The Plainfield Plan Commission met on Thursday, November 10, 2005
at 6:30 p.m. as a continuation of the meeting from 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
OATH OF TESTIMONY
Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Testimony.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mr. Matrana reviewed the Guidelines Governing the Conduct of
Public Hearings. At this time I would like to ask Mr. Valanzano if
there would be any changes tonight in the sequence of the petitions to
be heard?
Mr. Valanzano said what I would like to do first of all is ask if
there is anybody in the audience on RZ-05-018, a petition by the Town
of Plainfield at 942 South Raceway Road. That petition we found out
late yesterday afternoon that there was an error in the notice that was
sent out to an adjacent property owner. It was due to error records in
the County. So, the immediate adjacent property owner was not given
notice. So, we would ask that this petition be continued to the
December hearing of the Plan Commission with notice being required to
be sent to that individual property owner.
Mr. Brandgard made a motion to continue RZ-05-018, Town of
Plainfield at 942 South Raceway Road to the December Plan Commission
meeting. Second by Mr. Kirchoff. Motion carried.
Mr. Valanzano said secondly, if you don’t mind, you might want to
juggle the order of the petitions that you have on your agenda a little
bit. The first change that I would suggest making is hearing the
conclusion of the Special Request for Primary Plat, PP-05-006 as the
public hearing had been closed on that matter. I believe Mr. Daniel
has some comments that he would like to make and then it is at the Plan
Commission’s pleasure as to how they want to proceed with that one.
The second change that I might suggest is the first petition you
have on your agenda is for DP-05-027 for Joyce Hoyt. We might want to
move that to last. The reason being I believe they were under the
impression that the meeting was to start at 7:30 tonight. So, we might
just want to move that to the end and give them time to get here, if
you don’t mind. With that I believe we can move to the continuation
hearing for the Special Request for Primary Plat PP-05-006 for
Plainfield Crossing, LLC.
Mr. Daniel said if you will recall last Monday night, we
commenced the public hearing on this and closed the public hearing.
After that there was some discussion about the motion that might be
appropriate under the circumstances. That has been continued. There
has been discussions between myself, Mr. Comer and Roy O’Brien
regarding an appropriate motion to deal with the issues that were
discussed at some length after the public hearing was closed. We have
provided to the Plan Commission this evening the proposed motion if the
Plan Commission is prepared to act on that petition. I don’t believe
any objections have been made, as a matter of record, in this
proceeding. So, I believe it is ready to go forward if the Commission
is ready. If you have any questions, I would be glad to answer them.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, do you believe this protects all parties and
allows us to move forward?
Mr. Daniel said yes.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion that the Plan Commission approve a
modification to Condition #3 imposed at the July 11, 2005 public
hearing on PP-05-006 to read as follows:
Second by Mr. Brandgard. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. Matrana said at this time the next order of business before
the Plan Commission shall be DP-05-032, NAI Olympia Partners.
Mr. Valanzano said the next petition is for Development Plan
Review for Architectural and Site Design Review for review and approval
for approximately a 12,736 square foot retail building to be located on
Lot 3 of the Plainfield Commerce Center. If you look at the graphics
on the first page of the Staff Report, you can see the three lots along
Quaker Boulevard, this being the middle lot. If you recall, we had a
Development Plan approval not too long ago that said Lots 2; 3 and 4
would be subject to sharing property lines for access and parking in
exchange for doubling landscaping around the perimeter and around the
buildings. This lot is the middle of those three lots.
With respect to the Site Plan, as indicated in the Staff Report,
it does comply with the ordinance at this time. It does comply with
the recommendations of the Design Review Committee. Just so that you
know the Design Review Committee had asked for three changes in the
site design. One had to do with additional zoning in the back of the
property. One had to do with the relocation of the trash enclosure and
the other one had to do with the addition of some pedestrian routes
through the property. All those changes have been made and a couple of
those points I will get too a little more in detail.
The primary building will look very similar to the building that
I have the photograph up on. The main difference is this would be the
center feature of the building that would be developed in Plainfield.
Step down to about this point, this is a larger point. It has an extra
space on it. When I looked at that, I was a little bit concerned about
this being the big end of the building but realizing the building will
be built here and will come from a center feature down to approximately
there I really didn’t have a concern how the design was going to look.
It was going to be a little bit less scaled, a smaller scale than this
one. And then based on that the amount of features that are being
added to that central portion of the building will stand out more and
be more predominate. So, the Design Review Committee is comfortable
with the materials, the “Quik Brick” material that you see the samples
of down at the bottom, those are the actual colors, and how the
building was going to look.
The Design Review Committee did request some questions of the
petitioner regarding the canvas awnings to be used on the building.
The petitioner indicated that they would have an owner’s association or
the responsibility of the landlord to make sure those are kept up-todate
and kept refreshed and looking clean and looking new. I indicated
a life expectancy of about five years each and it would be their
responsibility to keep them up-to-date as times goes on.
In terms of landscaping their landscaping plan has been revised.
It is consistent with the landscape plan from Monroe Bank and complies
with the Development Incentives’ requirements.
Their lighting plan, for the parking lot lights and the building
lights, comply. They are going to be using an architectural feature in
front of the building. It is only a 100-watt feature. It will
potentially be a little bit of a bulb exposed on the bottom but it will
be a 100-watt architectural light. Hopefully, it won’t be as bright as
what we have seen on the bank over here and won’t cause a glare. Based
on the wattage DRC was comfortable with that light selection.
The signs are going to be what we asked for in the ordinance, the
individual illuminated channel letters.
On the pedestrian connectivity the only point is at the northwest
corner of the site that is really kind of a minor thing but they made
all of the connection that we were asking for. My only comment has to
do with this connection at this point. Since they are putting in all
the infrastructure for the park and they are bringing the sidewalks up
and showing the paint striping across I think this little corner needs
to be put in as part of the infrastructure of the whole development of
the subdivision. You will have all these streets built. Everything
will be in place. This lot comes in and these have to come over here
and put a link on this side. It seems like this small pedestrian
connection should be part of the overall infrastructure improvements
with the initial development.
With that the only other thing that I wanted to mention to you is
when we looked at this plat initially, and there was discussion about
private streets going through here or public streets, we don’t have a
problem with it being private. As you see on the Staff Report, to the
right of Lot 4 going across the common area the street was originally
shown to come through here and this was going to be a full access
point. The street was going to come down here. Based on that this is
clearly an interior access drive. There is no question about the trash
enclosure being located in this area whether it be a private street or
public. At the very last minute when this plan was being reviewed,
they said we don’t think we are going to build this road anymore, we
are going to bring the main traffic here and then down. So, based on
the increased traffic volume here let’s move the dumpster out of this
corner and move it more centrally so we can also provide screening for
the loading dock. I just want to let you know what I did is interpret
this to be an interior access drive as opposed to any street. So, that
the enclosure can be there. Based on the increased traffic flow in
there I just wanted to raise that to your attention. If you have any
concern about that, we can make some adjustments to the Staff’s plan.
If not, that was the interpretation I made and we can just go forward
with it. Really those are the only comments I have on this and beyond
that I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have.
Mr. Brandgard said just a comment to your interpretation I guess
I don’t have any major problems with it as long as we have it recorded
somewhere. So, if it ever becomes a question sometime, we have it
down.
Mr. Jack Lashenik said I would just like to add a few comments to
Mr. Valanzano’s presentation. Mr. Valanzano did a great job. One
thing that I wanted to elaborate on is we shifted the dumpster slightly
in the rear and we have also added an additional landscaping,
evergreens and spruces along here to shield that in addition to
slightly moving it to the corner. That added landscaping was also
added, which conforms with the landscaping approval. Other than that I
would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. As far as
connectivity, we are going through an infrastructure design plan review
with the Town and that information has been incorporated to the
documents. However, they are going through the review process right
now by the engineers.
Mr. McPhail asked, is your engineering and development far enough
along where the retention ponds are defined as they are on this site?
Mr. Lashenik said toward the northwest corner of the site that is
a true statement. As far as Lot 10, there may be an opportunity for an
industrial developer to come in. We may be able to revise the location
of the ponds. However, the surface area of the overall site, that
drainage and detention service area accommodates for the development of
the overall site.
Mr. McPhail asked, which ones are set?
Mr. Lashenik said it will be this pond, these ponds here. Those
are set.
Mr. McPhail said the eastern part of this site have you requested
rezoning of that?
Mr. Lashenik said I think it was tabled until the December 5th
hearing.
Mr. McPhail asked, has the Monroe Bank started anything on the
site yet?
Mr. Valanzano said no sir. My understanding is that NAI needed
to go a little bit further in terms of their construction review
process so the bank could finalize their construction plans.
Mr. Matrana asked, is there anyone in the audience who has any
questions on this matter? Being no one coming forward I will close the
public portion and open it up to discussion among the board members
with a possible motion.
Mr. McPhail asked, Mr. Carlucci does this path system meet the
criteria that we need?
Mr. Carlucci said yes.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, has anything come up that caused us to make
any changes to the motion?
Mr. Valanzano said no.
1.
The Development Plan complies with all applicable
Development Standards of the district in which the site is
located.
2.
The Development Plan complies with all applicable
provisions of the Subdivision Control Ordinance for which a
waiver has not been granted.
3.
The Development Plan complies with all applicable
provisions for Architectural and Site Design Review for
which a waiver has not been granted.
4.
The proposed development is appropriate to the site and its
surroundings.
5.
The proposed development is consistent with the intent and
purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
1.
Substantial compliance with the site plan, landscape plan,
building elevations, photometric plan and light fixture cut
sheets file dated October 21, 2005 and the wal-pac cut
sheets file dated October 7, 2005.
2.
All signs shall comply with the sign hierarchy set forth in
Article 5.5 of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
3.
Pedestrian way connection to lot 1 shall be provided as
part of the initial phase of infrastructure development for
the Plainfield Commerce Center.
Second by Mr. Thibo. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. Valanzano said the Comprehensive Plan that you have in front
of you is something that Staff has worked on for a few months with the
help of Mr. McPhail, Mr. Haase and Mr. Kirchoff. Primarily this all
started out with respect to the roadway corridor. We provided
recommendations for a particular area, land use and transportation
recommendation for the area along U.S. 40 and the Ronald Reagan
Corridor with those two roadways coming together. Since we were into
the Comprehensive Plan map and making changes for the U.S. 40 and
Ronald Reagan area we decided to take a look at updating other areas in
the Town based on recent land use determination of the Council and the
Plan Commission and existing land uses. From light of some of the
changes that we have made to the Zoning Ordinance in terms of some
things that we have done and the lack of designation of having
industrial we have those land use recommendations or proposed
recommendations. We also have identified the planning area to the east
between the Town of Plainfield and the Town of Avon. I would note that
Monday night I gave you a copy of a letter from the Town of Avon that
makes their position known with respect to some recommendations. I
placed a letter from Browning Investments. Their primary concern seems
to be the fact that some of the dotted lines, that we have on the map
that I will get to in a few minutes, don’t line up exactly with some of
those solid lines. Those dotted lines are for a reason. They are
conceptual locations and if we need to, we can get into them in more
detail. With that I think I will let Mr. McGillem go into a summary
for you.
Mr. McGillem said I’m just going to summarize basically what we
are presenting here tonight. It is the same thing that we went over in
detail at our work session a couple of weeks ago when we got into a lot
of specifics associated with how we got started and how we got to where
we are, etc. I think what I will do is just skip through this pretty
quick. I think pretty much everyone here in the audience who is
interested in it knows these maps and what we have been doing more than
one time. So, it shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone who is even in the
audience here.
Essentially starting out here is the north approach out to Six
points Road Interchange, Stafford Road, Ronald Reagan Parkway, which
will continue north. Just north of Stafford Road it lays pretty much on
the old existing Six Points Road alignment. One of our objectives here
has been to tie down the full access points on the Ronald Reagan as we
go north to U.S. 40 and even on up to CR100S. This has been decided to
be done in conjunction with the overall Ronald Reagan Corridor study
that was done by the joint committees on access control. I don’t know
whether you can see it very well but this circle here is the
intersection of Ronald Reagan Road, which is a signalized intersection.
It’s, of course, the first full light north of the interchange. We go
to this point here and this is a full access that has been approved
associated with the Metro Air development, which is now under
construction.
We will have an access here on Stafford Road and a connecting
road coming around to the Ronald Reagan and this interconnecting road
will serve both the full access for the Metro and for this corner
parcel when it is developed.
As we go north on Ronald Reagan, here you see the Bright Pointe
building. Right here is about the east end of the Metropolis Parkway
that we had just finished or are in the process of finishing
constructing. We are looking at the Metropolis Parkway continuing all
the way across to Ronald Reagan Parkway and the Metropolis Parkway will
be the next full access north on the Ronald Reagan.
Moving on north of there you have Airtech that continues up and
makes a bend around a new building that Browning is completing.
The next full access would be Airtech and then it will line up
with what was referred to in the past as the old United connector,
which would go from Ronald Reagan over to the airport’s west perimeter
road. It ties in at the old United facilities. That would be the next
access.
Going on up Ronald Reagan you see a circle here, which has two
little circles in the middle. What we are showing there is this large
parcel that is subject to development where Ronald Reagan splits off
and from the standpoint of this development we have looked and
coordinated with the County, John Ayers and agreed that we would
recognize the need for full access at that point initially. However,
at some time in the future this, when all of the other interconnecting
roadways are put in, this may need to go to a partial right-in/rightout
only parcel access. But in the interim if this parcel kicks off
developing and needing access, then we would consider a full access
while that is being developed. The reason for that is because once
Ronald Reagan goes through there is very little access that you can
gain onto Ronald Reagan between Airtech and U.S. 40. So, there are
additional accesses needed in this area until you start getting these
interconnecting roadways in here.
Going on out to U.S. 40 the next full access onto Ronald Reagan,
continuing north on U.S. 40, this is CR200 coming across. There was
nothing going to be in between U.S. 40 and CR200 so similar to down
here we are looking at most likely being, at least initially, a full
access onto Ronald Reagan. Which, again, once other connecting roads
are done this may end up going back to a partial right-in/right-out
only access. We will have a full access onto CR200 and then north of
there there will be about a half mile farther north a full access
leading into a major development that will be occurring in this area.
And then there would be a full access at CR100 and then the next full
access would be U.S. 36 onto Ronald Reagan.
That pretty much identifies the access points in what we really
started out to do. This area here is ADESA. One of the things that we
tried to do with our update on our Thoroughfare Plan is create a
network of roadway systems that is going to take advantage of this
signal here that is existing. Of course, there is the new signal at
Ronald Reagan and an existing signal out here at Raceway Road. The
signal here at ADESA, once the Ronald Reagan comes through with an
existing roadway system, this access on U.S. 40 will essentially only
serve two dead-end streets. Basically, it serves ADESA and it serves
old U.S. 40, which will be cut off and a cul-de-sac put in where Ronald
Reagan comes through. In order to try to facilitate more access off of
that U.S. 40 we want to see a connection and somehow get down to
Airtech. We are looking at a connection getting across here where we
are looking at this, at least initially, as a full access point that
hopefully we can get all the way across and up to Raceway Road. This
east/west connection getting all the way across we know is going to be
very difficult, at least in this facility, because we have bat habitat,
we have a creek to cross, and there are some pretty significant
barriers there that we are going to have to deal with to accomplish
that.
On the east of Ronald Reagan what we are trying to do is when
Ronald Reagan comes through, you are looking at this whole area on the
southeast quadrant only having access here at the old U.S. 40 access
and also down here at the stub off of Airtech. Anybody living or
working needing to get in this area, once Ronald Reagan is done, they
would have to come across U.S. 40, get down on U.S. 40 and come over to
Six Points Road and then get back down around. Or they would have to
come down here at Airtech and come to Six Points Road. So, essentially
we feel we have to do something to access these areas in here. As a
part of doing that, we have gone back and we feel, in working with the
County, John Ayers, we have them at this point agreeing that when
Ronald Reagan comes through, to completely cut off Six Points Road at
U.S. 40. At least to leave Six Points Road where it intersects into
U.S. 40 as a right-in/right-out. You won’t be able to take a left
getting out of there or getting on Six Points because of the new left
turn median for Ronald Reagan and will extend beyond that Six Points
Intersection. But we do feel, even by leaving that as a partial access
on U.S. 40, a right-in/right-out, does provide some additional
accessibility, which was not going to be had. So, we are working on
that being tied in there.
Also, as I indicated, we want to see the ADESA signal tied in
somewhere to the Airtech. This gets us not only from this signal down
to Airtech, which will then get all the way across to the airport
perimeter road but it will also give access all the way down to
Stafford Road parallel to Ronald Reagan. It also gets us an access
down to where the Metropolis Parkway will extend east/west across to
help interconnect at that location in here.
We are seeing a lot of problems in this whole area in here
currently with Six Points Road closed down until we get Ronald Reagan
built. Airtech right now essentially is the only access through
Stafford Road. That is becoming a very significant problem. As we get
this through, we open up options for that traffic to distribute out of
there. We think that is going to be very important in order to
continue to have a reasonable flow in and out of the Browning
development.
East of Ronald Reagan a lot of this property is owned by the
airport, however, there are some large tracts being put in. They are
being put together by some private developers in here. We would like,
and we intend with our Thoroughfare Plan, to see that there is a
north/south connection, again, from where Airtech continues over the
perimeter road system and from Stafford Road. They interconnect in
here so that we can maximize the full access points of Airtech,
Metropolis Parkway, Metro Air and Stafford Road. This allows the
openings in here to get through and eliminates the problems of every
time somebody comes in with a development they all feel they have to
have a full access onto the Ronald Reagan Parkway, which is not going
to happen. That is kind of the overall network of what we are looking
at.
I might go to the more detailed plan in and around U.S. 40. This
here is sort of a blow-up of a little more integrate network of in and
around U.S. 40. You have U.S. 40 coming around here and ADESA and the
signal here at ADESA. You will have a new signal right in about here
before the Ronald Reagan. On out you have the signal at Raceway Road.
Turning on the network that we are looking at this is the Perry
Road signal here. This is Plainfield Commons Drive, we have a signal
here. This is the old railroad corridor that comes down and this piece
of roadway, solid yellow, is right now a private drive for ADESA that
has been built to Town’s standards. The intent is at some time it may
become a part of an additional network that would be taken into the
Town. As part of the ADESA signal and working with ADESA, there has
been discussion that there can be, and ADESA would be supportive, of a
roadway from their signal up and along their east property line up to
CR200. Again, this is part of the intent of making this signalized
intersection of U.S. 40 a more extensive network rather than just
serving a couple of properties. This also, by doing so, there is an
elimination of being able to get into this residential neighborhood
once the Ronald Reagan has gone up showing here with the red lines.
Because it is going to be difficult to get out of this subdivision
except for a right-in/right-out due to the left turn stacking up beyond
this. So, one of the things that we are looking at is extending this
roadway from ADESA and allows us to get an access point into this
residential subdivision from this new connecting roadway.
Back to the west, as I indicated, there is a signal here at the
Plainfield Commons. This is Andy Mohr Chevrolet and Andy Mohr Ford and
there are developments being proposed here. We have been working and
trying to coordinate for a potentially joint shared access for these
developments in here to be shared off a signalized possible
intersection with U.S. 40. That would minimize the full access points
along U.S. 40 in here, which would then tie in to continue this ADESA
drive over to Plainfield Commons and then over to CR900E. That is the
basis for that network.
Going east is the old U.S. 40 coming through. This area between
U.S. 40 and old U.S. 40 is a network of several very small parcels.
One of the things that we are proposing, and you will hear on the next
case tonight, is our desire at the location of the old U.S. 40 access
to cut through an access onto CR251 and vacating old U.S. 40 through
here, which opens up the potential of putting together larger parcels
fronting on U.S. 40 for future redevelopment. Again, with that we are
looking at the network of roadways coming in to tie all of this in and
tie in with Ronald Reagan through this area, the same way up on the
east side. With that unless there are any questions this is a clear
overview of what we discussed in detail in our work session.
I would like to point out again that Raceway Road that comes down
there is right now an intersection from Raceway Road to U.S. 40.
Raceway Road is a major north/south corridor. We would definitely like
to see that intersection serve the network down here and getting
through and all of this open land down here rather than it just being a
dead-end connection at Raceway Road.
Mr. Thibo asked, what is the schedule for Ronald Reagan Parkway
going north of Stafford?
Mr. McGillem said it will be bid in December right now. It was
October but it got moved to December.
Mr. Valanzano said a couple of minor things I wanted to point out
is we have some additional land use designations in here, office/flex
space. This is a new designation that we created for the Comprehensive
Plan that did not exist prior. This is partly driven by the new
district. We created the commercial/industrial district. We can see
these areas designated to provide a buffer between the large box
industrial development that we have going on in the Airtech area and
Airwest. Also, we are using it as a buffer between what may become a
large box type proposal but on the northwest of this particular area as
a transition from the commercial that would be developing on U.S. 40
into those areas. This is also consistent with development that we
have going on in the area.
The other big difference we have on this plan is right now
through the land use plan for the Town of Plainfield we do not have
good (inaudible). Secondly, we do have some land uses in Town that we
would like to be able to relocate, if possible, Plainfield Ready Mix
and some other types of operation. This would seem to present an ideal
location with the airport activity on the east side, Shrum Mobile Home
Sales in this area and then the airport. This would seem to be an
ideal location to be able to put those type of uses within the
boundaries of the Town of Plainfield. So, we have added that
designation and identified it primarily in this location.
Mr. McGillem said I would like to point out that these lines on
here are concepts. They are not fixed alignments and there are certain
points on these lines that are fixed at specific intersections, etc.
just like the ADESA intersection but as far as the alignment goes just
as we have always done with any other parts of our Thoroughfare Plan we
will work with landowners and developers, etc. in tying these lines in
to work within their development intent. But still serving the intent
of the overall Thoroughfare Plan as it was set up to accomplish.
Mr. Valanzano said this is a revised Comprehensive Plan with the
two new land use designations recommended to being made. You have on
page 5 of the draft report a summary of the major changes to the plan.
Primarily the changes to this plan deal with the area along the Ronald
Reagan Corridor. We are showing a more accurate alignment for the
Ronald Reagan Corridor coming in. Here is a heavy industrial
designation that we talked about. This blue/pink cross-hatching is
indicative of all this office/flex space, which is a higher class
industrial development that is consistent with some of the other areas
recommended for industrial development. It also provides for the areas
that face along the corridor. It also provides for buffering for some
of the existing residential areas that are on the west side of the
corridor recognizing that there are some existing residential along the
east side of the corridor. So, we have identified what we call
appropriate places for buffering based on land use recommendations and
still providing reasonable opportunities for development in those
areas.
We made some changes in the land use recommendations between
Stanley and Hadley. This area has been shown for medium-density
residential east of the school property. We have made the school
property more consistent with reality in terms of what has been
purchased by the school and what has been zoned for development for the
Plainfield High School. We had changed this recommendation from
medium-density residential to a commercial designation consistent with
zoning in the area and anticipated development in the area.
Also, we made some adjustments on both sides of Stafford Road to
reflect existing neighborhood commercial where the Marsh area is and on
the south side where the Chase Bank is south of Stafford Road.
We have shown Metropolis Parkway and recommendation coming
through. We have also shown where the mall is being developed. We
know it is commercial now so, as opposed to showing it as
commercial/residential high-density mixed use, we are showing it for
what it is. This area where the Wal-Mart is we have changed that
designation. The area south of that actually had a light industrial
recommendation through this entire area where Crown Plaza and Gladden
Farm Apartments are. So, we made those changes in this area to reflect
the Wal-Mart development and a likely re-development of the mobile home
park that exists south of Wal-Mart and to be a little more reflective
of the existing conditions.
When you get up into this area, this is where Mr. McGillem talked
about the ADESA drive extension. With the amount of commercial traffic
that is likely to come through that area that is Plainfield Commons
Drive and it would extend as the intersection where Andy Mohr Chevy and
Ford is and bringing a road back to that connection and coming down to
Smith Road. We felt it would be appropriate to put a retail/office mix
use designation in there indicating that it would be appropriate for
some light retail development or office development to occur in that
area as opposed to continuing the low-density single family
recommendation all the way down the railroad tracks and then having
what can end up being a fairly major roadway transmit to commercial
traffic.
With that we have also shown on a recommendation to expand the
Town’s planning area and boundaries up to the north along Raceway Road
south of the railroad tracks. There is the Sun Chase Subdivision in
this area, which is already being provided with Town’s sewers. We
thought it would be appropriate to extend the planning boundary for
future consideration should annexation ever be considered in that area
for residential since the Town has the ability to provide the services.
We are also showing an extension about a half mile west of CR900E.
There is a proposed development talked about in this area.
There is an existing relatively large residential area down here.
We are proposing an extension of a low-density single-family
residential development in that area. You have a letter from the Town
of Avon where they made some suggestions that their comprehensive plan
called for through this entire stretch for buffering. Our thought is
when you look at the aerial photography for the area, from this point
north it is pretty much farm fields and significant natural features.
The area south of this point coming down in this area there is a stand
of woods here. There is a little bit of, I’m not sure if it qualifies
as a creek, and residential in there. Our thought is that this area to
the south will be residential considering the features that are there
and the existing use it probably makes sense and being low-density if
development occurs, those features would more than likely be preserved.
Secondly, our Zoning Ordinance requires that any commercial/industrial
development within 600 feet of a Residential District must come before
the Plan Commission for review and approval for an Architectural
Review. And if there is a need, we can impose whatever requirements
are necessary to provide appropriate protections. We can also tailor
those protections based on the design of what the building or
development is that is proposed. If it is a high-quality office
development, not nearly as much protection would be needed. If it is a
heavier industrial type use with loading docks, probably a much more
significantly landscape screening would be proposed. This does nothing
to jeopardize per se our ability to impose appropriate screening. So,
I think we have the ability under our ordinances and procedures to be
able to accomplish what is being proposed.
Mr. McGillem said there have been discussions, as we met with
some of the landowners and developers just east of Clover Drive and
south of U.S. 40 on old U.S. 40, showing your office/flex. There have
been discussions along that frontage of U.S. 40 whether it should be
office/flex or commercial.
Mr. Valanzano said and possibly bringing commercial all the way
down and changing this entire area with the justification being that
this is going to become a major interchange or intersection and what
more logical place to put retail/commercial development than there.
Our feeling is that the U.S. 40 and Ronald Reagan intersection is a
place for growth (inaudible). Also, the way that we are looking at it
with the major full access, permanent access to Ronald Reagan being
Airtech at this location, we really see this road as being more of a
connector route that provides connection between what would be the
proposed development. We were just talking CR200 through here and down
all the way to Stafford Road and being more of a road that serves a lot
of industrial areas and industrial developments along the way. That
being the case from the prospective that we were looking at in terms of
where the traffic flow would be coming through we felt that the
office/flex designation in these areas were appropriate. It’s not to
say that can’t change as development occurs in this area. Conditions
are such that if it is appropriate to reconsider that, we can always do
that at a future date. We felt these recommendations at this point and
time are reasonable considerations.
We have some other graphics that are in your package that really
in terms of the Thoroughfare Plan are just added and some of the things
that we talked about here.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, didn’t you also expand the planning area
southwest?
Mr. Valanzano said we did not expand it to the southwest but we
made a statement in this Comprehensive Plan that after a study would be
to look at what should be done in that area. We had some discussion
about that in our meeting but we didn’t want to slow down the process
of getting this portion through. And I believe one of the last
paragraphs of the text that you have in front of you, after this is
done, we will step back and see if there are other areas that we need
to look at.
Mr. McGillem said probably in the meeting where we have had the
biggest difference in what we are showing you is the last aspect that
Mr. Valanzano has kicked out is the discussion of whether or not the
General Commercial should come down south of U.S. 40 farther to that
first east/west connecting road going across there. We have some
office/flex space that is shown in there in areas right now within the
County that is within an area that is already zoned General Commercial.
We are talking about office/flex space instead of commercial so that
probably has been as much controversial as anything as we have met with
landowners and developers in what we have been putting together.
Mr. Brandgard said just as a comment, the office/flex and
retail/commercial if the office/flex is done properly and right, it can
blend. We certainly don’t want the big boxes down there along U.S. 40
but the office/flex you can make blend in with what you have pretty
well, at least on the frontage. I like Mr. Valanzano’s comment
relative to the Comprehensive Plan. It is a plan that we try to follow
as much as possible. We also know that it is dynamitic, it’s not
static. The same thing with the roadways in there. We need to indicate
the intent in how they exactly follow. In most cases is not too
important as long as they follow in some way. I’m going to ask Mr.
Valanzano to do something, if you would. As we go forward with this,
would you write a letter on the Town’s behalf to the Town of Avon and
respond to their letter as the planning director explaining how we
operate relative to the area that they are talking about.
Mr. Carlucci said there is supposed to be someone from Avon here
tonight. They have a council meeting but I thought their planning
director was going to come down here. Is there anyone from Avon here?
Mr. Brandgard said I guess since they responded with a letter we
ought to respond back saying that we recognize what they are saying and
we agree but we do it a little bit different designating it as such but
we do put the buffers and stuff in where needed. We seem to be working
pretty well together, the two communities and I certainly don’t want to
do anything to push that effort aside.
Mr. McPhail said this whole process started out as a Thoroughfare
Plan and as we started looking at our Thoroughfare Plan, which we think
we really need to get adopted and the sooner the better. We did get
into some land use and some redevelopment areas particularly in an area
along U.S. 40 and east of Ronald Reagan. We have a project in that area
later on in the agenda but that particular area has really some unique
aspects there that we really need to focus on the area and make sure
that whatever we do there blends in with this master plan. There are so
many little bitty parcels, the old railroad, the old highways, there
are more parcels in a few acres than there are all over Town I think.
So, it really brought to light, and the development that we are looking
at tonight, those issues to light.
And then with the development of Ronald Reagan we felt like there
could be some updates to some of the land use plans that we adopted
prior. That area particularly that Mr. Valanzano mentioned south of
U.S. 40 where do you break the office/flex and the retail/commercial?
I think this Plan Commission has used this comp plan as a guideline and
as development comes along a lot of that area is to be flexible. I
think reasonably good quality development regardless whether it is
office/flex or commercial will get a fair hearing. I don’t think you
can draw a line there today and even feel comfortable that you have it
at the right place. Because some of it is going to depend where the
roadways end up and where we get right-of-way to do that and tie them
together and how development goes particularly along U.S. 40, right at
that intersection. We obviously know it is going to be commercial
there. We have the overlay of the Ronald Reagan plan and we have
developed through the County some things that just really doesn’t fit
in that intersection. You can’t go 1,000 feet both ways and not have
any of these things that we are talking about. It is a unique area
that we need to be pretty flexible with. Whatever we adopt, as a
Comprehensive Plan, we need to be very flexible that way as we move
forward and as we see development coming in. Some of the old stuff
that is there may be redeveloped. They may want to add to some that is
already there. So, it is kind of a complex area. It is not nearly as
simple as you get away from there and start looking at really what
belongs there because that area has to be somewhat flexible I think.
We have had lots of discussions with some of the property owners
and potential property owners and potential developers. I think Mr.
Valanzano and the Staff have done an excellent job in trying to bring
in people to look at this thing before we got to the public hearings on
this. We had a public meeting two weeks ago or three weeks ago and
went over it and looked at that. That is the area that I’m talking
about that is really complex in terms of trying to get quality
redevelopment in the area. It all needs to be redeveloped.
Mr. Kirchoff said as we talked at the work session, I’m not sure
what it takes but I sure would like to see the Town be more active and
vacate U.S. 40 and get started. And I don’t know if we need to say
something to the Redevelopment Commission or who but I would like to
see us be proactive in that area. Let’s clean that area up. It is
going to be the entryway from the east. It ought to be a positive
image when people are coming down U.S. 40. If there is something that
the Town could do to make that happen, I think we should.
Mr. McGillem said the thing that we are trying to get away from
here again, as indicated earlier, is highlight not only on the Ronald
Reagan but U.S. 40 through here where we want to have major access
points. As you can see, all these little parcels fronting on U.S. 40
the last thing that we want is a commercial development on every one or
two of these developments and all of them having to have their access
directly onto U.S. 40. This is the message that you have on U.S. 36
right now and we need, as this redevelopment comes in, to clean this up
and not to continue to enforce that kind of access problems through
there. I had talked to INDOT about vacating old U.S. 40 and we have a
large chunk of land that they own in that triangle right there where
old U.S. 40 comes in to new U.S. 40. They are very willing to work with
us. Mr. Valanzano and I sort of have some tentative plans associated
with that. We kind of need to work with Mr. Daniel and also with INDOT
as to the best way to accommodate this vacation process through there.
That is something that we need to get initiated. I think that you will
hear that also in the last case to be presented to you here tonight.
Mr. McPhail said I will just comment on the area where ADESA is.
We have that signal now and obviously until something happens we have
the two dead-end roads but that is another area, and I think I touched
on it, that has a possibility of going a couple of different ways in
terms of development both north and south. That could end up being a
pretty major commercial area north and south off of U.S. 40. I think
when you get very north or south, it is definitely going to change
depending on Metropolis and what it continues to draw in terms of
supporting retail. I really think the Metropolis is going to continue
to draw more retail so we are going to have some more commercial areas
developing there within that general corridor area. I think we just
have to be flexible in those areas.
Mr. Matrana asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care
to speak on the Comprehensive Plan update?
Mr. Wamsley said (inaudible).
Mr. Matrana said being no one else coming forward we will close
the public portion of this hearing.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to approve Resolution No. 02-2005, a
proposal to amend the Town of Plainfield Comprehensive Plan as set
forth in the Town of Plainfield Comprehensive Plan Supplement No. 1
draft dated October 7, 2005 with attachments and forward such amendment
to the Town Council with a favorable recommendation. Second by Mr.
McPhail. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. Matrana said the next matter before the board is DP-05-027,
Joyce Hoyt.
Mr. Valanzano said the next and last petition that we have on the
agenda tonight is Architectural & Site Design Review approval along a
Gateway Corridor for commercial development for approximately 9,540
square foot retail facility. The site that we are talking about for
this project basically is in this area here. It is part of the chopped
up parcels that Mr. McPhail alluded to a few moments ago. As a part of
this proposal, in order to be able to develop this site with a modern
type retail center the petitioner also needs some variances at this
point and time and a vacation petition on a portion of the property.
So, the reason that I put the site plan up is not necessarily for you
to have to identify anything in particular but this is where existing
old U.S. 40 comes through and turns up to new U.S. 40, which is right
here. The only way this development can fit on the property is to come
in here and hang an immediate right when you get through the curve cut.
In this area in the pink really abuts the right-of-way, the existing
right-of-way. The area in yellow is an access drive within the
required 30-foot setback. Those areas need a variance in order for this
project to be developed. A variance petition is on file and will be
heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals later on this month.
The area in blue is the area that Mr. McGillem was talking about
earlier that is appropriate for immediate vacation. That area sits
right here. Here is old U.S. 40 coming into new U.S. 40. The vacation
petition that is on file would take from this point to what would be
the east right-of-way line up old U.S. 40 coming through and down to
the petitioner’s property and onto the property that is located to the
east. They have both co-petitioned for the vacation. What that would
do is allow that area in blue, at least this portion of it, be
incorporated into this site for this petitioner, which would mean that
we would no longer have an encroachment of a parking area into the
public right-of-way. And we don’t have an encroachment of a parking
area to require a setback and all development standards don’t fall into
place.
At some time in the future when this road is taken out and we can
punch the road through that Mr. McGillem was talking about earlier,
from new U.S. 40, this is where John Pearson was proposing the auto
dealership a few months back. We are proposing to bring the road
through at this location and just skirt the west side of the relatively
new building and come into 251. That would provide the main access
into 251 and through this area. Once the road gets from here to over
here we will no longer have a setback issue here. As this roadway
would get vacated in the future this portion of the property would get
incorporated into the site and as we implement the plan that we were
talking about a few moments ago the variances that we were talking
about now to vacate, all of that stuff will fall in place. And this
development will end up complying with developments standards as
opposed to relying on variances that we are talking about right now.
Variances are needed for this project to be able to go forward now as
opposed to having to sit on the back burner.
One of the critical things that we want to make sure you
understand and are comfortable with is we believe that this plan can go
forward and will not hinder or impede or otherwise interfere with the
recommendations that are contained in the plan that you just
recommended to the Town Council.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, do you feel this is consistent to where we
want to go to redevelop the entire area?
Mr. Valanzano said it is possible that a bigger development could
occur here. We are talking about a 9,000 square foot retail center.
The development that we just looked at at Stafford and SR267 was a
12,000 square foot retail development. There is not a whole lot of
difference to be honest with you in terms of the size.
Mr. Kirchoff said I think it is more of access.
Mr. Valanzano said when this road comes through, the access to
this site will come out at this location. It will be several hundred
feet south of U.S. 40.
Mr. Kirchoff said I guess where I’m going is can we put some
conditions on this tonight, if we were to approve it, that says when
that happens, that other one has to be closed? Is there a way for us
to put a condition on it that when the other access is created, that
has to be vacated, has to be closed? Am I thinking right?
Mr. McPhail said I think you are thinking right and I’m assuming
that we have the right to impose those kind of conditions.
Mr. Kirchoff said but we want to do that tonight.
Mr. McPhail said I really think in going through this with DRC a
couple of times that the petitioner has worked hard to try to get their
project now and make it fit in with the comp plan. They’ve been to
DRC two or three times and TAC probably a couple of times to try to
make this thing work. I really believe it will and I agree with Mr.
Kirchoff that we need to stipulate that once we get that other roadway
it gets closed off or we will have a worse mess than what we have now.
Mr. Kirchoff said we have to be thinking futuristic. I don’t see
that in there Mr. Valanzano.
Mr. Valanzano said it’s getting in there right now.
Mr. McGillem said this tract will we want to cut through 251?
There is not much else that you can put in. This is as large of a tract
that you are going to be able to put together.
Mr. Kirchoff said I think Mr. Valanzano addressed it when he said
we pretty much know where the other entrance will go. Is there any
chance that it could move significantly that we would miss the mark
here?
Mr. McGillem said what we would like to do at this time, to be
very honest with you, is as we are working with INDOT to get this piece
vacated, we would like to be going ahead working with INDOT to get this
access here and even going to the extent of appraising this. This
piece that we are taking off the east end is this whole triangular
piece. This guy is not going to move, he is not going to vacate it, we
are going to have to take this piece. We would like to go ahead and get
that piece identified and acquired in order to get us the access
through to 251. What that does for us is this guy’s current drive
comes off of old U.S. 40 right here. As part of coming through here, we
can reconnect his drive and let him stay there but connect his drive to
this new connection at 251. By doing that there is only one other
parcel in here that has access onto old U.S. 40 and that is this one
here and it is up for sale. We would like to be able to get that
parcel also. That allows us to go ahead and vacate all of U.S. 40
because we have no more parcels depending on access to old U.S. 40.
So, I guess what I’m saying is we would like to go ahead and make this
happen. We are confident enough that they are to go ahead and make it
happen and going ahead and securing that right-of-way and getting it
punched through there, which then gives them the access that they are
proposing off that connection also.
Mr. Kirchoff said as you know, I really trust your judgment. I
just want to make sure that we thought that through and we didn’t come
back in six months and say it really ought to have been this way.
Mr. McGillem said I don’t think we want it much closer than this
because we are wanting also to keep Six Points Road right here left as
a right-in/right-out. Six Points Road is an integral part of the whole
development of this whole area down through here.
Mr. McPhail said I think one other issue there too is the parcels
that Mr. McGillem alluded to the fellow doesn’t want to leave. I can
totally justify taking the end of his property. If we wanted to go
farther west and go through it, I would have some difficulty. Going
down the end of his property we would end up giving him as much as we
would be taking by vacating the old road and I can really justify that.
But going through the middle of his property I probably couldn’t do
that. It makes sense where it’s at.
Mr. McGillem said I think the big thing that we ought to do is
get the old U.S. 40 vacated. Otherwise, you are never going to develop
any frontage lots that are of any meaning as long as old U.S. 40
continues to split them.
Mr. Brandgard said as Mr. Kirchoff said, I think we need to be
proactive and maybe develop a plan to make that happen.
Mr. Kirchoff said we have charged Mr. Valanzano with that at a
work session.
Mr. McGillem said this even goes back to what we talked about on
the Comprehensive Plan and Thoroughfare Plan when they were wanting to
look at south of U.S. 40 as a GC site. Our position is that the first
area that is going to develop General Commercial on Ronald Reagan is
the circle right around U.S. 40. As long as they can put parcels
together enough to make them work in that area. And then depending on
how far GC depends on how it builds and radiates out front of the U.S.
40.
Mr. Valanzano said another thing in this particular area the way
that we see the road never coming together and the size of the parcels
we have new U.S. 40 coming through here, we punch a road through in
this area, one of the constraints about the location was some of the
relatively new investments that were made in the area in trying not to
disturb them. This does make a relatively logical location.
Relatively equally spaced in terms of access points on U.S. 40 so from
that it works pretty well. There was a question of whether we would
look at keeping an alignment keeping that road to the north? Mr.
McGillem’s feelings were these are going to be a right-in/right-out.
There is going to be a median in there anyway. That is not going to be
a critical issue so moving is not going to hurt anybody. So, if you
took all of that into consideration, the development in this area we
are looking at old Six Points Road coming down, 251 coming across, the
new route coming through into 251, basically these areas being able to
be developed at somewhat like the larger outlots that you see in front
of Targets where you have some of the strip centers coming in and
developments of that nature. We can almost see this as being a front
door type outlot development area to what could be larger land
assemblages redevelopment to the south.
What we are looking at here and what could end up through
vacations and everything included up to the right-of-way of new U.S. 40
down through this location and over the development that you see here
today would really be one piece of that type of development. Could
there be bigger developments in the area? Yes but that doesn’t mean
that this development couldn’t fit in this area and then some other
development back here and maybe this development expand into that
property to the south in the future.
Mr. Kirchoff said that discussion helps me because I just didn’t
want us to be short-sighted.
Mr. Valanzano said the petitioner wants to put up a primarily
brick and EIFS retail building. I believe you have color renderings in
your packets. The petitioner has made some adjustments to the building
elevations per the recommendation of Staff and DRC and the rooftop
mechanical units will be screened from all directions and we won’t have
to worry about seeing those. They have made alterations to the facade
of the building on the sides and the rear to bring more brick around to
be more consistent with the recommendations of the Design Review
Committee.
They have also worked with us to revise a landscape plan and
making some revisions there. The one thing there was a recommendation
from Elaine Taylor that the Sugar Maple be replaced with Red Sunsets
and they have just agreed to do that.
Lighting levels comply and the type of fixtures that they are
using comply with all of our standards. They are the full cut-off
fixtures.
They are proposing one ground sign. This would be a small
integrated sign. They are proposing a small 60 square foot ground sign
as the sign for the center. The signs on the building would comply
with our guidelines being either individual letter signs or small
window signs.
And we have gone through all the transportation stuff that I was
going to bring up to you.
Just a couple of things to let you know this is the existing
driveway that I referenced in the Staff Report. When this development
goes in, that driveway will not be used. It is our position that
should be curbed off across there and that drive should be completely
removed in terms of being turned into a front yard for the center. That
is located right at this location of the sight. The comments that I
made on the drive is what I’m referring to.
The comments about the dumpster location is the only thing on the
site that is relatively small in type. The dumpster is being located
at this point. It meets all their guidelines. There will not be any
issue or any problem. When this road goes through, that would then be
between the front line of the building and the front lot line, which
would not be permitted. That would end up being the only aspect of this
development that would fall out of compliance as opposed to everything
else that we are talking about falling into compliance. That is one
issue that would fall into compliance. I wanted you to know that would
become a non-conforming status.
Looking at the sight, to be honest with you, I don’t know that
there is another place that we could put it. With that I know the
petitioner has a presentation. We spent a lot of time on this but they
have worked with us over several or many months, almost a year now,
working with this project. They have been quite patient to let us go
through and get all the plans together. They have done what they could
to work with us so I wanted to give that acknowledgement to them for
their efforts as well. With that I would be happy to answer any
questions.
Mr. Deer with Lewis Engineering at 315 E. Main St. said I don’t
have anything specific. I think Mr. Valanzano summarized our project
well. I could answer any questions that you might have. I have some
slides and a site plan on Power Point if there is anything that you
would like to ask. It’s nothing different than you have in your
packets.
Ms. Whicker said for clarification, retail center/office space,
maybe it is just the sign but I think of office space for leasing.
Mr. Deer said the intention is for retail. It is zoned
commercial. We are not really thinking that there will be any office
space there.
Mr. McPhail asked, how did you come up with the name?
Mr. Deer said it was not me.
Lady from the audience said with the airplanes coming in it is in
front of the landings.
Mr. Carlucci said the Town has received a petition to vacate
right-of-way. Would you point out that right-of-way that you wanted
vacated.
Mr. Deer said there are actually four pieces because they will
actually go to four different places. The total right-of-way is along
here. Actually it is more towards here and it goes out in front of Bill
Sodrel’s body shop. This piece is half of the U.S. 40 right-of-way,
which adjoins our property. This part technically would be joined to
this little INDOT triangle here and then Bill Sodrel would get a piece
in front of him.
Mr. McGillem said I might point out with my meetings with INDOT
and having had a lot of discussion with Mr. Daniel on it INDOT doesn’t
want that piece of right-of-way. All INDOT wants is to maintain their
straight right-of-way that you can see the 60-foot right-of-way
continuous down U.S. 40. INDOT is indicating that if we can work some
way to get a quick claim or something to the Town for that piece that
lays between the apparent right-of-way on U.S. 40 and old U.S. 40 since
the existing old U.S. 40 is in the Town right now, the Town would have
the small triangular piece. So, when we vacate that right-of-way rather
than it going to INDOT, which they don’t want, it would be left up to
the Town to do what it wants to with it. Essentially what they have
indicated to Mr. Kirchoff and I when we were in a meeting with them, is
there some way to get that one triangular piece there quick claimed
some way to the Town? That leaves them with the right-of-way they want
for U.S. 40 and they would be giving us the other side. So, before we
go through the vacation process we need to look to see if there is
something that we need to do there.
Mr. Valanzano said the petitioner has provided us with a legal
description for that particular parcel so all the engineering and
survey type work for that is taken care of. What we need to do is
figure out the form of that deed or quick claim.
Mr. McGillem said otherwise when we vacate it, that piece goes to
INDOT.
Mr. Carlucci said I planned on presenting that to the Town
Council on Monday night. The Council can indicate to go forward but we
will have to figure out how to handle that little triangular piece. I
just wanted some clarification.
Mr. McGillem said at the same time we are quick claiming this
right here INDOT also owns this piece over here outside of old U.S. 40,
this triangular piece in here. We want to do the same thing on it also.
Ms. Whicker asked, is that portion surveyed yet?
Mr. Valanzano said no. Like Mr. McGillem said there is that one
other parcel that had the frontage onto old U.S. 40. If the Town could
acquire that parcel between that ownership and other people that we
have been talking to with Pearson’s property that they own west of that
little triangle, the last one that we just talked about and the motel
site, there is probably a very good possibility to be able to get a
good chunk of those dominos and get into place pretty quickly.
Ms. Whicker asked, what is the timeframe on a quick claim?
Mr. Daniel said it is really a question of how quick the State
can get it signed for us. If there is any delay, it is getting a
signature.
Mr. Carlucci said we can’t quick claim it to ourselves. INDOT is
going to have to sign something.
Mr. Kirchoff said but they are eager to make that happen.
Ms. Whicker asked, after the quick claim deed will it become
property of the Town? Is that something that the Town would hold onto
or something that the developer would want to have?
Mr. Valanzano said I thought we were talking about being able to
flip that to a developer to help make their site more valuable.
Mr. Brandgard said we don’t want it.
Mr. McGillem said it’s not anything that we want to continue to
maintain as ownership. We want it to be in our hands to where we can
control getting it into the developer or landowner’s possession that is
developing that piece of parcel.
Ms. Whicker asked, do we sell it or give it?
Mr. Carlucci said it won’t cost us anything so we wouldn’t charge
someone else. We are trying to get rid of that whole old U.S. 40.
Mr. McGillem said ideally the triangular piece here that we are
talking about vacating would be to go to this petitioner as an
additional front yard area.
Mr. Valanzano said this property could easily end up coming up
and across the south right-of-way line down. That could end up being
the front parcel, which will take off a lot of the constraints of the
design of the parking area in this area, access coming in at an
appropriate location in here and the parking field can be squared up.
If you take this line across, the parking would probably be out to an
area somewhere around here. I’m not sure there is enough space out
there. You would have to do a lot of redesign in parking to get
utilization out of that but that is likely what would happen. This
whole area would be a more efficient assemblage for parking for the
site.
Mr. Kirchoff said that is kind of what I was trying to say
earlier. Should we not plan for that project to look like that?
Mr. Brandgard said what we are talking about here I don’t like to
get into planning a project but at the same time at what we are
attempting to do here if those two parcels that belong to the State
could go with this parcel here, that building could be aligned so that
it is right with U.S. 40 instead of being off at an angle and
repositioned on that lot, which would be helpful to everybody.
Mr. Daniel said some other pieces would have to be in place
first.
Mr. Brandgard said yes. Doing that is beneficial to the Town and
also to the developer. We can’t change anything until all of that
happens.
Mr. Deer said our biggest concern is timing. The contract for
this job was signed in January and here we are in November.
Mr. Brandgard said we aren’t wanting to slow you down. There are
some possibilities that you may want to look at as we do this.
Mr. Deer said at one time our site plan had two scenarios in it.
It had “now” and “future” and that could kind of be confusing so we
decided to just focus on “now”. We do have plans to kind of simplify
the parking and make it more what you would traditionally expect and
take out some of these unique arrangements.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, if you had other land that we are talking
about, if you had that today, would your project look different?
Mr. Deer said it would look somewhat different yes.
Mr. Brandgard said it depends upon how much additional time they
want to delay.
Mr. McPhail said the problem is how long is it going to be
(inaudible).
Mr. Brandgard said even with that you could still leave that
opening into there as an entrance until you get the road in.
Mr. McGillem said I think what they are jeopardizing by not being
able to wait or the timing element is they could probably get a few
more feet on this parcel and still meet all of the standards and
develop. I think it is a time element for them in having to recognize
if they go forward with a plan like this they are pretty much tied down
to this size building. They are going to have a lot more flexibility
from the standpoint of their parking spaces of being somewhat expanded
for some parking along here in their front yard out to U.S. 40. But I
think the biggest thing that they are doing is possibly giving up some
additional square footage that they could have on this site if they had
this additional land.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, wouldn’t it be possible for us to give them
some other variances knowing this site is going to change and that we
approve it for what it could be? Is that risky?
Mr. Brandgard said yes for both parties.
Mr. Carlucci said it’s not ideal but as we flip that land over,
before we flip it over to them, we say that is what you have to do with
it. We have an agreement so if there is some landscaping or things
that they could do to make it better, we don’t want to give them a
piece of property and have it worse, which I don’t think that is what
they are planning but I can appreciate the fact that they do want to
move forward.
Mr. Valanzano said I don’t know if this is an appropriate idea or
because I haven’t fully thought it through yet but one thing that you
might look at is an approval of this with the understanding or
statement that if we can pull off enough of the vacations of old U.S.
40 and acquisition from INDOT of those parcels where they can be
incorporated in this site in a timely……………
[Tape concluded and resumed as follows with Mr. McPhail
speaking:]
………………So, what you are suggesting is that we approve this with a
condition administratively and if in a timely manner we can dedicate
some of that right-of-way…………
Mr. Valanzano said right. If we can get the quick claim deeds
out of INDOT and get the vacation done in a reasonable timeframe for
what they are looking at. They still have to go through a vacation
process through the Town Council just to get this to work. So, the
Town Council still has a say before the trigger gets flipped and this
project can move forward. The BZA has to vote and so does the Town
Council. The Town Council will have the opportunity to say to give us
another two weeks or whatever it takes to get something done. And then
as a result of that, we can then work with them administratively. As
long as we have a site plan that is in compliance with development
standards and that you are comfortable with we can do some shifting of
the building, shifting of the parking areas to make it work and address
all of those issues that you were talking about. And maybe get a
building that addresses U.S. 40 a little bit better by moving it up
closer.
Mr. Kirchoff said I don’t want to compound it but we are on the
verge of improving a site to give them a better project. That is all
that I was trying to say.
Ms. Whicker asked, would we need to define “timely manner?”
Mr. Valanzano said I think the Town Council could control that
through the vacation process they would have to go through.
Mr. Brandgard said I think somewhat the “timely manner” is when
they have to start construction to do something.
Mr. Daniel said I think “timely manner” might also be controlled
by the petitioners too. If we get into some delays with the State,
they may be in a position to say we really have to go ahead on this.
Mr. Carlucci said I have a friend in the Attorney General’s
office and I can get that moved pretty quick. We rarely ever do this
because we could ask them every month for something but I haven’t asked
for something in a couple of years. We will do everything that we can.
Mr. McPhail said this is what we want in that area. We want
redevelopment. We want good redevelopment. You’ve got a good project.
We can make it a little better.
Mr. Carlucci said Elmo Gonzales is the liaison in this area
downtown but sometimes that is where it gets hung up too because INDOT
has to sign off.
Mr. McGillem said Mr. Gonzales was at that meeting.
Mr. Carlucci said we will give it a shot. It may work or it may
not but we will try but at the same time we don’t want to stop then.
Mr. Matrana asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care
to speak on this matter? Being no one coming forward I will close the
public portion of this meeting and open it up for the board for
discussion or a possible motion.
1.
The Development Plan complies with all applicable
Development Standards of the district in which the site is
located.
2.
The Development Plan complies with all applicable
provisions of the Subdivision Control Ordinance for which a
waiver has not been granted.
3.
The Development Plan complies with all applicable
provisions for Architectural and Site Design Review for
which a waiver has not been granted.
4.
The proposed development is appropriate to the site and its
surroundings.
5.
The proposed development is consistent with the intent and
purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
1.
Substantial compliance with the Site Plan file dated
October 21, 2005 provided that the final Site Plan shall
indicate the removal of the existing asphalt drive at the
far east end of the property, the closing of the curb cut
and the return of the area to yard.
2.
Substantial compliance with the Building Elevation and
Rendering file dated October 21, 2005.
3.
Substantial compliance with the Landscape Plan file dated
October 21, 2005 provided that the Sugar Maples in the
parking lot are replaced with a hardwood maple variety.
4.
Substantial compliance with the Site Photometric Plan and
the light fixture cut sheets for LSI Patriot Series 400
watt metal halide full cut-off Challenger series wall
sconce light and a Sovereign recessed canopy light as
presented to the Design Review Committee.
5.
Substantial compliance with the Ground Sign Plan file dated
October 21, 2005 amended to include required sign base
landscaping.
6.
Building signs shall be either: (a) window signs or (b)
individual letter signs located on the EIFS portion of the
building over the tenant spaces.
7.
When a new roadway is developed along the west property
line of this site, that the current access to old U.S. 40
from this site shall be closed and a new access shall be
provided to the new roadway subject to approval of the
Director of Transportation.
8.
The final Site Plan may be amended to incorporate vacated
portions of old U.S. 40 subject to the Director of Planning
approval.
Second by Mr. Brandgard. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. Brandgard said I would like to thank you folks with bearing
with us on this as we have gone through this. We don’t normally do
this but this is an opportunity, as we said, for the chance of
redevelopment and you only have a chance to do it right once. Again,
you brought something in that I think is going to be an asset in that
area and we would like to try and enhance it as well as enhance the
whole area, if we could, so I thank you for bearing with us.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Brandgard said I think we all had in our packets a letter
from the Ronald Reagan Corridor Master Plan Steering Committee that was
signed by Ed Schrier, President of the Hendricks County Board of
Commissioners and Larry Hesson, the Hendricks County Council asking
that the various agencies adopt the Ronald Reagan Corridor Master Plan.
We have had several conversations with the Indianapolis Airport
Authority and I think we are very near an agreement, which effects this
overlay corridor area. Once we finalize that agreement I think we will
bring this back in for our approval and agreement to the overlay. I
wouldn’t want to do it before that. I think it is a case where the
airport authority and the Town both I think it would be very neat if we
could both have a signing ceremony of sorts where both agencies sign it
together. I just wanted to give you an update where we are on that.
Ms. Christine Owens said I’m the Planning Director for the Town
of Avon and I apologize for my tardiness this evening. We had a council
meeting and I had an agenda item that took just a tad longer than we
had anticipated. I understand that our letter was read into the record
for your consideration and I do thank you on behalf of the Town of Avon
for considering our comments with the future land use map that you were
amending this evening. I just wanted to take a minute to introduce
myself. I’m sure we may run into each other again some day. Thank you
for considering our comments. If you have questions for me, I’m always
available. Thank you.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to adjourn. Second by Mr. Brandgard.
Motion carried.
