The Plainfield Plan Commission met on Monday, March 7, 2005. In attendance were Mr. Thibo, Mr. Matrana, Mr. McPhail, Mr. Brandgard, Ms. Whicker, Mr. Kirchoff and Mr. Haase.
ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM
Mr. Carlucci administered the roll call.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
MINUTES
Mr. Thibo made a motion to approve the February 7, 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. Haase reviewed the Guidelines Governing the Conduct of Public Hearings.
We have an expedited petition on the agenda, which is DP-05-004, Floor Fashions Company.
Mr. Valanzano said this petitioner is asking for some exterior remodeling (1) For the Floor Fashions for the installation of a new awning. (2) Relocation of the existing awning from the front door to the side door at the south end of the building facing Vine Street. (3) New wall signs along Main Street and Vine Street. (4) Refurbished and relocate projecting sign along Main Street. (5) New gooseneck light fixtures over the awning and wall signs. (6) The removal and retirement of three wall signs. We are not aware of any opposition to this. This was looked at by the Design Review Committee and approved subject to the projecting sign not being illuminated unless either a variance is obtained or the ordinance is amended. That is something that we have been looking at modifying and allowing for but haven’t done just yet. So, the only condition that is even being considered on this was that the sign not be illuminated unless they obtain a variance or we change the ordinance.
Mr. Haase asked, is there anyone in the audience who had any questions about this public hearing on Floor Fashions remodeling. Being no one coming forward at this time since we do have a limitation being placed on them about the illuminated sign I would like to read the entire motion to act on this, if I could.
Mr. McPhail made a motion that the Plan Commission approve the Development Plan/Architectural Review DP-05-004 as filed by Floor Fashions Company, for awning, lighting and sign renovations with the Town Center District subject to the following conditions:
Substantial compliance with the awning, lighting and sign plans file dated February 4, 2005.
The projecting sign shall not be illuminated unless a variance is obtained or the ordinance is amended to allow for illuminated projecting signs.
And regarding development within 600’ of a Residential District finding that:
The proposed development represents a use of site design features which will enhance the use or value of area properties.
The proposed development is consistent with and compatible with development located in the vicinity and with the use and development of Residential Districts located within six-hundred (600) feet.
The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
Second by Mr. Brandgard. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Haase said the next public hearing will be RZ-05-002, rezoning the Woodard property.
Mr. Valanzano said this property is just to the west of the north entrance of Saratoga on CR350. It represents one lot just over one acre in size. They are requesting rezoning to the R-2 classification to provide for the development of a single-family home. They are proposing an all brick one-story home, 2,500 square feet including a garage. The proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and surrounding area zoning.
Since this is a legal line of record they do not have to go through the platting process. So, in terms of the right-of-way along the front and easements for sewer and water lines and drainage we have requested that the petitioner provide those easements outside the platting process and, as a condition, as part of the rezoning. They have provided the documents for Mr. Belcher to look at tonight.
So, the recommended motion that we have in the Staff Report is that either the petitioner agree to provide those as a commitment to provide for the dedication of right-of-way and easements as a commitment. Or that the documents that they presented tonight are acceptable that those be signed and provided prior to obtaining an ILP. Either way it would be sufficient. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, has Mr. Belcher had a chance to look at them?
Mr. Belcher said they look like our standard forms.
Mr. Valanzano said there should not be any problem with the easements that have been requested. It’s just a matter of them being executed and delivered.
Mr. Haase asked, does the petitioner still have to execute those?
Mr. Valanzano said yes they are not signed yet.
Mr. Dale Kruse said I’m with Butterworth and Kruse Consulting with offices located 180 N. SR267, Suite 240, Avon. I’m here this evening on behalf of the Woodard’s. One thing that I would like to add to what Mr. Valanzano was telling us is they are okay with the easements. I just want to make sure that the form of the easement was correct before I had them sign them. If the form of the easement is correct, then we are ready to sign the easements and get them recorded. If the pleasure of the board is to hold up the Improvement Location Permit until those easements are recorded, I don’t think we would have any problems with that.
Mr. Haase said it sounds like the proper way to go. Is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this matter? We would also like to make everyone aware that there is no rezoning done here at the Plan Commission. We merely make a recommendation or no recommendation to the Town Council, which is where they do the rezoning. Being no one coming forward we will close the public portion of this hearing and I would ask for a motion to be made for this rezoning request.
Mr. McPhail made a motion to certify the zone map amendment request RZ-05-002 as filed by Jerry D. & Sandra Woodard requesting rezoning of 1.15 acres to the R-1 Residential classification pending annexation to the Town Council with a favorable recommendation. And that such recommendation be subject to the following commitments being provided on Exhibit “A” form as required by the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance:
Owner agrees to: (1) the dedication of a 35’ half right-of-way along CR350S; (2) the dedication of a drainage and utility easement acceptable to the Town Engineer along the CR350S frontage; (3) the dedication of a drainage easement along the south property line prior to making application for an Improvement Location Permit for the construction of any dwelling on the real estate.
Second by Mr. Kirchoff. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Haase said the next petition before the board is RZ-05-003 and RZ-05-004, Whitmore Place.
Mr. Valanzano said if you recall last month, we had a plat that came through for Whitmore Place. It was already zoned R-2 classification and it was the dividing of 84 acres into 158 lots, if I recall properly. At that time it was mentioned that the petitioner had filed two applications for abutting parcels that would have filled out the 158 lots. That was going to be subject to rezoning and annexations of those two parcels. The rezoning request that Mr. Haase just read are for the two parcels. If you look at the map on the front page of the Staff Report, I have outlined the two parcels for you to look at. They have already filed an amended primary plat to Whitmore Place that would expand the boundaries with the 84 acres to 98 acres, to combine these two. That will be the subject to the exact same plat covenants, conditions and restrictions that dealt with the home size, the lot size, the building materials, architectural appearance of the homes. I just wanted to assure you that these two parcels, when added into Whitmore, will be subject to the same review and the same criteria. You will be seeing that primary plat at your May hearing. With that I would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Bob Wildman with the J. Greg Allen & Associates at 49 South SR135, Greenwood, Indiana said as Mr. Valanzano said, this matter has to do with rezoning and annexation of two small parcels that are planned to be incorporated into the Whitmore Place Subdivision. The exhibit before you is the one that we had last month when we discussed the subdivision as a whole. You can see the crosshatched areas are the ones that we are discussing tonight. This illustrates how we intend to incorporate those two parcels into the overall plan. The property is currently zoned Agricultural and we are asking for it to be zoned R-2, which is consistent with the remainder of the tract.
As Mr. Valanzano said, the covenants that we proposed for the subdivision will apply to these two parcels as they are incorporated into the primary plat. As Mr. Valanzano said we filed an amendment to accomplish that. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Haase asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this matter? Again, the board will be giving a recommendation to the Town Council for this rezoning. Being no one coming forward we will close the public portion of this hearing and would ask for a motion on a rezoning recommendation to the Town Council for both of these parcels.
Mr. McPhail said before we make a motion I just have one comment that I need to make. I received a phone call over the weekend from the first property owner along Township Line Road. It is the first property west of this particular parcel. It seems that those folks have a little bit of a problem in the fact that their finger system is located on this property, outside their property line. I have discussed that with the petitioner today and they have agreed that they would work with that property owner and the Town to solve that problem as this project moves forward. I thought it was prudent that I make that public knowledge and we suspect that even maybe the next property to the west has the same situation. It was all owned by one person at one time and divided off and sold off. So, they are very much aware that it is not on the property and that the property owners are concerned. I said I did speak with the petitioner today and talked to the Town Engineer a little bit. We think we can get it resolved but it is an issue that will come about.
Mr. Haase said and they don’t feel like we need to hold up the rezoning.
Mr. McPhail said no. But I did feel like I needed to let the Plan Commission know that.
Ms. Whicker made a motion to certify the zone map amendment request RZ-05-003 as filed by J. Greg Allen & Associates requesting rezoning of approximately four acres to the R-2 Residential classification pending annexation to the Town Council with a favorable recommendation.
I move also to certify the zone map amendment request RZ-05-004 as filed by J. Greg Allen & Associates requesting rezoning of approximately 3.68 acres to the R-2 Residential classification pending annexation to the Town Council with a favorable recommendation.
Second by Mr. McPhail. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Haase said our next hearing will be DP-05-003, the St. Susanna Catholic Church.
Mr. Valanzano said the next petition that you have before you is for St. Susanna Church. There are two additions that they are proposing. The first addition is to the church, about a 4,437 square foot addition to the actual church, which will end up increasing the seating capacity about 464 seats to that 866 seats. Under the terms of the ordinance have adequate parking available on the site for that size of addition. They will be adding perimeter yard landscaping to the south of the church building along U.S. 40, which is the yard that is being impacted by the addition. They will also be adding foundation plantings along the building addition.
The only issue, if you will, with the addition to the church is that they have proposed an EIFS facade on the building. In discussions with them we talked about there might be some other options, alternatives that they might want to look at. Apparently they had started out with wanting to do an all simulated limestone front. They read our ordinance and saw our preference for EIFS as opposed to limestone. So, they changed it to an all EIFS front. When I told them that we were really looking for primarily brick or multiple materials that could include EIFS, they said, “Which way do we want to go?” We kind of went back and forth and they are trying to decide which way they want to go with it.
In your packets you should have a letter or a memo that was addressed to me from David Partenheimer that identified the three options that they were looking at doing. Basically, the view or the image of the church will be very much the same under any one of those three options. The Design Review Committee looked at that and although they thought the option that they were going to go with was going to be the option of the simulated limestone look, all three of those options were discussed at the DRC. So, there really wasn’t any objections, just let us know which one you want to do. We pretty much like either one of those other than an all EIFS front. Either way that does require a waiver so I needed to point that out to you.
With respect to the school addition they are looking at making about an 8,332 square foot addition to the school. In the Staff Report I mention something about needing to address a fire access road. That has been done. They have a new site plan that has been file dated March 1. So, in terms of condition number one on the last page of the Staff Report where it says “substantial compliance with the site development plan file dated February 4” and it has a condition on that, we can drop all of that and deal with file dated March 1, 2005. That is the new plan. It shows a fire access road about 10 feet south of the north property line stubbing 10 feet west of the east property lines. It will be located so that it complies with development standards for setback and it will also have the location of the fire truck to get to a point that is within approximately 150 feet of all portions of the new addition. So, they won’t have to sprinkle the building. They will be able to do it through the proximity for the fire service vehicles. That takes care of the fire access issue.
With the landscaping they will have foundation plantings installed along the east side of the building, which is where the new addition would be and on the north side. There will be new perimeter yard landscaping on the east side.
One other change to the elevation from what DRC saw, and I believe that I got a chance to reference this in the Staff Report on the school addition file dated March 1, they raised the parapet of the wall of the building. At DRC there was discussion about the HVAC. They said they will screen it. They took a shot at that and I ran the issue back to DRC with what their proposal was and DRC wasn’t real happy with that so this is the second version of it. Everybody at DRC seemed to be comfortable with this in terms of raising the parapet up so it is high enough to screen it. One thing I do want to say is the church was concerned if they show the parapet at, I think, it’s 15 foot and eleven and a half inches, if I recall correctly, if they don’t put a mechanical unit that takes it up to 15 and a eleven and a half and it only goes up to 14, they want to know, can they put the parapet up only to 14? The answer is yes as long as the parapet is high enough to cover the highest point of the mechanical units that is the highest that they need to go. So, in terms of the conditions of substantial compliance that in my mind that would be substantial compliance.
Mr. Haase said I would concur with that and agree at the DRC meeting that I attended that they would agree with that.
Mr. Valanzano said in terms of the building materials the school also needs a waiver. They will be using split-face block and smooth block. As you can see from the picture that was provided in your packet, the addition is going to be a continuation with the same materials, same color scheme. So, in this case a waiver of materials in order to match the existing building seems in order. With that I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have.
Mr. Kirchoff said on page three you talked about drainage.
Mr. Valanzano said I may have Mr. Belcher address that.
Mr. Belcher said I think it was stated as best as it could be stated in the report. The site suffers from some poor outlets and has for some time. It is one of those things that they struggle with because there are not a lot of options for them. We certainly hope when the site develops to the east, it is now currently in zoning with some of the things happening there, there would be a way to solve this problem that wouldn’t be an astronomical cost, which is what the church is sort of facing. Problems created by these expansions, it’s been just a little bit each time, but the problem is not going away. The only two properties that could potentially be impacted are their own, which I think they suffer the most difficulties from the drainage problems, their own parking lot, their own front yards and Cinergy possibly. But I think the ultimate solution is for this other parcel to develop. Rather than to take the stance that nothing could happen we bring it forward and see what we can do to get this project moved forward understanding there is going to still be a drainage problem there unless they come up with an idea I haven’t heard yet.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, should we make some provisions that down the road if this other site does develop, that this be addressed?
Mr. Belcher said you certainly could do that. That would help. They have I’m sure positive motivation of their own to try to correct but yet if the board makes that statement, it would make it stronger in terms of a future resolution of this issue.
Mr. Haase asked, what they are doing now, is that what is being termed as future development of the site? Because the Staff Report refers to development after this redevelopment here.
Mr. Valanzano said I was talking about future development on another site.
Mr. Haase asked, just to the north?
Mr. Valanzano said correct. One of the big problems that they have is the sheet drain coming off the other property and adding to the drainage on this property. A lot of that can be diverted and that will help solve some of the problems along this property line.
Mr. Haase said part of that parcel is sold is just north of this?
Mr. Valanzano said correct.
Mr. David Partenheimer with Partenheimer Architects located at 429 N. Pennsylvania, Indianapolis, Suite 403 said Mr. Valanzano has given you the essence of the presentation. We have the rendering that was presented to the earlier commission on the elevation of the church. We are now studying and getting material samples to look at to make sure that they will match the colors that we want to have and match the limestone on the existing buildings. That is the reason that we hesitate on making a final decision because we have a masonry product that is finished on both sides. We have to be very careful what we are selecting to make sure we can do both things with it and make it work. We would be happy to bring that back as soon as we know the answer to that question. But other than that that is really all that we have. I think the other issues we have addressed, the issues of the landscaping and the issues of the screening of the mechanical units on the roof.
Mr. Thibo asked, if you enlarge the parking lot, do you have to add any lighting?
Mr. Partenheimer said the parking lot does not need to be enlarged at this point and time. There is adequate parking for the enlargement of the sanctuary based on the present zoning requirements.
Mr. Haase asked, but they are not going to enlarge the parking lot?
Mr. Partenheimer said no.
Mr. Haase asked, Mr. Thibo does that answer your question?
Mr. Thibo said yes.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, what is the capacity parking?
Mr. Valanzano said 201 parking spaces.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, for a sanctuary of 866?
Mr. Valanzano said there is a four to one ratio under the new ordinance.
Mr. Haase asked, is there anyone in the audience who has any questions or comments that they would like to make about this public hearing? Being no one coming forward we will close the public hearing. Before we go to a motion whoever makes the motion would they want some help with the fifth condition about the drainage issue? If so, we may get our engineer or planner to help with that.
Mr. Kirchoff said I would appreciate some coaching on that because we have identified it as an issue and we are probably going to be hearing about the development to the north. I didn’t want it to fall through the cracks because it appears we should get some sense of direction or commitment, am I wrong?
Mr. McPhail said no I think you are right.
Mr. Daniel said the Staff comments said, “Any construction activity, which increases impervious surface area will only aggravate the existing conditions on site. I looked at those plans earlier but I don’t know that they are doing anything that is going to change the absorption field. Are they or are they not?
Mr. Belcher said yes, the additional hard surface and the additional roof.
Mr. Daniel asked, is there sod where that roof is going to go?
Mr. Belcher said where the expansion is taking place yes. It’s not covering the entire site obviously. It is just a little bit more. Each expansion did a little bit more. We have talked about it each time trying to figure out what to do. We thought we had a solution. When they came in initially with this project, the other parcel was very active and I think they even had some meetings with that particular development and then it went away. They were sort of left back to where they were but each time that they add to the project a hard surface is creating a little more runoff for them to deal with.
Mr. Daniel asked, what does the Plan Commission need to do this evening?
Mr. Belcher said like I said the church has their own incentive to try to correct this problem. The fact that they are experiencing these problems themselves and each time they expand they are caught between this problem. They need expansion space and they need to fix the drainage problem. Other than just a requirement that they cooperate in whatever fashion necessary for the future development of the ground to their north or to their east. In terms of drainage we don’t have a defined plan that I could have the board to act on. It is more the intent that they would be willing to cooperate.
Mr. Kirchoff said as the opportunity presents itself.
Mr. Belcher said yes.
Mr. Kirchoff said then I think we should expect them to do something.
Mr. McPhail said I agree.
Mr. Daniel said I think in the past the commission has preferred to have a commitment on record from the petitioner along those lines rather than trying to fashion something, to make it subject to that, it’s not that kind of an issue. But I think it is fair to ask the petitioner to commit that they will cooperate with the Town in any required resolution of that drainage issue there.
Mr. Kirchoff said as the opportunity presents itself.
Mr. Daniel said right.
Mr. Wally Carr at 1724 Beech Drive South said I’m a member of the parish. We have a request by Public Service to buy a little piece of property to the north of our property between our parking lot and their fence for some future additional parking lot. They have basically agreed to sell that land to us. They have attached to that agreement a requirement that we work something out on the drainage as a condition also. In fact a lot of the water that we are dealing with is coming off of their property to the north onto us. One of the problems is the sewer system along U.S. 40, the size of these sewers were only put in to handle the road. It’s really not large enough to get into and carry that water off the property. It looks like probably we would have to take it to the north in some way, which would be part of possibly another development because they are going to have to do something with their water. They would have a bigger problem than we have.
Mr. Haase said so the church does commit to some kind of resolving of the drainage problem when development to the north or even to the east of the property line occurs.
Mr. Carr said that is right and in order to meet the Public Service requirement we would have to come up with something if the property never developed to the north but we think it probably will.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, would they be required to come in if they expand the parking lot?
Mr. McPhail said yes.
Mr. Kirchoff said that also would be an appropriate time to get a commitment.
Mr. Valanzano said under the amendments to the ordinance from last summer an expansion of the parking lot would be a Staff approval and would not require a public hearing before this body.
Mr. Haase said unless Staff determined that there was a problem.
Mr. Valanzano said yes but if they brought in something that would comply with the drainage codes, etc. that would not necessarily require a public hearing.
Mr. McPhail said but Staff would have the opportunity to review it, that is all that we are asking.
Mr. Haase said and make sure that the drainage happens.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion that the Plan Commission approve the Architectural and Site Design Review as filed by St. Susanna Catholic Church, DP-05-003 for the construction of a 4,439 square foot church addition and a 8,332 square foot school addition with a waiver of the required building materials finding that:
The proposed development represents an innovative use of building materials which will enhance the use or value of area properties.
The proposed development is consistent with and compatible with other development located along the Gateway Corridor.
The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Plainfield Ordinance.
And that such approval be subject to the following conditions:
Substantial compliance with the Site Development Plan file dated March 1, 2005.
Substantial compliance with the Landscape Plan file dated March 1, 2005.
Substantial compliance with the Church Exterior Elevations file dated February 4, 2005 provided that the final building material selection shall be one of the three options identified in a memo from David H. Partenheimer dated February 25, 2005.
Substantial compliance with the School Exterior Elevations file dated March 1, 2005.
Second by Mr. Thibo. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Haase said next we have three public hearings for MetroAir Partners. Mr. Valanzano how do you suggest that we attack these?
Mr. Valanzano said I would suggest reading all three and combining it as one hearing.
Mr. Haase said we may make the motions separately but we will determine that at the end when we get to that point. We are now going to hear PP-04-013, DP-04-033 and DP-05-002 all to do with MetroAir Business Park.
Mr. Valanzano said what you have before you, as Mr. Haase read in, are three separate requests all for MetroAir Business Park. The first is a primary plat. It is an incremental subdivision dividing the property. It is about 56 acres in approximately five lots, being incremental there may be one or two more maybe or there may be a few less for MetroAir Business Park.
The other two requests are development plans. The first one is the final detail plan review under the PUD that is required for the basic architectural review. The second request is a development incentive that is requested for the moving of the building closer to Columbia Road on the east and to Stafford Road on the south.
To give you a little orientation one of the things that is mentioned in the Staff Report was the relationship to how this site lays out now in relation to the way the site was shown on plans that were originally proposed. What I have handed out to you is just a reduction of what the master plan that I found in the file that was approved as part of the original zoning back in 1994 for the property. What you will notice there is under that particular scenario building number one ran primarily east and west. The south facade of the building was the front facade of the building facing Stafford Road. The request that you have before you today is, as I understand it, a request that was made for this Plan Commission by the petitioner at the time that zoning was coming through to be sure to provide access to the property to the south and east. This is just lot one on this plan. The overall MetroAir is up and hooks around. The request was made that MetroAir would provide access to this property on the corner. One of the ways that interpreted that request was to go ahead and revise the layout of the site. As you can see on the handout I just passed out, the road came out and hooked over to the west and came up and then went out this way. What they are proposing now with the layout on the primary plat, in response to your suggestion that they provide access to the property to the east, was they brought the road straighter up. They brought it closer to these property lines and partly as a result in doing that they have rotated the first building that was on the south end from me parallel to Stafford Road to be perpendicular. Then they provided a couple of points of access into that property to the east, which I will get to in a few minutes. I just wanted to point that out to you. Since I wasn’t here at those meetings I wanted to make sure that you were aware of it. If it is a concern, we will deal with it. If the rotating of the building is not a concern to you, we will move on.
The design of the building itself other than that is consistent with the PUD in terms of the elevations is virtually identical to what was shown at that point and time. But with the new orientation the Design Review Committee had concerns that now as you are eastbound along Stafford Road when you look at the building as opposed to seeing the side of the building, the side is now what you will see face on from Stafford Road. Eastbound traffic would see the back of the building with loading doors. Also, you will notice the building was shown at approximately this location where the back of the buildings are quite a bit further forward toward Stafford Road. Which then gets into part of the request for the development incentives. The I-2 standards that they were bound by the PUD call for 90-foot setbacks for any parking areas or any building, etc. This plan shows about a 45-foot setback for certain portions along the site plan in this area but most of the setbacks are about 60 feet in through the rest of the property. But again that requires a development incentive to reduce that plus the building comes closer and the parking comes closer to Columbia Road on this side where they considered a 30-foot setback and development incentives reduced this is a 20-foot setback. As a result, through the development incentive process, they had increased landscaping along Columbia Drive from a Level 1 to a Level 2. On Stafford Road under the PUD they were required to have a Level 4 landscaping to start with. When you use the development incentive and you double landscape, it gets you to a Level 8. As a result of that high level of landscaping, that was pointed out to DRC. DRC’s basic reaction was well we had a little concern about rotating the building around and seeing the side elevation from Stafford Road but if that level of landscaping is going to be that high, maybe we don’t have that much of concern about the building elevation. Then they focused on the west elevation of the building and having that changed from a side view to a rear view of the building and suggested that the southern third of the property we move some landscaping materials over there to buffer it up. They did make a change in the landscape plan. They didn’t go quite as far as the Design Review Committee had suggested. They have basically trees one every 50 feet as ornamental trees and DRC said to put two evergreens in between each one. Their concern was there wasn’t going to be adequate room for the trees to grow so they put one tree in between them and had it spread out on the south half of the property instead of clustering them on the southern end a little bit more.
Then the only site plan issue we really have is one concern is a matter of detail that we want to make sure that the truck maneuvering area in the back works. As you recall in the Zoning Ordinance, you have what is called access-loading docks, which most of these large buildings have. You need 140 feet of clear maneuvering area for the trucks. There is a concrete drainage swale in the last 10 feet and we would like to see a profile of that to make sure it is going to be usable for trucks to be able to use that 10 feet for maneuvering. If they do, we don’t have a problem with it. We don’t have a detail or cross-section of that or a profile of that. I mentioned this to the petitioner that we want to make sure we can see that and I want that to be something that can be approved by Mr. Belcher and Mr. McGillem. If they say the profile is okay, I don’t have a problem with it but if they have a concern with it, I’m not of a mind to interpret that as in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
In terms of site lighting they really have not submitted any plans other than to confirm for us all the lighting on the site will be wall-pac lights and they will be full cutoffs shielded fixtures. They are not proposing any signs at this particular point and time and trash handling features on the site are undetermined at this time. It will depend on what their tenant base is and how they want to handle that. DRC suggested that those be subject to review at a later date when they decide what they are actually going to do.
With respect to the platting, there again, I describe that there is a request for access to the property to the east and to the south. What they have provided is two 50-foot easements. Lot one that is before you today for the first building is going to be in this area. The drive that gets into the north side of Lot 1 is going to be at the north end of the lot one. What they propose is a 50-foot access easement that will line up there. So, from the traffic safety point of view it would create kind of a four-way intersection. They are proposing that be a private easement. Also, on the north side wherever this lot line lays out is where they are talking about providing an easement to go to the south. So, those would be the two points in.
The Subdivision Control Ordinance can be read to require those stubs to be public streets to provide for public street access to that adjoining parcel. Due to the nature of that property being zoned for General Commercial development we are not really sure that having a public street going in there and either dead-ending into a General Commercial development and having a Town obligation of maintenance of that portion is really appropriate. Then if you do have a public stub that goes in there, you have to figure out a public turn around so we need to deal with cul-de-sacs. All that just doesn’t seem right. It seems like the appropriate thing to do would be since a corner is going to be commercial is to go into it with a private street and then just let them tie into access easements from there as opposed to having a public maintenance responsibility on that. So, with that it goes into why in the motion there is a suggestion for a waiver on the public street to allow those private stubs going in.
The petitioner has suggested, and I will let him do a lot more discussion on this that I will provide you with, that he wants a reimbursement for the cost of construction of Columbia Road. Our feeling is that is really a Town Council matter and not really an issue that should be dealt with as part of a plat. But we do agree the streets should be private. We will let them deal with that.
There have been some other issues that they talked about, some other changes that they may want to make. Mr. Haase said I know it is not perfectly in line with the rules but if they make some changes about wanting to make some alternations to the landscape plan, I would like to reserve the right to come back up and make some additional comments based on whatever suggestions that they suggest to you.
Mr. Haase said very well.
Mr. Valanzano said with that I will stop at this time and ask any questions that you might have.
Mr. Haase said probably the biggest question I have and maybe this goes to Mr. Daniel, but are we going to address this road reimbursement here? I heard you indicate that really is not something that is the preview of the Plan Commission. So, we just need to leave that to discus that with the Town Council is that correct?
Mr. Daniel said I don’t disagree with Mr. Valanzano. I think the Town Council is the best place to do that. The Plan Commission in the past has, if my memory severs me correctly, one other time, and I can’t remember what the project was, there was some issue brought up if there was some other development that went in that was going to use the road. But I think at that time we had firm figures to where there was a commitment that there would be “x” number of dollars. I don’t remember what that was.
Mr. Brandgard said there was an issue on Perry Road. I think we directed the petitioner that they were going to have to pay half of that since they were part of the need for it. I believe that is what we did at that point and time.
Mr. Haase asked, was it Panatoni?
Mr. Brandgard said yes.
Mr. Daniel said but they had firm figures and they knew exactly what the estimates were and that sort of thing.
Mr. Carlucci said a parallel to this we have recoupment agreements for water and sewer. Developers will come in and want recoupment agreements for water and sewer. They want someone to take that benefit. Those agreements are usually approved by the Town Council. The State gives us some guidelines of what you can include in those agreements, which is helpful. But the Town can make its own decision on what it allows and what it doesn’t allow. You can put a lot of things in there and the hardest thing probably on this is we have never done this before. It doesn’t mean that the Town Council shouldn’t consider it but we would also have to make sure that it is fair and equitable to the people that have to pay it, if that is what the Council wants to do. The Town Council can say we don’t want to do this at all, we are going to reserve the easements to give the access and that is up to the Town Council. The decision of whether there is an agreement or not really rests with the Town Council at this point. What we don’t want to do is have something on the plat that will limit the access to that road. They should go to the Town Council and convince them that it is an appropriate thing to do.
Mr. Haase asked, how many property owners are there to the east of this property?
Mr. Carlucci said just one.
Mr. Haase said okay it is just one and it is the airport authority.
Mr. Rich Horn said I’m the owner of Horn Properties, the primary developer here. My office is at 280 E. 96th Street, Indianapolis. There are three things that we are requesting Plan Commission approval. I would like to start construction and get going and develop this park. We are excited about it. In my view this PUD ordinance was approved in October and the actual plan that you had submitted before you is actually not a legal document, therefore, in my view it is in our right to change it within 90 degrees. But we did change it to 90 degrees as a result of this road going up to the east side of the property line based on some comments that were made before the Plan Commission when I made a presentation back in August. So, I do want to say that. I think it is within our preview with the PUD ordinance.
Two, we would like to receive this approval. We have been told, and I’m not a landscaping person by any means at all, but we had been told that this Level 8 is so dense that soon after the planning the plants will overrun each other and many of them will die because they are so close together. We would like to say to you that we may come back and seek a variance for some alternate plan noting that if we don’t get the variance, we have to live with this plan. So, we just want to say that in the spirit of full disclosure.
The third thing is it doesn’t matter to me whether we seek reimbursement through Town Council or this kind of hearing. But I do have three or four things, a different set of facts that have happened in the past. I don’t know if you want me to go through that with you now or not.
Mr. Haase said yes I would like to hear what you have to say.
Mr. Horn said right now this road basically dovetails the adjacent property owner. So, it is really going along their property line so it is really improving their property substantially by providing a road that will ultimately be dedicated and utilities run along that road. The only real users of the traffic of this road will really be our park and this parcel. It is really us two that will be using it.
Finally, this parcel, as I understand it, already has a right in/right out so we are not really holding that adjacent parcel property owner hostage. They have a right in/right out. They don’t have to have a curb cut through our property if they don’t want to. In light of all of those things and in light of the substantial cost that we are incurring, and I understand a Town has to be consistent as it deals with all these developers and we respect that, but we would like that adjacent property owner to reimburse us some prorate share. We would be willing to do anything regard to open book, some kind of fair allocation and agree to specific numbers. In my view a fair allocation would be something based on acreage. This parcel is about 25 acres and we are about 55 acres. By all means we would be willing to agree to anything where we would get reimbursed pursuant to a specific number or formula based on actual cost.
Mr. Haase said as far as the road reimbursement, we will leave that for the Town Council to take care of. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts with us. I don’t disagree with you at all.
Mr. Haase asked, are there any questions on the landscaping on the west side of that building?
Mr. Valanzano said the one thing that I wanted to talk about just briefly was the landscaping, the Level 8 on the south side. One of the reasons that it is so tight is this is the amount of their front yard that they have available. As part of the design, putting all of that landscaping in the first 15 feet off the hedge of the parking space, they still have another 45 feet available to spread that parking. One of the things that they are doing is the back portion of the site is turning this way and coming down. So, part of it is an engineering decision to use this front 45 feet that is remaining opened as a dry retention area. Could there be another solution by diverting some of this drainage in another direction to allow that 45 feet to be possibly used for some of this landscaping? Or through the proper selection of appropriate species be able to spread some of that material out into unused 45 feet. We have other Level eights in Town that have been planted so this wouldn’t be the first one. This would be the first one to put a Level 8 in 15 feet. So, I think part of it is a site design issue. Mr. Haase was there at the Design Review Committee as well, but it was my distinct understanding from most of the DRC members that if the level of landscaping was reduced, there is a definite feeling that they would want to reopen the consideration to look at the building as well.
Mr. Haase said I would echo that. The turning of the building, as far as from my standpoint, the south end of that building facing Stafford Road is not a problem. I probably have more of an issue with the eastward bound traffic on Strafford Road looking at the loading docks. You are quite right about what you said about the DRC’s feelings about that but also if they can spread that landscaping out, maybe they need to try to do that and adjust some of the water flow. There looks like there are a lot of solutions that can be looked at here before any final decision is made on that landscaping area.
Mr. Kirchoff said I’m making sure that the elevation isn’t changing significantly through Stafford to the building.
Mr. Valanzano said there is a line of site drawing in your packet that was used for the screening of the mechanical units.
Mr. Kirchoff said my question is we don’t have a lot of berming off Stafford.
Mr. Valanzano said no, as a matter of fact, here where the retention pond is proposed on Stafford Road there is really not a big screening of a berming wall there.
Mr. Kirchoff said I think it was on Reeves that we allowed some compression of that. (Inaudible).
Mr. Carlucci said the interesting thing about turning this building is part of it is driven by what the Plan Commission wanted, which changed the way that DRC looked at it too. So, it’s not necessarily a conflict but it did change things from a building that was going to be stretched this way, running from east to west and north to south. So, the Plan Commission said yes look at that and DRC had a whole bunch of other work that they had to do. I don’t think there is a conflict, it is just making things workable. But the distance between the wall of the building to Stafford Road would be how many feet?
Ms. Whicker said 150.
Mr. Haase said 178 feet, six and a half inches. It’s not even to the edge of the road though.
Mr. Valanzano said that’s just to the centerline isn’t it?
Mr. Haase said yes.
Mr. Valanzano said you take off at least a 40-foot for a half right-of-way so you are down to about 120/530 that I suggested.
Mr. McPhail aid when I look at the rendering of the building, I have a difficult time understanding the difference between the end view and the front view as being architecturally different to be screened differently from the road.
Mr. Haase said I don’t think it’s that, it is that they are coming closer to the road.
Mr. Valanzano said this is the front of the building. In the original PUD this is what you would have been seeing on Stafford Road. At the present corner this is what you would be seeing if you are driving eastbound on Stafford Road. What you end up with now is what you will be seeing 90 degrees looking straight up Stafford Road is this picture here on the colored rendering, the colored elevations. Rather than this being the front you will see on Stafford Road and this being what you see on the angle on the side what you will see on Stafford Road now will be instead of this front you will see this. Then when you are coming down Stafford Road, instead of seeing this, you will see this.
Mr. McPhail said I understand the view going east. You substantially changed that.
Mr. Haase said I think what he wanted to know is why the increase of landscaping just because you turned the building.
Mr. Valanzano said it wasn’t just because the building was turned but the ordinance used the I-2 development standards, which required a 90-foot setback for parking and loading. They used an incentive to move that parking and loading within 60 feet and as little as (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail said so it is the setback.
Mr. Valanzano said correct.
Mr. McPhail said but on the east side is what we are looking at or the west side.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. Haase said there is an issue with property just west of that. Property just west of this building may never be developed.
Mr. Valanzano said we were told that was a wetlands mitigation area so it may never be developed. Also, the grey differential, once we are done with this site, there is a 6-8 foot differential. So, when you get to the parking area for this within approximately a 10-foot area, you are going to have a substantial bank to put the landscaping on. If you take a real close look at the details on the landscape plan around the ornamental trees, they are proposing little retaining walls around each to be able to hold them into the back. That was another issue.
Mr. McGillem said they already have their wetland mitigation.
Mr. Haase asked, what does that mean?
Mr. McGillem said the site to the west of this, where the pond is, Browning has received their wetland mitigation permit, which allows them to fill that pond in and mitigate the wetlands that are just north of Stafford Road around that pond area to other locations within the Browning sites. That site where the pond is to the west will be another large warehouse distribution building.
Ms. Pat Stout at 3714 S. CR1050E, Indianapolis said Tom Theobold was at our house. We farm some of Browning’s property and he was at our house one day this past week, I think Friday. He said they are preparing to fill that pond and they will be building a building there. So, that is the latest word on it.
Mr. Haase said my understanding is the building can be placed and probably will be placed so it will actually screen those loading docks in a substantial amount, which is a good thing for the turning of this building.
Mr. Paul Meyer with JRA said just last week we laid out a building on the Browning site on that corner property. Mr. Theobold is holding that for awhile just because of the valley of that land there but it is possible for them to build 600,000-800,000 square foot building in which case the dock area on their building would face into the dock area of this building. So, you would have back-to-back docks and they would be somewhat self-screening. You would still have a little issue when you drive directly between them. You would see in the truck courts from Stafford.
Mr. Haase said but not as severe if there wasn’t anything there.
Mr. Meyer said that is true.
Mr. Horn said the master plan that Browning has had is a twin building and is just west of what is already in existence, which is a 600,000 square foot cross dock. So, it is just like a twin building.
Mr. Haase said Mr. Valanzano you discussed in here and Mr. Horn discussed this landscaping along the front. He has indicated that he would like to come back and restudy this landscaping and make sure that it is all going to work and maybe ask for a different level or configuration or something like that. Where is that addressed in this motion that we would be making here tonight?
Mr. Valanzano said as I understand it, the approval would be tonight with just the acknowledgment that upon final design if they decide they want to try to go through the variance route, they will do that. Then I believe they would bring the plan back here for the Plan Commission is that correct?
Mr. Horn said correct knowing that if we don’t get that approval, we have to comply with what is approved.
Mr. Haase said I just wanted to make sure that I was clear on what we were granting and what you were looking for.
Mr. Valanzano said I might point out on the bottom of page five on the Staff Report in the motion there is a reference for a reimbursement provision. Based on the discussions here that probably should come out completely.
Mr. Haase said I noticed in our motion also that there is a potential for the west landscaping to be reverted back to what the DRC had asked for originally. Before the Plan Commission makes a motion if you would re-explain to us what the DRC had said and then what on this plan the petitioner is proposing.
Mr. Valanzano said in the letter of the ordinance there are a lot of foundation plantings clustered in this area and a lot of foundation plantings in this area. DRC, based on the view for the eastbound traffic, says take the trees that are here and here that really aren’t going to be doing a lot of good and put them (2) in between each of these trees for about the southern third of the property to screen the angled view coming in. Their response was to take those trees and spread (1) in between instead so they have basically addressed the southern half of the site. DRC said to focus on the southern third.
Mr. Haase asked, how far are the large trees?
Mr. Valanzano said these are the two trees every 100 feet. They are about 50-foot on center.
Mr. Haase asked, is that the area that you said would have the retaining walls put around the trees to allow them to abut up to that increased height to the west?
Mr. Valanzano said yes.
Mr. Haase said we are talking about clustering the landscaping in the bottom third of the property line a little thicker, which if there is a building to the west of it, it would actually make more sense anyway. Are there any other questions from board members at this time? Being none does the petitioner have anything that they would like to add or close with at this time? Being none we will close the public portion of this hearing. It looks like we have two motions here and that is how that we should take this so the chair would accept a motion to act upon the primary plat at this time.
Ms. Whicker said we would just be omitting one on the bottom of page 5, correct?
Mr. Haase said yes. We would do all the way down and through and inclusive of four and anything below that would be omitted.
Ms. Whicker made a motion that the Plan Commission approve the primary plat PP-04-013 as filed by MetroAir Partners, LLC requesting primary plat approval for a non-residential incremental subdivision 56.115 acres into approximately five lots to be known as MetroAir Business Park subject to the following conditions:
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.
Compliance with the standards and specifications of the Plainfield Subdivision Control Ordinance.
All lots created by an incremental Secondary Plat shall have either (1) direct access to and from a public street; or (2) gain access to and from a public street across a perpetual recorded access easement through portions of the real estate included in the primary plat.
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.).
And regarding waivers with respect to public street access to abutting properties, I move that the Plan Commission grant the waiver finding that:
The granting of the waiver will not be detrimental to the public safety, health or welfare or injurious to other property.
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 generally to other property.
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.
The waiver will contravene the provisions of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance or the Comprehensive Plan.
Second by Mr. Kirchoff. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion that the Plan Commission approve the final detailed plan, DP-04-033 and Development Incentives DP-05-002 for MetroAir Business Park, Lot 1 as filed by MetroAir Partners, LLC finding that:
The Final Detailed Plan satisfies the development requirements and development standards specified in the PUD District Ordinance establishing such district.
The Final Detailed Plan accomplishes the intent set forth in Article VI of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
The Final Detailed Plan provides for the protection or provisions of the site features and amenities outlined in Article 6.,C.,2.
And that such approvals be subject to:
Substantial compliance with the Site Plan, Building Elevations and Building Renderings file dated February 4, 2005.
Substantial compliance with the Landscape Plan filed on February 22, 2005 provided that the parking lot hedgerow screening shall be planted at 3’ o.c. and the landscaping along the west property line shall be revised to comply with the DRC recommendations.
A profile drawing of the loading dock area, acceptable to the Town Engineer, shall be submitted as part of any Improvement Location Permit application.
Site lighting shall be by way of wal-pac lights, the details and photometric drawings of which shall be provided to Staff for approval as part of any Improvement Location Permit application.
Trash enclosures, when final type and location is determined, shall be designed and screened per ordinance requirements and submitted to Staff for approval prior to installation.
Signs shall be submitted per ordinance requirements for Staff approval as part of an Improvement Location Permit application prior to installation.
Second by Mr. McPhail. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
OLD BUSINESS/NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Ryan Cronk with Premier Properties said as we have done before, as part of our approval process for the Metropolis, we are required to come in prior to our submittals for all development approvals. The last time I came before you I said the next time I was here I have a sign package and that is what I’m preliminary presenting to you tonight. That is what we have submitted on file with Mr. Valanzano last Friday I believe.
The plan that we have in place that we are going to present this month consists of five primary signs. This first plan is the site plan and I didn’t know if Mr. Valanzano gave everybody their books or not. This first plan is a site plan. All the black marks represent sign locations. It looks like a lot of signs but it’s probably not as bad as it looks.
I will start with the perimeter of the project. From a project identification standpoint we have three signs that we are proposing on U.S. 40. We have what we call ground signs, monument type identification signs along Perry Road at all of the main entry points. We have secondary entry type signs and we have main entry type signs. Those same monument signs at the secondary entry points we are also proposing off of the Metropolis Parkway and number 33, which is off the new extension here. Those signs, what I’m calling the peripheral project, are the ground monument signs. They are approximately eight feet in height and 20 feet long and the only thing that will say on these are Metropolis. It is a curved metal panel with blue Metropolis letters on them. There is no tenant identification, it is strictly Metropolis. Those signs will be at the secondary entry points and the south side of the project.
The main entrance we are proposing a large floating sign. If you recall, we have a large water feature at the front of the project and we are going to install this sign in the pond. The trick is trying to make sure that they jive together in making sure the water doesn’t fluctuate too much. This is about a 100-foot long sign and 10-foot tall letters. It is a pretty big sign. It will appear as it is floating in the water. We are debating on whether that is an internally lit letter and/or wash letter. Right now I think we are siding more with the internally lit letter but we are debating that and we will get with DRC and Mr. Valanzano and everybody else. That is only at the one location. It is not in both ponds but only in the one pond to the right of the entry.
The signs along U.S. Highway 40, which I would call 30, 28, and 31, the issue with these signs is we are going to have to obtain variances for these two. Number 28 is actually within the bounds of Metropolis. The other two signs are technically not within the subdivision Metropolis. Mr. Valanzano and I have discussed from a common sense standpoint it is all part of the same development. So, we actually have an easement on the Applebee’s lot and we did that when the original deal was struck with Applebee’s to put signage there. We realize we are going to have to obtain a variance for that submittal.
The signs on the bottom, if you recall, this is the existing sign in one location. The size of the new signs is about the same size but actually two feet taller. We are going to utilize that existing structure, just the steel, and build these new structures around them. What we are proposing to do is have LED screens in the center of each of these signs. There would be the Metropolis logo on the top and there is a plexi type glass border around the signs. It is consistent with the directional signs in the shopping center. So, those are the signs along U.S. 40. There are actually two of these. The third one, 36, we are looking at this as an alternate sign. If we don’t do three of those, this would be the alternate for one of those locations on U.S. 40. I just don’t know which location yet. The LED screens are a pretty expensive commodity.
Mr. Haase asked, do you need a variance for the 10-foot Metropolis signs?
Mr. Valanzano said it’s a PUD.
Mr. Haase said PUD means it has to get approval.
Mr. Cronk said from you and not the BZA.
Mr. Valanzano said there were no sign standards established in the original zoning so this will be establishing the standards for freestanding signs.
Mr. Haase said these are merely suggestions and wishes.
Mr. Valanzano said yes.
Mr. Cronk said the next set of signs we will be proposing are what I’m calling the internal directional signs. You are going to see signs pointing to stores and how to get to the stores. That’s what these signs at the top are. These are almost 10-foot tall directional signs. Again, this is an aluminum sign cabinet with the Plexiglas and/or glass. We are trying to figure out exactly what that material is because we don’t want it to get dirty looking with the Metropolis logo on the top. You can see this is an arch type sign and these are going to be strictly for getting around the site.
The next and last sign type on this project is a wall type sign and it is actually a roof-mounted sign. On this building roof this is about a 200-foot long and 12-foot tall letter that is mounted on top of the roof that is not visible anywhere but the air.
Mr. Haase said I think that is a great idea.
Mr. McPhail said I just have this comment. You are in Plainfield, Indiana. You have the only mall within miles and you are not competing with the Las Vegas casino next-door and I think you have overdone it on your signs.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, why are you having double signs on Perry?
Mr. Cronk said most of these signs along Perry Road, for example, on this intersection right here this number 32 is a temporary sign. So, that would be down before the center opens. So, when you come in the shopping center, for example, and you turn here, the first sign that you can see that faces you is number six and that is going to be a directional sign and will tell you which way to get to a store. This sign is an exit sign that tells you which way to go to get to U.S. 40 or Perry Road or the airport, etc. The exit signs says, “70 left” and whatever this way. This is the only sign that is really on Perry Road and that is these ground signs. These are eight feet tall and 20 feet wide. We are going to put them in the median as you turn into the development. When we look at the package, we think it is a pretty subtle sign package. We are familiar with the mall. Besides what we have done on U.S. 40, which they are 25-foot signs, pretty much everything is low and not high and sticking out like a sore thumb. We are not blasting tenant signs or proposing tenant signs and that kind of stuff at you and that is really where sign clutter comes about when you dot retailers names all over the place and we are keeping that off this package.
This is the location of where we want the temporary signs and this is acting as a “coming soon” retailers sign. This sign we would have coming soon. We would identify the tenants on these orange and yellow bands as to who is coming and who is going to be bottom. The bottom of this thing is really a project teamwork where we have our logo and the architect’s logo and the contractor’s logo, etc. The top is just Metropolis and that is something, besides the buildings right now, that the people can drive by and understand what is going on out there.
Mr. Haase asked, what is the size of that?
Mr. Cronk said that is 60 feet tall and it’s temporary.
Mr. Kirchoff said define temporary.
Mr. Cronk said it comes down when it opens or after a grand opening. What we are doing with this, it’s actually structural, we are designing it to be able to utilize in other projects. So, we can disassemble this and we have a temporary sign structure and concept that we can use in other projects. So, we are not just wasting money on one huge temporary sign. It’s a big structure.
Mr. Haase said show me where the super structure is that they are putting up right now on the map.
Mr. Cronk said I just drove by for the first time today, and I haven’t been following the construction, but right now they are in the internal buildings.
Mr. Haase asked, is Dick’s under construction?
Another petitioner said Dick’s would be right there. The foundations are in right now. It attaches to the “J” building.
Mr. Haase asked, then what about the theaters, are they under construction?
Gentleman from the audience said the walls are going up in this portion over here. You will see the big jacks sticking way up in the air. So, the masons are out there working in this area.
Mr. Brandgard said there looks like there is a bunch of chicken wire up in the air down there. I first thought it was the theater and I thought that was too far north.
Gentleman from the audience said the way that it is designed if you drive in the back of Penney’s right now, you come off there, they have a gate right here and they have shut that entrance off and there is a gate all the way here. They are actually focusing the majority of the traffic coming into the main entrance through here and they have cemented the road through here. They’ve been working with Mr. McGillem and they are going to open this main entrance to Perry Road.
Mr. Brandgard said it is opened.
Gentleman from the audience said Mr. McGillem and I met with Dick Whicker with the Metro Mall and the general contractor and they have an elaborate set-up because once they get these structures built to a certain phase they are going to bring a contractor in for every space. So, there is going to be a lot of activity out there but they have a plan.
Mr. McGillem said they have staging areas and we have met with them for the routing of traffic in and around the site and their locations for their contractors for each staging area. I think they have pretty good plans.
Mr. Cronk said that is really the package.
Mr. Haase asked, is that coming in April?
Mr. Valanzano said it will go to DRC March 15 and then it will be here in April.
Mr. Cronk said we have fully executed leases now with Jos A Bank; Victoria Secrets; Finish Line; Pacific Sunwear; Bath and Body Works, which we are going to move over there. Those are fully executed leases right now. And then all of this blue stuff are in lease negotiations.
Mr. Haase asked, are things going fairly well with the leasing?
Mr. Cronk said yes. We have been through a couple of attorneys trying to get the right mix. We used a group out of Chicago to do the leasing because a lot of the retailers we haven’t worked with yet, mall retailers. And getting them acclimated with us and us acclimated with the right attorneys it has been a little bit of juggling act but now it is starting to move along and we are starting to see the leases come in.
Gentleman from the audience said I can tell you from the building side I have been getting numerous calls from architects all over the country. They are out there designing, maybe they haven’t signed yet.
Mr. Cronk said most of them are in design. We are working at a pretty fast paced schedule and they are signing leases and opening four or five months later when it’s all said and done for a lot of these guys. Everyone understands the urgency.
Mr. Haase said if you go in that entrance at Penney’s right beside McDonald’s and you go past the turn that you would turn to go behind McDonald’s that would take you to Culver’s, you are going in that entrance, there is a stretch of pavement in there probably 50 foot long that is a mess. I’m surprised that Penney’s hasn’t withheld their rent to get you to fix that. You really need to address that early.
Mr. Carlucci said there is a transition problem between the existing pavement when J.C. Penney went in.
Mr. Cronk asked, right here?
Mr. Haase said yes.
Mr. Cronk asked, on that drive?
Mr. Haase said yes.
Mr. Cronk asked, not back by Wal-Mart?
Mr. Haase said no. It looks bad.
Mr. Cronk said it probably had something to do with the transition.
Mr. Haase said nobody went back and finished it. Like I said I’m surprised Penney’s hasn’t said anything.
Mr. Carlucci said they got the curb done.
Mr. Haase said if you would look at that, it would dress your place up and make the Town look better too.
Mr. Cronk said I will make a note of that and talk to Dick about it.
Mr. Thibo said you have two buildings going up now, one is the theater, what is the other one?
Mr. Cronk said the theater is going up and the other buildings going up are multiple tenant buildings. Lot one in front of Target right now we have Radio Shack is going to go there and Nextel. We have to have some restaurants in there. We’ve been talking to some Mexican and fish restaurants. We have to have two or three restaurants to open when the mall opens for the rent requirements, etc. I think it is a matter of our leasing and deciding exactly which one they want to put in right away and getting a deal done.
Mr. Thibo asked, what is the latest on the Galyan’s headquarters building?
Mr. Cronk said I don’t know. I’m so far out of touch with that that I couldn’t tell you. I’ve been working on this and I’ve been working on another project out of State. Mr. McPhail probably knows more than I do. I know they are trying to find a tenant.
CONSIDERATION OF AMENDED FEE SCHEDULE
Mr. Valanzano said you should have two things in your packet, one is the fee schedule and one is a chart that compares where we are now with Avon, Brownsburg and the County’s schedule. With that I will just answer any questions that you might have. We are kind of in the ballpark across the board with our proposal with what everybody else has.
Mr. Haase asked, how did you arrive at these prices? Based on what goes in the project to be done?
Mr. Valanzano said to a certain extent part of it was keeping with what the other communities had so that we are not out of whack one way or the other. And that nobody could use that for or against us in their arguments. Some of it in terms of residential rezonings and variances of use for residential properties try to get some balances there. So, we didn’t do anything with the fee structure that would cause somebody to use the wrong kind of zoning procedure just to save a few bucks here or there. So, we did try to do some balancing that way. We basically looked at some of the types of projects that were coming in. A lot of the development plans are going to be larger commercial projects or industrial projects. That is why we have the per acre charges in there. So, while a small commercial project might be coming in, say $500-$600.00, if it is not a three or four acre site verses somebody who is coming in with a 40-acre site, the fee would escalate quite a bit with the size of the project.
Mr. Carlucci said a lot more Staff puts their hands on the big acre projects, the water and sewer department, Public Works. We are still subsidizing. We will never get away from that but they also haven’t raised them since 1996. So, we have gone a long time without raising them. Whatever you do tonight this is going to go to the Town Council. They will put it in an ordinance form. Our plan is when we get the building permit fees to the Council, all of this will take place July 1. This gives everybody a lot of lead-time. By law you have to give 90 days so we just thought it would be easier when we give it all to the Council in one Fee Ordinance and it will all take affect in 90 days, basically July 1. Also, we are just under-paying and the residents, the taxpayers, are just subsidizing too much of our time for these developments. We are straining our General Fund to begin with. We need to get some additional revenue that it will offset revenues that we are losing from the State.
Mr. Haase asked, are we going to adopt these tonight? Is that what we are supposed to do? I had some comments. On the zone map changes we have $200.00 for residential plus the acreage. I don’t know why we wouldn’t be at $400.00 as our minimum. Everybody else is at $500.00. That is just my comment there. When you get down to your Variance of Development Standards, I was just looking at what everybody else is doing basically, commercial/industrial uses I would go with $300.00 instead of $150.00 especially in those commercial areas. Those are mostly out of Town people.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, do we have to hold a public hearing on these?
Mr. Daniel said when the ordinance goes through yes.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, is that at the Council level?
Mr. Daniel said yes.
Mr. Haase said I do a lot of pricing and there is no sense of giving it away if nobody else is. I would be glad to discuss them with you before we take them to the Council.
Ms. Whicker asked, what is the difference on the multi-family architectural or the single-family architectural in comparison to single-family not architectural?
Mr. Valanzano said one of the standards subdivisions in Town doesn’t have any specific requirements like Bentwood or Paddock or maybe Whitmore. That review is basically being done by Ed and his shop. We have the architectural reviews coming in and there is going to be more people looking at it and there is going to be another review for the architectural standards and looking at the elevations and seeing if they comply with the brick percentages and window grids and shutters, etc. So, there is going to be an extra layer of review on those. So, that is what the single-family architectural would be for the places like Bentwood, Paddock, etc. The residential design guidelines are more tied in to assure the type of structure that is being built. If it is in standard compliance with the zoning ordinance’s basic square footage and location on the property and there is no specific review of the building materials or architectural features, that would be the basic single-family with architecture that throws all of that other in.
Mr. McPhail said so what you are saying is you are proposing $50.00 if it meets the building basic standards and if it has to go for architecture review, it is $100.00.
Mr. Valanzano said yes.
Mr. McPhail said I think it is pretty cheap. I’m not sure it shouldn’t be more than that.
Mr. Haase said we will revisit this.
Mr. Valanzano asked, do you want me to come back in April with this?
Mr. Haase said yes.
Mr. Valanzano asked, are you still okay with July 1?
Mr. Carlucci said we won’t make it because it is 90 days after we adopt the ordinance.
Mr. Brandgard said you would have to adopt the ordinance this month to make it July 1.
Mr. Carlucci said I don’t think these fees are covered by that 90 day requirement but we were going to put them in there anyway.
Mr. Valanzano said the statute said the Plan Commission can create these fees but in the ordinance we put in another level and you create the fee and you send it to the Town Council for its final approval. So, we went a step beyond in the ordinance.
Mr. Carlucci said there is no reason why it can’t wait until April. We just need to make sure we finish it up in April.
Mr. Haase said we can do it now.
Mr. McPhail said I would like for everybody to send any comments to Mr. Valanzano and let him come back in April with a consensus.
Mr. Brandgard said I agree. The other thought is we have always looked at the fees to kind of cover the costs the best we can. At the same time we don’t want to stop something from happening because of the fees necessarily. The other half is we need to review these things more often than every 10 years. What I’m saying if we go with what we have here, then come back next year with another revision or the year after and move it up incrementally instead of having major jumps may be better. That puts a lot of discipline on us to do that.
Mr. Haase said we can go ahead with what he has here. Obviously, they are better than what we are collecting now.
Mr. Brandgard said we can tweak and fine-tune these forever if we aren’t careful.
Mr. Haase said the Chair would accept a motion to approve and forward these to the Town Council.
Ms. Whicker made a motion to forward the Planning and Zoning Fee Schedule that has been drafted with the date of March 1, 2005 to the Town Council with a favorable recommendation. Second by Mr. Thibo. Motion carried.
APPOINTMENTS TO DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
Mr. Haase said I went to the DRC meeting last month and I will not be able to make the March meeting. I had an earlier discussion with Mr. McPhail at a prior meeting we had last week. He indicated he would be able to make the March 15 meeting so I would appoint Mr. McPhail to go to the DRC as a Plan Commission representative. Second by Mr. Kirchoff. Motion carried.
Mr. Valanzano asked, does that mean we will be back again to decide what we do in April?
Mr. Brandgard said yes.
Mr. Haase said the public hearing tomorrow is at 7:00 unlike what your agenda shows in your binder and the doors open at 6:00.
Mr. Kirchoff said the room is available at 6:00 and I will be there at 6:00 to let people in. They are going to start up stations at 6:15 and anybody can come in after that is fine. I was told that they did not get that in their notice.
Mr. Haase asked, has anybody come up with a citizen member to the DRC?
Mr. Thibo said I suggested Jim May.
Mr. Haase asked, is he still traveling in the wintertime?
Mr. Brandgard said we just need to talk to him to find out.
ZONING COMPLIANCE
Mr. Haase asked, where are we on the Plainfield Ready Mix?
Mr. Daniel said I sent Mr. Carlucci a draft, a notice of violation and he has provided a couple of comments. Mr. Belcher has provided me some information on a couple of ordinances. I think we are proceeding. He will have it this week. I’m making sure we have everything in there that we could find and I think we found everything that we are going to find.
Mr. Haase said I appreciate everybody’s efforts. What about the recycling dumpsters by Abby-Tibby?
Mr. Carlucci said that is the first task of the Planning Director. We will try to do it but we are really just short.
Mr. Haase asked, do we have applications?
Mr. Carlucci said we will interview five people. We will give the names to Mr. Lydick to start the appointments. The way that we have done it in the past is to have two Council members, Chairman of the Plan Commission, Town Manager, Mr. Lydick and I think we have had Mr. Belcher in those meetings too, those interviews.
Mr. Haase asked, will that be coming up in the next 30 days?
Mr. Carlucci said yes. We may not do it all in one day.
Mr. Haase asked, what about the LaFamiglia signs?
Mr. Carlucci said we have been cleaning up the corridor with signage. We have been going to the businesses. She is sending a letter to them on those two ground signs saying that if they don’t come out within five days of that letter, we are going to take them and not return them. We unchained one. There was one that K.T. Salon had on Clarks Creek and we were going to pull it up but not only did they sandbag it down but they chained it to the light pole. I had Ms. Sprague call them and tell them come Monday, if it is not down, we are removing the sign. I don’t know if they got it out of there or not but they were given plenty of warning last Friday. I saw it this afternoon and it was gone. I don’t know if we did it or if they finally got it out but we gave them plenty of warning to get it out of there. We have been moving up and down the corridor trying to clean all of this stuff up.
Mr. Haase said the subdivision signs that go up on the weekends don’t we require that the subdivision be within the Town of Plainfield?
Mr. Carlucci said yes. I intended to get out this weekend.
Mr. Haase said we have been following that because I have been noticing there are a lot of them.
Mr. Carlucci said we will pull that out along with the mortgage stuff that goes with it.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned.
____________________________________
Mr. Mitchell P. Haase, President
(Note from the transcriber: To get all that Mr. Valanzano says there is the need for him to continue to speak from the podium instead of from the audience. Can hear everyone else real well except for Mr. Kirchoff. If there is ever anything missing that is why.)
