the Town to provide extension of that county
road over the interstate. The right-of-way to make the shortest bridge
over the interstate would probably ask for a curve to the southeast,
the majority of it. Here is the street to the south of the interstate
and here is the county road coming down the east side of the property.
Most likely going directly perpendicular to the interstate would bring
the right-of-way or bridge a potential crossing in this area. If that
happens, there would probably be, if anything, there would be
(inaudible) right-of-way on the side and probably no roadway in that
area.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, is that in your report?
Mr. Valanzano said no that is not in Mr. McGillem’s report. Mr.
McGillem’s report deals with the improvement of this roadway and some
of the intersections here and when you get over to Columbia and
Stafford and some of the other intersections in the area. I shifted
gears on you (inaudible) Walgreen’s thoroughfare plan, if there is ever
a bridge that ever goes over I-70. So, they have agreed to reserve the
right-of-way, if necessary, unless we find that by bringing a road down
here and crossing over that that is not going to be needed and the Town
Council can give them a letter in writing that it is not needed, in
which case, they can then use the property. But they have agreed to not
put anything in that area other than surface improvements like parking
for the meantime so there would be any interference with the
thoroughfare plan needs in the future.
Also, similar to the BD project since the lots don’t have the
direct access to the public street one of the items in the motion talks
about putting a notice on the plat as to what conditions would have to
be met for development to occur. I talked to Mr. Paul about that and I
believe he is comfortable with that as well and the reasons again are
very similar to BD and why we have the conditions (inaudible). With
that I will conclude and I would be happy to answer any questions that
you would have. And the only other thing in addition to the Staff
Report would be the addition that the improvements recommended by the
traffic study be implemented subject to the Town Council.
Mr. Blaine Paul with Duke Construction at 600 East 96th Street,
Suite 100, Indianapolis, IN said I’m here this evening to speak to you
about the Primary Plat and Development Plan. They are both combined
into one. Mr. Valanzano did an excellent job providing you with some
background on this particular project. I will just go into a little
bit of additional detail. One thing that I want to point out to you is
that the Regional Aerospace building, Duke building one and Duke
building two and this vacant parcel on the west side of Perry Road are
all part of the Plainfield Business Park platted at one point and time.
So, this portion of property being platted is a separate subdivision,
however, at the time we platted the original development if this
property had been available, we would likely have included all of this
in one piece. A lot of the plats and a lot of the drainage parcels
that Mr. Valanzano referred to are all controlled by Duke Realty
Corporation. So, in fact, we sort of control on both sides of these
lots by encroaching onto our own property. I just wanted to make sure
that you understood that clarification.
When you look at the zone map outlined in black is the subject
parcel. A portion of this property in the green triangle that you see
up there was zoned Agricultural. As part of this project at the October
Plan Commission we came to you to have that rezoned I-2 and received
favorable recommendation for that rezone.
The next thing that I would like to point out is take a real
quick look at the Primary Plat. Our primary points of access are the
existing right-of-way and CR550 South and the north corner of Lot 1.
And also at the northwest corner of Lot 2 we have an access drive with
an existing access/utility and drainage easement on that parcel.
This is what we call the Plainfield Business Park south. The
adjacent property to the west is the building eight site that you saw I
believe in September of this year. And it is currently under
construction and then also indicated on there is the parcel owned by
the Indianapolis Airport Authority, which is between our property and
the interstate.
Lot 1 outlined in blue is 5.438 acres in size. Lot 2 outlined in
maroon is 7.78 acres in size. We filed for an incremental plat so in
the future Lot 1 is really locked in. We have left ourselves the
ability to potentially subdivide Lot 2 even further but right now we
think it is going to be a two-lot scenario.
I wanted to give you a quick look at how the utilities are going
to work and the drainage of this property. The use for Lot 1 is going
to be a proposed parking lot and that is part of the next Development
Plan petition. Lot 2 we do not know precisely how we intend to develop
this property. It could be could be a stand-alone industrial/warehouse
building as you see on this drawing here. We think, given the site
geometry, it will be a single loaded facility and we would put docks on
the north side. It could also be used to support building eight. We
don’t really know. That is a speculative building. We don’t know what
type of user we can get in there. If that area is needed to help
support that site, we would put together plans and submit those for
Development Plan approval to get your comment on our facility design
criteria. Lot 1 drains through the two existing detention ponds
located at the northwest corner, Lot 1 and the north corner, Lot 1.
Lot 2 would require a new detention pond. What we have shown on the
drawing there fits and it does work. Sewer service would come down
from Hadley Road and the utility easement that I referenced previously.
Also, a traffic study was prepared, as part of this Primary Plat
and we had solid project data for Lot 1. We will have 600 employees
roughly. Our current plans are for a two-shift operation, however,
they did indicate to us that their production requirements could result
in a three-shift scenario being required. So, what we went ahead and
did is looked at that long-term possibility and included the threeshift
scenario in our study so that you could get the worst-case
scenario picture. Lot 2 we have assumed as being 100,000 square foot
industrial facility and that is how the calculations were completed.
At this intersection we worked with Mr. McGillem, which intersections
would be of a critical nature and it was determined that SR276/Reeves
Road and Perry Road and Reeves Road and CR550 South and Reeves Road are
all west of the site. Intersections east of the site were Columbia
Road and Stafford Road and Six Points Road and Stafford Road.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, did you look at SR267 and Hadley?
Mr. Paul said we did not look at SR267 and Hadley. The primary
reason for that is Lot 1, and I will get into this when we potentially
get into the site plan in more detail, but that 592 space car parking
lot only has the means of accessing CR550 South up to Reeves Road. They
do not have the ability to go through the building two up to Perry
Road. The reason for that is in working with the Town we determined it
would be best to isolate that car or traffic from the outside traffic
not to create hazard at Duke Driver and Perry Road. The results of the
study are that SR267 and Reeves Road a signal will be warranted as this
project is complete. I think studies that are out there now indicate
that the signal won’t be warranted until sometime in the future. The
calculations in this report indicate that the traffic signal should be
installed at the time that the SR267 road improvements are completed
next year. Also, a right hand turn lane needs to be added to eastbound
Stafford Road. That improvement is needed with or without this
particular project. We updated the current standards. There is an
agreement between the State of Indiana and the Town of Plainfield and
Duke Realty Corporation to contribute to a fund to create those
improvements as well as the update of the intersection of CR550 South
and Reeves Road. That concludes the Primary Plat presentation.
We will go onto the Development Plan petition. All these slides
are focusing on Lot 1. This is what was actually proposed to construct
on that particular lot. Again, the primary access is at the northeast
corner and there is a 35-foot half right-of-way that was dedicated back
when building one plat was completed. Our access drive goes halfway
into that right-of-way and half into the drainage pond as Mr. Valanzano
indicated and an easement will be provided.
It was also requested in going through the construction plan
review process with the Department of Public Works that an emergency
access be provided and the circle is there. What we had originally
planned on doing was provide a temporary access at that point that
would be a stone pavement. It would only be utilized as CR550 South
was being constructed. The county came back and they would prefer that
be an asphalt pavement to drive there permanently for emergency access
only. So, that drive will be gated off so that the cars cannot access
north through the building two site.
The area outlined in red is where we are proposing a chain link
fence. The reason that I wanted to separate this way is it was
important that the Design Review Committee saw it so I thought it would
be important to you. The area outlined in purple is where we are
proposing our simulated wrought iron fence. You can see tab eight for
cut sheets on that fence and materials.
Another thing that was important was given the fact that this is
a rather large and lengthy parking lot facility the tenant wanted a
designated area for pedestrians to be routed to the building. So, the
area you see in blue dash lines up there are where we have provided a
sidewalk for them to get to the building. It is not made out of
concrete. Rather we extended the asphalt pavement an additional six
feet down the parking stalls and we have lined that entire north road
of parking stalls with concrete parking barriers to keep them on the
sidewalk and keep that area for pedestrian use. Also, there are two
guardhouse locations and there are elevations in your books. You can
see in tab nine those details and it pretty much simulates other
guardhouses that we proposed in Plainfield.
The landscape plan, as Mr. Valanzano indicated, we have provided
a Level 1 at the west/northwest; east and northeast corners per the
Town’s requirements. And also what we have done on the south side is
that we have affectively taken all of the perimeter plantings, all of
our parking lot buffer plantings and all of our interior parking lot
plantings and taken all of those credits and placed them on the
landscape berm. The intention was to provide the maximum screening
possible from the Interstate 70 view. We thought this particular
situation addressed that comment the best. The note in the lower left
hand corner, the landscape berm is located on the site, on an easement,
on the airport authority property. We understand that the Town is
interested in potentially purchasing that property. The airport
authority did approve the landscape easement concept and signed off on
those documents last Friday. However, they will not be releasing those
documents to us until we get through the Town of Plainfield/Town
Council meeting next Monday. I just wanted to let you know that they
have bought into the design concept.
I will show you the lighting plan real quickly. The whole
parking lot will be lighted by pole mounted 400-watt shoebox style
fixtures, flat cutoffs, tab seven. Again, the line of sight – I have
received some not so subtle hints that the existing screening out there
is not what one would consider acceptable from the Town’s prospective.
So, as part of this project, we thought we would try and go ahead and
remedy that situation. Line of sight one, which is the red line on the
previous drawing, shows you a line of sight. The way that we
established elevations is that we have the grades and Interstate 70.
We have the finished floor elevations and we know what the top of the
dock door elevations are so essentially we determined what the slope
was from the line of sight point to the dock doors and then just
determined what the appropriate elevation would be for the landscape
berm to screen that area. As you can see, I have also attempted to
draw in the cars. That is where the car parking lot will be located in
this particular line of sight and those cars were scaled to what would
be a reasonable passenger car size. But for the most part the berm is
a great job of screening that area. Also, I wanted to note that the
line of site for the docks is for the top berm. The planting material
has not been taken into consideration on this line of sight exhibit and
that will add to the screening potential. The line of sight two looks
like I copied the same picture three times but again using that design
criteria I laid out previously you can see that it is just a matter of
a math problem to determine what the berm elevation should be to obtain
the screening goal. The line of sight three looks exactly the same.
That concludes our presentation for the Primary Plat and I would be
more than happy to answer any questions that you might have.
Thank you Mr. Valanzano, very thorough as always. We did drive
the terminus into a dead-end right now. There is a slender gravel
strip that goes back to the pump station, which is how we obtain fire
protection services for the buildings out there. A request was made by
the Town that the road be extended to CR550 South to be another
emergency access. Say there was an accident on CR550 South and all of
those cars couldn’t get out, this would be a way for them to drive
through. Though we don’t want them using the intersection at Duke
Drive and Perry Road it would be a means for them to get out, an
emergency scenario only. We proposed that it be a heavy-duty asphalt
pavement and it will be gated on either end to prevent its use unless
an emergency situation warrants it.
Mr. Matrana asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care
to have any questions or concerns about this matter? Being no one
coming forward the public portion of the meeting will be closed and now
we will open it up to the Plan Commission for discussion and a possible
motion.
Ms. Whicker said I’m referring to the picture on the front of the
Staff Report. It really doesn’t reflect a gravel road. It is showing a
lot of greenery there but I assume or am thinking that the road would
connect the east of Duke Drive.
Mr. Paul said yes. This road extension is right in this area.
Duke Drive terminates right there. The pump house is located there.
We would extend pavement in this area.
Ms. Whicker asked, is it currently a gravel drive?
Mr. Paul said it is about a 12-foot gravel drive that is there
for the maintenance of the pump house only. What will happen is we will
have to widen that to be a 24-foot wide section minimum that will make
that connection at the end of Duke Drive over to the county road.
Mr. Valanzano said when you look at that picture where that
little bubble at the end of the drive, the pavement basically ends at
that point and it turns into gravel after that to provide access to the
pump house. That would turn into pavement and then that pavement would
be extended all the way to the county road. And then there would be
gates put at both ends so it would only be used as an emergency access
but with only one way in the access at the one intersection they
thought there needed to be another way for people to bail out if
something happened at the corner of Reeves Road and CR550 at that one
point of access.
Mr. Kirchoff said help me better understand what you are going to
do to CR550?
Mr. Paul said I guess the short answer to that is we are not
going to necessarily be responsible from a construction standpoint of
actually constructing those improvements. We will be contributing to a
fund that will make those improvements. The monies will come from
three locations, the State of Indiana, the Town of Plainfield and then
Duke Realty Corporation. The reason why we cannot construct those
improvements are because State money is involved, therefore, where
public dollars are involved we can’t build it, it has to be publicly
bid.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, Mr. McGillem have we seen that documentation?
Mr. McGillem said I have not seen the documentation. I discussed
with Mr. Carlucci and right now I was informed that we got another
roadway to advance on our priorities.
Mr. Kirchoff said this is new news again.
Mr. McGillem said basically we would be doing the engineering and
the contracting for that road. This is another reason for the temporary
emergency access also because they are going to be in there before we
get that roadway improved. The CR550 will be improved to Town’s
standards and the intersection at Reeves Road and CR550 is going to
have to be modified to pick up the additional turn lanes.
Mr. Kirchoff said if you could go back to that slide with the
summary of your traffic study.
Mr. Carlucci said the State would provide so much infrastructure
dollars for that to be improved. This road is not a real important
road to the Town of Plainfield. So, we have an agreement with Duke
that will keep us pretty much from spending any substantial sums of
money on that. I would suggest one thing, Mr. Brandgard and I were
talking, that road probably needs to be renamed something else. It
used to go to CR550. We keep calling it CR550. We are going to have a
problem so I would suggest that when that road is done, that we rename
that road as something else.
Mr. McGillem said if you look at these improvements here,
basically that came out of the traffic study, what we are looking at is
once this is done we have two shifts and 600 vehicles each shift coming
in and out twice a day. You ramp that up to three shifts that are all
coming in this CR550 and Reeves and then they are splitting east and
west we anticipate there will probably be about a 60/40 split to the
east headed for the Six Points Interchange and north at that point
probably about 40% toward the west of SR267. With the SR267 and the
Reeves Road improvements we have going on right now with BD we were
concerned with that because that study alone does not generate the one
for a traffic signal at SR267. The high school does generate the
traffic warrants but that traffic signal under INDOT’s requirements
could not be installed until 2008. So, with the traffic study we had
them analyze the warrants associated with this project. We do and have
shown traffic warrants to be met at SR267. We have already been in
contact with INDOT trying to get this incorporated in the SR267
project.
The second item, the right hand turn lane needs to be added
eastbound, Stafford Road. We know that is needed right now and a
traffic study has indicated that. At the current situation out there we
can create that by stripping the outside lane as an inclusive right
turn lane and that should be done before the end of the year, at
Stafford and Six Points Road, eastbound Stafford at Ronald Reagan
Parkway and Six Points Road. That exclusive right turn is needed right
now and this traffic study just pointed out the further need of it.
The CR550 South should be updated, the current standards. That
will be done. County Road 550 South and Reeves Road Intersection, we
are looking at the need for, on Reeves Road a westbound left turn lane
and an eastbound right turn lane on Reeves Road. Then you will have a
three-lane section coming off the south approach on CR550.
Your question on Hadley Road and SR267 with a signal at Reeves
Road and improvements on Reeves Road, we just looked at a lot of
existing traffic to be diverted off of Hadley Road and SR267 on Reeves
even without this. We don’t look to there being that much added traffic
going down Hadley Road to SR267.
Mr. Paul said a comment to number three had to do with the note
that was similar to what we did on the Becton Dickson project regarding
the lots not being developable until access or easements are provided.
I would like to have a little bit of leeway to work with Mr. Valanzano
after the Plan Commission hearing later this week to come up with a
solution that would be acceptable from him to a Town’s situation and it
being acceptable to us from a developer’s scenario. I think there were
some other things that we can do to accommodate the need for that note
on the plat. I would rather not put the note on the plat, if I could at
all help it. One solution would be that I would provide an access
utility easement from the building 2 site to Lot 1.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, temporarily?
Mr. Paul said actually no. We would provide that altogether. I
guess the thing that concerns me about the note it seems like we are
recording a plat and saying that we can’t develop that property but
then we are developing that property. So, I guess I was a little bit
confused on how those two things were put together and I guess
compatible. So, I was looking for a solution. I trust that Mr.
Valanzano and I could probably come up with something that would work
to the benefit of everyone. I would be more than willing to talk about
that with you still this evening but I didn’t want to necessarily want
to commit to item 3. I will commit to the intent of item 3 and coming
up with a plan that works but I don’t want to necessarily want to
commit to this particular solution.
Mr. Valanzano said item number 3 that he is referring to is on
page 3 of the report. That gave you an example of what (inaudible).
The recommendation on the motion in the Staff Report on page 5 alluded
to a lot looser. I gave you a detail of what potentially it could look
like but the language in the motion I think that is relevant to this
tonight is number 6 on page 5 at the very bottom. I think that
language is a lot softer and maybe takes care of his concerns.
Mr. Paul said please disregard what I just said. Note 6 is
acceptable.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, is the new parking lot 100% car parked and
not semi parked?
Mr. Paul said that is correct.
Mr. Valanzano said you might want to go to the site plan and show
that little expanded area for truck parking.
Mr. Paul said Mr. Valanzano is referring to the additional
trailer spaces located in this area. Those are being added as part of
this project and it is our belief that those are also going to be
screened with a proposed berm.
Mr. Kirchoff said my concern was, when I looked at the first
page, were 592 spaces going to be for semis? I just wanted to clarify
that is where we were.
Mr. Brandgard asked, what color would the chain link fence be?
Mr. Paul said black vinyl coating.
Mr. McPhail said DRC covered that pretty thoroughly.
Mr. Kirchoff said Mr. Valanzano you suggested wording about the
traffic.
Mr. Valanzano said it would probably be most appropriate, as a
last condition for the Development Plan approval, so you could add it
to number five of the very last page.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, and the wording is?
Ms. Whicker said “road improvement, as indicated in the traffic
study, shall be considered an agreement by Town Council.”
Mr. Valanzano said, “subject to an agreement with the Town
Council.” “Roadway improvements set forth in the traffic study subject
to agreement with the Town Council.”
1.
Adequate provisions have been made for regulation of
minimum lot width, minimum lot depth and minimum lot area.
2.
Adequate provisions have been made for the widths, grades,
curves and coordination of subdivision public ways with
current and planned public ways.
3.
Adequate provisions have been made for the extension of
water, sewer and other municipal services.
1.
The granting of the waiver will not be detrimental to the
public safety, health or welfare or injurious to other
property.
2.
The conditions upon which the requests for the waivers are
based are unique to the property for which waivers are
sought and are not applicable generally to other property.
3.
Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape or
topographical conditions of the specific property involved,
a particular hardship to the owner would result, as
distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict
letter of these regulations are carried out.
4.
The waivers will not contravene the provisions of the
Plainfield Zoning Ordinance or the Comprehensive Plan.
1.
Compliance with the Town standards, including but not
limited to: Plainfield Ordinance No. 1-96 regarding
Floodplain Management; Plainfield Ordinance Nos. 4-94 and
3-86 regarding Sewage Works; Plainfield Ordinance No. 17-97
regarding Drainage; Plainfield Ordinance No. 19-97
regarding Municipal Waterworks and Plainfield Ordinance No.
18-97 regarding Access Permits.
2.
Compliance with the standards and specifications of the
Plainfield Subdivision Control Ordinance.
3.
All lots created by an incremental Secondary Plat shall
have either (a) direct access to and from a public street;
or (b) gain access to and from a public street across a
perpetual recorded access easement.
4.
All lots created by an incremental Secondary Plat shall
either contain within the limits of the incremental
Secondary Plat or have legal access to adequate
infrastructure to accommodate the fully developed needs of
the Incremental Plat (i.e. storm water management, sanitary
sewer, water, electric, gas, telephone, etc.)
5.
A 35’ area along the eastern boundary of the plat shall be
reserved for future right-of-way dedication, which shall be
provided within sixty days of the receipt of a written
request from the Town of Plainfield. No structures other
than parking and fencing shall be permitted within this
area until or unless a written statement is provided by the
Town to the property owner releasing the 35’ area from such
reservation.
6.
The Secondary Plat for any lot within this primary plat
shall include appropriate language acknowledging that
access and utilities may not be available to the individual
lots and stating the conditions required prior to any
development occurring on said lots.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
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.
1.
Substantial compliance with the Site Plan, Building Rear –
Site/Grade Plan, Landscape Plan and Lighting Plans file
dated October 21, 2005 provided the site plan is redesigned
to comply with setback requirements from the Regent lot.
2.
Town Council approval of all encroachments into the twoplatted
common areas/drainage easements abutting the
northeast and northwest ends of the site.
3.
Board of Zoning Appeals approval of a variance of setback
and landscape relocation for portions of Lot 1 abutting the
common areas/detention ponds and landscape easement along
I-70.
4.
Should the Town acquire the property south of Lot 1 from
the airport authority, Town Council approval of berming and
landscaping with a 40’ landscape easement south of Lot 1.
5.
The road improvements as indicated in the traffic study
shall be subject to agreement by Town Council.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail made a motion to suspend the rules to continue the
agenda. Second by Mr. Kirchoff. Motion carried.
Mr. Matrana said the next matter before the board tonight
concerns a special request for a public hearing, PP-05-006 concerning
Plainfield Crossing.
Mr. Valanzano said we went through a lot of the details on the
request the last time around. The petitioner was in asking for a
special request. (Inaudible). The petitioner didn’t want to follow
that recommendation for the interpretation change so we had them go
back (inaudible) to reconsider. That condition was at the right-of-way
for the extension of Shady Lane, which this area right here
(inaudible). Shady Lane is proposed to come down through here. The
property that is included in this plat comes all the way down to this
line through here. The condition of the grant for this lot up in this
area coming down into the parking lot here was approved for the
development of National City Bank. The condition was at the time the
lot is recorded for that development to occur for that once the plat is
recorded that this entire right-of-way down to here should be dedicated
and connected with that plat. National City Bank went through the
development plan process and was approved. A secondary plat was
presented, fine, give us the right-of-way, show it on the plat, record
it. That is where it ran into some obstacles. There are lot of things
going on there that I don’t want to get into. I think we are a little
beyond the Plan Commission’s jurisdiction here. It had to do with the
rights of the tenant who acquired interest to use this building during
or after the time National City was going through the approval and then
a sub-tenant that came into the picture. A lot of it dealt with access
to the loading dock area in here. It boils down to legal issues that I
will let Mr. Daniel get into if he wants. I tried to summarize it very
briefly in the Staff Report. We feel, from the Town’s prospective, we
are on good ground in being able to require the dedication of right-ofway.
We do not believe that the dedication of right-of-way results in
a compensable taking. However, we do recognize tying all of this has
caused some difficulties for National City.
What I have done in the Staff Report is the first motion that I
indicated as requested is what the petitioner has requested in letter.
Ben Comer can explain his rational in more detail but that is word for
word the motion and the request that was made by the petitioner. For a
number of reasons Staff has concerns with the way those motions are
identified. First they really focus into condition number two being
either to allow the balance of Shady Lane right-of-way to accompany the
final plat for the balance of the property. Our problem is unless
there is a development that occurs on the balance of the property that
requires an Improvement Location Permit that may never occur. If that
never occurs, you never get the right-of-way. From that prospective
that is not acceptable. Or at such time as the legal issue regarding
the right-of-way has been resolved. It doesn’t indicate which one
comes first or last or if one or the other and that may take years to
be resolved and the Town has an obligation to get that road through
within three years from the date (inaudible). So, for a number of
reasons Option “A” doesn’t work. In terms of Option “B” it says to
allow the petitioner to do things reserving all rights and claims of
their tenant. To do that really admits that there are damages in
advance of any arguments being heard. I talked with Staff, especially
with Mr. McGillem, with knowledge of how truck maneuvering works and we
believe that area can work. It may not be 100% ideal but it can work.
It can function officially. There are several design options that can
be looked at so to go with Option “B” would be to admitting to
something that we don’t, as Staff, thinks exists. So, for those
reasons we don’t think going with the option, as requested, is
appropriate.
Having said that I’m going back to my earlier statement that we
do think that National City has got caught up in something that is
bigger than them and is not their fault. How can we work with them to
work their situation out and still allow some flexibility to allow
these other issues to be resolved by the property owner and the tenants
and the sub-tenants? We structured alternative commitments for an
alternative motion that would solve the immediate needs for the
National City plat. It would clearly set the private lease issues out
as private issues and not issues that the Town needs to be dealing
with. It does set a specific date for compliance and it admits nothing
on our part or the Town’s part with respect to any taking or
obligations with the loading docks or anything like that. Prior
statements reference and representation would still be intact. We would
not be doing anything there and it would give the petitioner up to four
or five months to resolve the issues and that date was the date that
was initially suggested at the last meeting by one of the petitioner’s
representatives. It’s not one that I just pulled out of the air. So,
that is the background on where we are today and what our
recommendations are and why we structured the recommendations the way
that we have.
Mr. Matrana asked, would the petitioner representing Plainfield
Crossing have anything to say about this?
Mr. Ben Comer at 71 W. Marion St., Danville said I’m here on
behalf of your petitioner and landowner. I would just like to add a few
comments and National City has some representatives here also to add a
few comments. It boils down to the petitioner wishing to separate two
issues, the National City Bank outlot. We would like to separate that
issue from the Shady Lane right-of-way issue because the outlot and
tenant user is ready to go and the Shady Lane right-of-way issues are
not ready to go. The tenant and sub-tenant of that building believe
the road design burdens the use of the loading docks to the point that
they can’t (inaudible) litigation. It is the fact. I wish it wasn’t
the case but it is. So, we need to work that out and there are a lot
of different parties involved, the tenant, the sub-tenant, the Town.
To put a time restriction on the landowner giving the right-of-way
certainly puts an incentive to the landowner to get this worked out but
the problem is there are other things involved that a time restriction
is not going to be an incentive. It is not going to light a fire and
make this thing happen quickly. For that reason I don’t believe a
certain time restriction is going to get us anywhere. What we can say
is if it is not worked out by a certain date we will be willing to give
the right-of-way but ladies and gentlemen we have no choice from a
legal prospective any right-of-way giving would be taking reservation
for other parties’ rights. We have no choice based on the information
that we received from the interesting parties.
The language in the right-of-way grant reserving its rights
certainly is no admission on the Town’s part that it is a compensable
take. It is not admission on the Town’s part whatsoever to that
regard. It leaves the question open, of course. The Town is correct
in the assessment that there is no damage or burden to the loading dock
area and we hope that you are right. Then there shouldn’t be any
litigation in that regard. In the end, as I stated in writing and
verbally on record, the landowner is willing to commit to the right-ofway.
If and until the legal issues surrounding that grant can be
completely resolved we have no choice but to make some reservations in
such grant for the rights of other parties. So, again we are asking to
separate the two issues because National City Bank is ready to go and
the Shady Lane right-of-way is not yet ready to go until the legal
issues are resolved. If our request is denied and the outlot lapses,
National City Bank will obviously have to find someplace else to go and
the Town is still no closer to getting their right-of-way grant for
Shady Lane. In that particular case it is a lose lose situation where
nobody in this room is accustomed to participating in a lose lose
situation. For that reason our proposal, as stated in my October 6th
letter we believe is a win win situation and we are asking for your
support of that request. With that I would like to introduce you to
Betty Conklin. She is also an attorney in Danville who represents
National City Bank.
Ms. Betty Conklin at 105 N. Washington St., Danville said I’m
here on behalf of National City Bank and I realize it is getting late
so we have put together a very brief presentation. I have some
representatives from National City Bank to assist me in making a brief
presentation. I have Ken Sebree from Sebree Architects to show a
proposed photograph of the proposed building. It is actually the Avon
location but it will be very similar to the building that is placed at
this location.
Mr. Sebree with Sebree Architects said this has gone through plat
approval, site plan, DRC and everything else so I’m not going to
belabor all of this. I wanted to refresh your memories on what the
proposed National City Bank prototype looks like. Here is a photograph
of a similar building, same materials, few minor differences. We
committed to some higher parapets for screening the rooftop units, etc.
on this particular location in Plainfield. But the basic shape, type
of materials, color of materials, are proposed to be the same, even the
blueprint of the building for the Plainfield branch that we are
proposing on this location. The materials are brick all the way around
on all sides. We have a heavily landscaped lot proposed and the
landscape plan has already been approved. There is a standing seam
metal roof that should look great 30 years from now as well as the
first year. That is pretty much it as far as the design of the
building. As I said, I’m not going into detail because it has already
been approved. It is just a matter of reminding everybody the type of
structure. It is a very high-quality building. I think I can probably
say this that National City Bank spends over a million dollars for each
branch bank that they build and that is not counting the land cost. I
hope I’m not speaking out of line but they do build a quality building,
that is what we are trying to say.
Ms. (Inaudible) said for National City Bank. My office is
located at 10523 (Inaudible). I would like to start by thanking the
Plan Commission for hearing our request. I would like to give you a
brief overview of National City’s history as it pertains to the local
community and discuss our economic development and our commitment to
community welfare. National City has a strong history for 160 years of
experience. We have been serving the Plainfield community since 1993
at which time we acquired the Merchant’s Bank. As of the most recent
FDIC data published in June 2005 National City Bank has approximately
6% of the market share. Including the Plainfield office we have six
locations in Hendricks County. Ten of the 11 employees live here
locally. As noted, we are committed to economic development. In 2005
National City has made monetary contributions to both the Hendricks
County Economic Development Partnership as well as the Hendricks County
Foundation. To encourage local economic development in the Plainfield
office we have dedicated a small business banking office to work with
local small businesses. Secondly, we have been designated to be the
number SBA lender in the area. In April 2004 National City Bank
financed 1.5 million dollar lease for the purchase of new police cars,
motorcycles and fire vehicles for the Town of Plainfield. We also
support local housing growth with a wide range of mortgage products and
have a dedicated mortgage officer to serve the Plainfield community.
Lastly, the Plainfield has been active in the interlocal school system.
In addition to being committed to the economic development we are
also very much committed to community involvement. Greg Glaub who is
the branch manager of the Plainfield office is an active member of the
Plainfield Chamber of Commerce. In addition Greg is the co-chair of
the Hendricks County March of Dimes. Representing National City he
contributes both his time and financial support to this local
initiative. We are a sponsor of the Plainfield Plus and our office
members actively participate both in volunteer and sponsorship
opportunities at a local level.
In summary this new site is important to National City Bank and
it is very important to the local community. It is a critical part of
our network within Hendricks County and it will help us grow and
continue our support in Plainfield. We have been grateful for the
opportunity to serve the community over the past 12 years and we look
forward to serving you in the future. With that again thank you for
your consideration.
Lady from the audience said I submitted a letter on behalf of
National City Bank in October 2005. It was a letter in support of the
landowner’s petition. Just to summarize this letter first we believe
this is an ideal location for a bank. It is in an area that obviously
is growing. It is a destination point. Wal-Mart is a huge destination
point. I know I’ve been there twice this week already. If a store
like Value City goes in, it is going to be even more of a destination
point. So, it is an ideal location for a bank. It is a beautiful
facility. It is a constant revenue commercial use so it is just a
great location. Second, National City Bank is an active part of our
community. We want to continue to be part of our community. With the
current state of affairs with their Kroger lease they have to go
somewhere. There is not just that much readily developable land in
Plainfield with their use right now. So, this is an area that has
already been approved for site development and this is where they would
like to be. Finally, we offered to donate the land as a generous offer
to you. I know the first three years of my career I was in the
business of taking property on behalf of the State of Indiana for the
Department of Transportation. So, I know how expensive land
acquisition is so to be able to have that land donated to you, even
though there may be the issue of (inaudible) damages to the tenant it
still saves the Town what could be potentially hundreds of thousands of
dollars in land cost. Of course, from our prospective it gets up into
that site now and that is what National City really needs. We really
appreciate your consideration from the landowner’s request and modify
the condition and we ask that you accept that.
Mr. Comer said we have no further comments except to answer any
questions at this point.
Mr. Matrana asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care
to speak on this matter with your comments and/or concerns? Being no
one coming forward we will close the public portion of the meeting and
open this up to the board for further discussion and possible motion
concerning National City Bank.
Mr. McPhail said I would like to make a comment and take
exception to a couple of comments from the representatives. I
certainly believe that National City has gotten involved in the middle
of an issue that they can’t resolve. I fully support trying to give
them some relief in a manner to move this thing forward. I do take
exception to the fact that the representatives believe that this is a
major gift to the Town of Plainfield to dedicate this land. This lot
would not be available and would not have been developable had we not
worked with the drainage issues and the things with the Wal-Mart sight.
We do have an investment with this already and I just don’t believe
that your interpretation of a gift of the land is near as valuable
because we have already gotten an investment in this piece of property.
I do want to make that statement. I believe that the property owner is
a man of integrity. He has made a commitment to work through this
thing with us. I don’t know which is the best way to move forward but I
certainly support moving this forward and allowing the National City
project to move forward and still protect the interests of the Town of
Plainfield. However, is best to do that I am going to support it.
Mr. Kirchoff said I concur. My question would be why wouldn’t
the alternative be appropriate?
Mr. McPhail said it appears to me that it would be. That gives
them 120 days or so to get the issue resolved and it lets the bank move
forward. I would believe through the interpretation of the motion that
we would have some recourse on the property owner if we don’t get it by
March 31, 2006. This is a very complicated issue. I think there has
been a lot of efforts to get it resolved before we got to this point
and we haven’t been able to get that done.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, Mr. Daniel do you have any words of wisdom?
Mr. Daniel said not really. I think Mr. Valanzano has done a
nice job of putting together very briefly the issue. For those of us
who have been watching this piece of property develop for a long period
of time I think it has been the understanding since the apartments went
in down there that at some point thereafter this road would be
connected between the apartments and U.S. 40. And I believe even any
project on the north side of U.S. 40 to match up with this particular
part of Shady Lane when it went in.
Mr. Comer said if I could just give us our prospective on why the
alternative motion does not work. The time restriction puts a burden
and an incentive on the landowner but there (inaudible). The time
restriction does nothing (inaudible). We had a time restriction before
thinking it was plenty of time but we can’t get it resolved.
Mr. Kirchoff said if we don’t, it could just go on and on and on.
Mr. Comer said we are willing to give the right-of-way but if the
legal issues are not involved but subject to those legal issues. We
will hand it over to you but if the tenant and sub-tenant impacts it
negatively, we may be incurring a risk there. But I’m not convinced
that it will get resolved by March 31st. We cannot tell you that it
will be resolved because there are other players involved. We can tell
you (inaudible).
Mr. Daniel asked, how are you going to reserve rights belonging
to other parties?
Mr. Comer said Roy O’Brien would be happy to explain that.
Mr. Roy O’Brien from Carmel, Indiana said the technical term
would be that we would be waiving all benefits that the owners of the
property might be entitled to so that if you proceeded to take the
property, the only person whose rights that you would be taking would
be the tenant. Therefore, you would proceed to condemn as to the
tenant and the issue then would get resolved as to whether there are
damages to the resident. There is no omission in the resolution that
we proposed. In fact, if you want to put in the words “if any” where
it says, “with respect to damage” and put in the words “if any” to the
residual property. That is all that we are really saying. We need to
preserve the right of the tenant to make its claim or damages in
connection with any condemnation of that real estate. The owners will
waive all benefits, all rights that the owners might have, which gives
you the full value of real estate for free. If you want it in the form
of a deed that reserves the sub-tenants rights or however we state it,
the fact is all you would have to do, if it is not completed by
whatever date, file a condemnation suit against the tenant. You would
not have to condemn the owners’ rights because the owners would have
waived all its rights. But we can’t give to you the tenants’ leasehold
estate. This tenant has a 30 year plus lease estate in this property
and it has to be taken. We can’t give it to you. That’s the point
that we are making. If the Staff is correct, there are not damages,
then there is no cost to the alternative that we have out there.
Mr. Daniel said if they go forward with the motion that the Town
is proposing, and the owner, through the platting process, dedicates to
the Town, what is the tenant’s move at that point? Do you sue the
owner or the Town?
Mr. O’Brien said we would not be able to dedicate without
reserving the rights of the tenant. All we can give you, and our
ownership is subject to the rights of the tenant, even if we gave you a
deed that didn’t reserve those rights, the tenant could assert that you
have to condemn its right to get them.
Mr. Daniel asked, is that because of lease documents?
Mr. O’Brien said right. That is a recorded lease. It is an
interest in land that is of record. We can’t give you that tenant’s
rights by anything that we do. Any deed we give you has to be subject
to all rights of record. Even if we gave it to you, the tenant could
still file a suit for inverse condemnation on account of you taking the
property and would sue us as a party at the time.
Mr. Daniel asked, when did the lease commence, do you know?
Mr. O’Brien said 1984. Actually there was a lease that predated
that but the lease that I am familiar with is 1984. And it is
renewable for an additional 30 years from this time forward.
(Inaudible).
Mr. Daniel asked, who are the parties that we are dealing with on
the lease portion?
Mr. O’Brien said the lease was originally to Wal-Mart. Wal-
Mart’s rights were sold to Galyan’s by assignment. Actually Wal-Mart
reserved some phenomenal override on account it continues to remain
obligated on a lease. Galyan’s then during the past year sold its
rights to an entity that is owned by Premier Development Company. It’s
an LLC called OWM and since that date OWM has either entered into a
letter of intent or actually entered into a sub-lease, I’m not certain
yet, with Value City. Value City’s rights are not of record but OWM’s
rights are of record and it is a successor and interest so its
interests relates back to Wal-Mart’s interests and it goes back to
1984. OWM is now the tenant under the 1984 Wal-Mart lease and has the
right to continue that lease for an additional 30 years.
Mr. Daniel said OWM is really the…..
Mr. O’Brien said Premier. I have a letter here from October 28th
from their attorney stating there is no question that the Shady Lane
extension coupled with interim (inaudible) and curb cuts makes the
truck dock unusable and the letter goes on and continues to threaten
the lawsuit. I got an e-mail today continuing to threaten a lawsuit.
Regardless of what we do there is still going to be a lawsuit unless we
get this resolved and there still can be an inverse condemnation
lawsuit against the City or the Town for damages in addition to the
lawsuit against our client for a breach of the lease. A breach of the
lease would be based on the outlot and the inverse condemnation and
based on Shady Lane.
Mr. Comer said going back to the alternative motion the number 2
is something that we cannot do, as written, if that is the pleasure of
the Plan Commission. This is a dead deal because we cannot do this as
written. We would need to put some additional language in number two
at the very bottom of your page 3. I agree to make that work or our
request is still the motion submitted, my October 6th letter, which is
outlined in the middle of your letter, page 3.
Mr. O’Brien said with the offer of putting in words such as “if
any” or if you want to go on to say “without omission the narrowing of
sub-standards” or something to that affect.
Mr. Valanzano said the details for the lease of 1984 don’t they
require the provision or the maintenance of a certain number of parking
per ratio of the building that is leased and goes no further than that
in terms of any other improvements on the property?
Mr. O’Brien said in terms of improvements of or changes of the
property that is an entirely different issue that just relates to the
breach of the lease. It has nothing to do with the condemnation issue.
If, in fact, there is a taking by virtue of this road going on in and
impacting the residual estate the inverse condemnation claim could be
claimed regardless whether or not it is a breach of the lease. Back to
what you said about the lease itself our view, as stated in the
contentions going back and forth between us and the tenant’s lawyers,
is that the tenant’s rights of approval with respect to this outlot
location and reconfiguration of the parking lot is the five spaces per
1,000 preservation. The tenant’s view is they have a right to approve
on every change that we make on the site. So, in theory the tenant can
sue us for damages for even putting this outlot in in addition to the
damages for the inverse condemnation. We don’t believe they would be
successful on the suit in regard to putting the outlot in because we
believe they are incorrect in their interpretation (inaudible). We do
have a feeling that they would be successful in regard to the impact on
the loading dock (inaudible).
Mr. Daniel asked, when you say successful, do you mean as far as
damages?
Mr. O’Brien said their damages claim could be combined with their
breach of lease claim and it could be stated, as I said before, as an
inverse condemnation claim against the Town to the extent that the Town
actually goes in and puts a road there.
Mr. Comer said they don’t have incentive to come to the table to
get this resolved.
Mr. O’Brien said they have one incentive. That is the Value City
sub-lease hinges upon getting all these things worked out. They know
they are not going to get an approval to go forward with the Value City
re-plat or all the things that they need to do to rebuild that store
without resolving these issues with the landowner, the Town and the
tenant. They have an incentive to get the Value City sub-lease done
because they are paying rent to us every month and they are getting no
rent from a sub-tenant. Value City wants (inaudible) so they have that
incentive but to the extent they have that incentive, even with that
incentive, they are continuing to try to insert claims against us on
account of these road improvements because they want to improve the
quality of the deal that they had. As long as they continue to have
pressure from Value City and from both sides, eventually it will get
worked out. If you put a deadline on it, they will just wait for that
deadline in hopes that everyone else collapses. So, that they can walk
away from the table with more money than they now have.
Mr. Daniel said if the Town does not put a deadline on it
theoretically they could sit here and do nothing.
Mr. O’Brien said if the Town doesn’t put a deadline on it, then
they know that they are still involved in this suit and the issue of
this question not withstanding whatever happens or doesn’t happen.
They have threatened the Town as well as us. They (inaudible). If the
outlot is approved and moves forward, then that takes away one piece
that they think they could get paid for and we could get the issues
narrowed down to the road. We believe if the issue was narrowed down
to the road, it would get resolved because they have the incentive to
get the Value City deal resolved. We have an incentive to get this
resolved and to get Value City in there as well. It is good for our
(inaudible).
Mr. Comer said what we do have is a continued commitment to the
Town to donate this right-of-way (inaudible). The question is when?
Before or after all the legal issues get resolved?
Mr. O’Brien said if we are successful, along with Staff,
convincing them there is a way to work out the loading dock and the
parking that will not have a negative cost impact on them, that is
great for us, great for the Town and great for everybody. At the
present time they are saying it would cost somewhere between
$175,000.00 and $200,000.00-$250,000.00 to make the adjustments that
are caused by the road on account of the dock and the parking. What we
are essentially trying to do is to work that number down between now
and however long it takes. (Inaudible).
Mr. Daniel said I’m a little reluctant to take everybody off the
hook here quite frankly. I wouldn’t mind taking a look at that lease
if somebody would be willing to provide it.
Mr. O’Brien said it has been provided to Staff. I don’t think
you are letting anybody off the hook by providing approving
(inaudible). You still have our commitment to get the road. There is
a person who is not in this room and that person is making claims for
damages and making threats to sue.
Mr. Daniel said if the bank goes forward and if you don’t get an
agreement, when does the Town get the road?
Mr. O’Brien said when one of two things happens. We can assign
over our interest at any point and time. The Town gets the road
whenever it wants to take it. You can file a condemnation suit and
have control of that road within 60-90 days. Then the issue of damages
between the Town and the tenant will have to get resolved but we can’t
resolve that issue here today. (Inaudible).
Mr. Daniel said we can also have the tenant file his inverse
condemnation case and put a burden on him to go to court.
Mr. O’Brien said right. We would give you all our rights whatever
form of instrument you want. You can go ahead and put the (inaudible).
We would do that tomorrow.
Mr. Daniel said I know this has been around for awhile but I
would be inclined to see if the commission was interested in throwing
this over for another month and take a look at the (inaudible).
Mr. Carlucci said what I was going to suggest is bring this back
Thursday to have some time to think about because everybody is tired
already.
Mr. Daniel said we are going to have another Plan Commission
meeting this Thursday.
Mr. Carlucci said we are continuing until Thursday night and we
can bring this back in and discuss it some more by a vote of the Plan
Commission to continue this until Thursday night. That will give the
attorneys time to talk a little bit.
Mr. Brandgard said I think we would like to get National City off
the hook but we want to make sure that we truly understand what it is
that we are trying to do and how we are trying to do it.
Mr. Carlucci said to get them off the hook without getting us on
a bigger hook.
Ms. Whicker made a motion to continue PP-05-006 to Thursday
night, November 10, 2005. Second by Mr. McPhail. Motion carried.
Mr. Matrana said the next motion before the board concerns Wal-
Mart Stores, DP-03-004.
Mr. Valanzano said the screening the rooftop mechanical units the
interpretation of the ordinance states that the equipment shall be
screened based upon an elevation view of the building on all sides.
The elevation view means that the parapet should be the same height or
higher than the rooftop units. The design of the building does not
accomplish that. There are units scattered all over the rooftop. They
have done a series of line of sight studies and photos. They showed
about 30 pictures. From a lot of points that you can see identified on
the aerial photography. To be honest in most cases you cannot see the
units from those views. It doesn’t comply with the ordinance but it
was something that the Plan Commission would have to approve in terms
of a waiver. It is not something that Staff or DRC could say that it
was okay. DRC did recommend approval of a waiver of the screening to
allow the way the building (inaudible). If you have driven to the site
up to Clarks Creek, Shady Lane, or what have you, what you see is what
you are going to get in this case if you approve that.
The second issue was the shopping cart corrals. I have an update
for you from what is in the Staff Report. (Inaudible). That detail is
basically the same as the top photograph of the first page of the Staff
Report. I sent it out to DRC and got a couple of responses back. The
landscape that they proposed and the detail that they proposed
(inaudible) and DRC said that is what we are looking for. There are a
couple of other enforcement items going on in changing out the white
fixtures. They have been working with us on doing something on the
chain link fence to either get that coated with a black vinyl coating
or to replace it with a vinyl chain link fence. They are supposed to
get us a sample and let us know so that DRC can look at it. So, we are
working through all of those issues. I think we have a resolution with
the cart corral issues and that comes down to the screening of the
mechanical units.
On the cart corrals request on the motion, just to get the
details right, if you like this drawing in the top drawing that was on
the top photo in your report, I would suggest that the last motion
would be to approve the Special Request regarding the Plan Commission
approval and instead of “metal pipe cart corrals” change that to “Plan
Commission approval of the cart corral detail file dated November 7,
2005.” With that I would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Matrana said this is a public meeting. Is there anyone in
the audience who would care to speak on this hearing?
Mr. Comer at 71 W. Main St., Danville said I will just give you a
quick background how we got to this point. Just a quick background to
how we got to this point (inaudible). There are some text changes.
(Inaudible). Not everybody will have a clear understanding in how the
Town will interpret the text in the Zoning Ordinance. So, no formal
waiver was requested. We almost hit the mark even not knowing what we
were doing so we can certainly (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail said DRC has really worked hard on the screening
issue. Wal-Mart has stepped up to the plate based on several on
changes to the front facade of the building to screen these. This was
a pretty sensitive issue to the Plan Commission and DRC I think has
really worked hard to try to get this thing this close to conforming as
we could. I think the problem that you would have with this building,
if for some reason the south side of this thing that the mobile home
park went away and you put some kind of other development in the back
and put some roadways through, would you be able to notice that these
things are not all screened in from that elevation. But I believe from
the east and west and north I don’t think there is an issue with it. I
think they finally got to the point that DRC says that they have done
as good of job as they could. You can’t see it from the back but there
is no place that you can drive down there to see it today. It is not
like some of the issues that we have had where you just drive by and
you see the units. On the front of the building they put some more
decorative things up in addition as the building was going on.
Mr. Valanzano said the units from the front were visible and Wal-
Mart was contacted about that and they immediately called the
architects and you can see what they added to the top of the building
to screen those units from U.S. 40. Like Mr. McPhail said the ones in
the back, unless the mobile home park goes away, those won’t be seen
either.
1.
The proposed development represents an innovative use of
building materials and site design features which will
enhance the use or value of area properties.
2.
The proposed development is consistent with and compatible
with other development located within and along the Gateway
Corridor and within six-hundred (600) feet of a Residential
District.
3.
The proposed development is consistent with the intent and
purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
