The Plainfield Plan Commission met on Monday, October 3, 2005.
In attendance were Mr. Matrana, Mr. Thibo, Mr. McPhail, Mr. Brandgard,
Ms. Whicker and Mr. Kirchoff.
ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM
Mr. Carlucci administered the roll call.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
MINUTES
Mr. Thibo made a motion to approve the September 8, 2005 Plan
Commission minutes as submitted. Second by Ms. Whicker. Motion
carried.
OATH OF TESTIMONY
Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Testimony.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mr. Matrana reviewed the Guidelines Governing the Conduct of
Public Hearings. We have some requests for petitions to be continued.
The first one is RZ-05-016 concerning Saratoga Associates.
Mr. Valanzano said that petition and the primary plat, PP-05-007
both filed by Saratoga Associates at 3851 Saratoga Parkway the
petitions were filed in time for this meeting but they really weren’t
complete petitions. So, we did publish notice to give them an
opportunity to complete the file and they were not able to do so. So,
both of those petitions will need to be re-docketed. They were told
that they have their deadline coming up for this Friday at noon for
complete filings in order to make the November hearing. Obviously,
they have to send out notices for that hearing to be here in November,
otherwise, it will go to the next hearing after that, if they are not
complete at that time.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to continue RZ-05-016 and PP-05-007 to
the November Plan Commission meeting. Second by Mr. McPhail. Motion
carried.
Mr. Valanzano said the next petition, DP-05-032 by NAI Olympia
Partners is a request for Development Plan Approval. There were some
questions that the Design Review Committee had about the details of
that petition. The petitioner did not have adequate support at that
meeting to be able to answer all of the DRC’s questions plus their
plans were a little bit light on details. DRC suggested that the
petition be continued to allow them time to be able to provide adequate
detail and a complete set of plans for completing a thorough review for
their recommendation to you. So, that petition should also be continued
to the November hearing.
Mr. McPhail made a motion to continue DP-05-032, NA Olympia
Partners until the November meeting. Second by Mr. Thibo. Motion
carried.
Mr. Tim Oakes, Attorney at Ice Miller at One American Square, Box
82001, Indianapolis, IN 46282 said I’m requesting a continuance of RZ-
05-013, Opus North Corporation. It is an application filed by Opus
North Corporation for roughly 78.05 acres. I’m here this evening on
behalf of Plainfield Place, LLC, which is an entity that is owner
controlled by Equicor Development, my client. They own acreage directly
adjacent to and south of this 78-acre parcel. Back in 1995 my client
purchased roughly 115 acres and has been trying to develop that ground
for about 10 years now. We are not necessarily opposed to the proposed
rezoning but the rezoning to an I-2 classification directly adjacent to
the property that is zoned General Commercial that my client owns
raises potential conflicts and significant issues. We believe we can
work through those issues with the petitioner. We would just like time
to do that so we request that this be continued until the November Plan
Commission meeting. That would give us time to sit down and meet with
the petitioner to work those out. Otherwise, we would be forced to
remonstrate. Honestly, we don’t want to do that. We think that is
potentially a good project. There are just details that are not present
that need to be worked out. So, with that I would respectfully request
that this matter be continued.
Mr. Matrana said before making a continuance this is a public
hearing, is there anyone in the audience who would be opposed to the
continuance concerning Opus North?
Mr. John Cumming with the Opus North Corporation at 10333 N.
Meridian Street, Suite 130, Indianapolis, IN said I am the petitioner
on behalf of Opus North Corporation. I would like to show my
materials, my boards, etc. but I can also do that later.
Mr. Valanzano said right now you should just be responding to the
request for the continuance, whether you oppose that or not.
Mr. Cumming said at this point I would like to oppose the
continuance and would like to proceed along so that I can have
discussions with the adjacent landowner to the south.
Mr. Daniel asked, do you want to present your petition tonight
and oppose the motion to continue until November or agree to have the
matter moved to November? I was a little uncertain about that.
Mr. Cumming said one of the issues, and I think Mr. Valanzano is
going to address it, is we have some question if all the interested
parties were notified correctly. If that is the case and they are not
here this evening, I understand we may need to continue it anyway. I
guess that is one thing that we should figure out.
Mr. Valanzano said we became aware that there was a potential
notice defect to two of the adjacent property owners to the east. If
they are here tonight and are willing to waive notice, we could go
forward. If they are not here tonight or if they oppose or do not wish
to waive their notice, this petition would have to be continued in any
event to provide for correct notices to be sent to surrounding property
owners. Is there a Mr. Bailey or Mr. Andrea here?
Mr. Bailey said I’m Mr. Bailey.
Mr. Valanzano said please let the Plan Commission know your
position in this case.
Mr. Joe Bailey said I’m the adjoining property owner directly
east for about a 200-foot section. I talked to Mr. Cumming earlier, a
week ago, and I don’t have any problem going ahead with the hearing
from a personal standpoint but my neighbor is not here.
Mr. Daniel asked, what is the name of the other neighbor?
Mr. Valanzano said Robert Andrea.
Mr. Daniel asked, is Mr. Andrea here tonight?
Mr. Valanzano said apparently not.
Mr. Daniel said we have a failure of notice on that Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Matrana asked, would it require a continuance?
Mr. Daniel said yes. The surrounding property owners did not get
proper notice from what Mr. Valanzano said. Those two did not get
notice. Mr. Bailey is here but the other gentleman is not.
Mr. Matrana said due to the failure of notice I would like to
have a motion for a continuance.
Mr. McPhail made a motion to continue RZ-05-013, Opus North
Corporation until the November meeting for the reason of improper
notification. Second by Mr. Kirchoff. Motion carried.
Mr. Matrana said I would like to make a request and go out of
order and the next matter I would like to hear concerns DP-04-027 and
DP-04-028 concerning Panattoni.
Mr. Kirchoff said before we do we had a lady in the audience who
came up ahead of time and looked at the agenda. She wanted to know
when we thought it would be on the agenda. I assumed we would go in
order and apparently she left and plans to be back.
Ms. Whicker asked, is there a reason we are presenting it early?
Individual from the audience (inaudible).
Mr. Brandgard said let’s delay that.
Mr. Kirchoff said I just assumed we were going in order and I
told her it would be at least an hour and a half.
Mr. Matrana said actually we should go in order. Thank you for
bringing that to my attention. The first petition would then be RZ-05-
014 concerning Duke Construction.
Mr. Valanzano said this petition is a request for rezoning
approximately nine acres being in the AG District to the I-2
classification. Duke recently bought this property and the adjacent
four acres from the airport authority. The remaining four acres are
already zoned to the I-2 classification. This site abuts I-70. It has
I-2 to the north, northwest, west. It is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. Just so you know anything that would go on this
site would require Architectural Review and again it is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan and surrounding zonings.
Mr. Blair Carmosino with Duke Construction with offices at 600 E.
96th St., Indianapolis, IN said I think the petition speaks pretty much
for itself. I do have one handout, if I may approach, that is a simple
aerial that shows with clarity the subject site. The surrounding uses
to the north, east, south is the interstate. This parcel was a residual
after the interstate bi-sected it. The zoning survived. The airport
authority owns it. We are purchasing everything but a 100-foot strip
and the rezoning is applicable to that. I will leave it at that. It
is a pretty straightforward petition and I will be happy to answer any
questions.
Mr. Matrana asked, is there anyone in the audience who would like
to speak either for or against this rezoning? Being no one coming
forward I would like to close the public portion of this matter and
open this up to the board for any comments or a possible motion.
Mr. Brandgard made a motion that the Plan Commission certify the
zone map amendment request RZ-05-014 as filed by Duke Construction
Limited partnership requesting rezoning of approximately 9.02 acres
from the AG, Agricultural classification to the I-2,
Office/warehouse/distribution District with a favorable recommendation.
Second by Mr. Kirchoff. 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 Plan Commission
concerns DP-05-029 and DP-05-030, Premier Properties.
Mr. Valanzano said the petitions that you have before you now is
for development of approximately 11 acres. DP-05-029 is a Development
Incentive for the reduction of the depth required front yard along the
future Metropolis Parkway. To reduce the setback from approximately 60
foot, which is required to 40 feet, which would require doubling of the
landscaping requirements. Since there is AG zoning to the south of the
Metropolis Parkway it would go from a Level 2 to a Level 4 along the
front yard and the landscape plan that has been submitted is a
complying landscape plan with ordinance requirements.
The Development Plan, DP-05-030 is for the Architectural & Site
Design Review for the project. I tried to outline on the aerial map on
the first page of the Staff Report the approximate location of the
three buildings and the property configuration and the street
configuration of the internal road configuration around the property.
They are proposing three buildings ranging from about 30,000 to
40,000 square feet in area. The largest building is in the middle.
The site runs all the way from Gladden Road down Metropolis Parkway.
The loading areas for all the buildings would be on the back side or
west of the two buildings that run north/south or on the north of the
southern building, which faces Metropolis Parkway.
The only issue in review of this project by the DRC was the
design of the exterior of the building elevations on limited portions
of that. That was the north elevation of building one, which faces
Gladden Road and the Crown Plaza Apartments to the north and then the
east and west ends of the building that faces the Metropolis Parkway.
When you look in your booklets and you see the elevations, the front
was dressed up but as you got just past the front, there was a
relatively plain facade after that. DRC had suggested that some scoring
details and color elements be added to that facade. The drawings that
were submitted to us in the packets do show that some scoring was added
but no additional color was added to it. I have talked to Mr. Cronk
since the preparation of the Staff Report and he agreed that some
additional color would be added to those three particular facades to
help dress them up in keeping for the protection of the parkway and for
the residential to the north.
Aside from that in terms of mechanicals and wall lights and
landscaping and pedestrian connectivity everything else with this
project is in really good shape and complies with the ordinance.
The eastern most drive of the site where it comes up to Gladden
Road is very close to where Shady Lane is projected to come to Gladden
Road. As a result of that, Staff asked that the easternmost cut on
Gladden Road be limited to a right-in/right-out only and the first full
access be that existing drive which serves the insulation company as
well as this site. On the two drives on the Metropolis Parkway the
petitioner has asked for the easternmost drive to be the full access.
Mr. McGillem has indicated that only one of those two cuts would get
full access. In either event whether it is the east cut or the west
cut it would be subject to approval from the Access Control Ordinance.
But on the western drive Staff has requested that it be designed and
located so that it can be shared with the property to the west, if that
area gets redeveloped. Or to provide for additional access to that
existing development to come through the site whether that be a rightin/
right-out or whether it becomes a full access. In either event we
would like the drive shared between both properties to minimize cuts on
the parkway.
With that Mr. Cronk has agreed with the additional color to be
added to those particular facades as indicated and I will let Mr. Cronk
go through the building materials in a little bit more detail and I
would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Ryan Cronk with Premier Properties at 5252 E. 82nd St.,
Indianapolis, IN said I will quickly run through the building materials
on the project and take any other questions thereafter.
We kept a similar elevation throughout the whole project. The
large entrance with all the bricks, we have the EIFS areas in between.
We are using that metal mesh panel. There is some question as to what
that looked like up in the air but if you go out there now and see
where it is, I think you will like that look. (Inaudible). We are
going to use that in some of these areas. We are pretty happy with
what we put together and I think the Design Review Committee was happy
and we are ready to get going. With that I will take any questions.
Ms. Whicker asked, are these the same building materials prior to
them requesting more color?
Mr. Cronk said we haven’t changed the building pallets. The side
of the buildings that Mr. Valanzano referred to were all EIFS and what
we are going to do within the EIFS is provide some additional color and
some scoring.
Mr. Kirchoff said it appears to be a little bit indefinite when
you just say additional.
Mr. Valanzano said the sense of what we expect to see would be
coloring on the far corners of the building that would mimic in terms
of width and size of the brick columns coming up. So, at least as a
quick look, when you see the brick columns and their colors coming up,
it would be a similar type affect on the far back corners of the EIFS.
Mr. McPhail said I’m a little bit confused on the entrance off of
the Metropolis Parkway and the request from Staff. Are we saying we
want the west entrance moved to the property line to allow the access
to the other property?
Mr. Valanzano said that access point is very close to the west
property line. We would like to see the petitioner providing an
easement to allow for the adjoining property owner to cross and make
sure that this drive is designed so that they can accommodate that.
Basically, that there not be any ditches or anything else in between or
something that would physically prohibit that.
Mr. McPhail asked, do you have any problem with that?
Mr. Cronk said we don’t have any problem sharing so long as we
can come up with an agreement with the neighbor that they will share
the maintenance cost and installation of that drive. What we have
agreed to do is design for it and accommodate it but we still have to
come up with an agreement.
Ms. Whicker asked, would sharing that drive eliminate the
landscaping that you currently show to the west of that entrance?
Mr. Valanzano said there should only be a need to punch a 20 or
24 foot drive through there so if you tee in, you tee in and either
move the landscaping just a little north and south to accommodate for
it or hit one of the empty spots or one of the gaps in the landscaping
to get in there.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, is your sharing east and west and not north
and south?
Mr. Valanzano said the access will come east and west across the
property line through the required yard and then they would use the
drive to get down to the Metropolis Parkway.
Mr. Kirchoff said the only question I would have is with all the
discussions we have had about the new parkway that goes through are you
comfortable that this is a product that will look good on that parkway
entering the mall?
Mr. Cronk said yes. We feel it is a good in-between use between
multi-family and the other side of the multi-family and with respect to
the parkway as well. We feel there is a lack of it in the marketplace.
So, yes we feel good about it.
Mr. Matrana asked, is there anyone in the audience who has
anything to say about this petition either for or against? Being no
one coming forward we will close the public portion of the hearing and
open this matter up to the board for discussion and a possible two
separate motions.
Mr. Kirchoff said with this reduced setback in the front yard we
are talking about all the discussions we had about this being the main
entrance into the mall. Are you comfortable Mr. McGillem that this
will be all right?
Mr. McGillem asked, as far as the access?
Mr. Kirchoff said no the reduced front yard.
Mr. McGillem said Mr. Valanzano said it was a reduced 40-foot
setback with a Level 4 landscaping.
Mr. Kirchoff said I understand that. My question is is it going
to look all right coming down that parkway?
Mr. McGillem said I hadn’t given it much thought.
Mr. Kirchoff said I always use examples of where we have made
mistakes and drive up Perry Road and I look at Perry and Reeves and
that big berm that we have there. That is obviously a mistake and I
just don’t want to do that kind of thing. Is this what we want on the
new parkway?
Mr. McPhail said I think if you look at the site plan and look to
the building west of it, it is going to be considerably closer to the
road than the setback on this one.
Mr. Valanzano said the only thing that you might want to
consider, I don’t know if this confuses the point more than helping it,
but this is kind of a hybrid type use and we just prepared the CID
District, which this product could fit very well within. The standards
in that district would allow for a 30-foot building setback and a 10-
foot landscape strip like the General Commercial District has. This
would be substantially more. Since it is still being developed in an
Industrial District it will have a 40-foot setback and the setback is
to the edge of the pavement of a parking area rather than a building.
So, in terms of transitioning from the industrial area to the
commercial area, as you get into the mall, this is really stepping in
the right direction or stepping consistently with that type of
development.
Mr. Kirchoff said I just need to hear that kind of discussion.
Mr. Brandgard said I think a bigger area was at the corner of
Stafford and Perry where the mound is not quite high enough. On the
other hand I know where you are and I think to me the design of the
building which it is going to be facing the parkway is kind of a look
that I would like to see there, an industrial office building.
Ms. Whicker made a motion that the Plan Commission approve DP-05-
029 as filed by Premier Properties USA, Inc. requesting Development
Incentives for the reduction in the depth of a required front yard
(Metropolis Parkway Road) finding that:
The Plant Unit Value to be provided in the required yard
exceeds the normal standard for such yard by a multiple of
2.0 or more.
The proposed development is appropriate to the site and its
surroundings.
The proposed development is consistent with the intent and
purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
And that such approval shall be subject to:
Substantial compliance with the landscape plan file dated
September 23, 2005. 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
Ms. Whicker made a motion that the Plan Commission approve DP-05-
030 as filed by Premier Properties USA, Inc. requesting Architectural &
Site Design Review approval for the development of the office/warehouse
buildings totaling approximately 108,000 square feet located within 600
feet of a Gateway Corridor and 600 feet of a Residential District
finding that:
The Development Plan complies with all applicable
Development Standards of the District in which the site is
located.
The Development Plan complies with all applicable
provisions of the Subdivision Control Ordinance for which a
waiver has not been granted.
The Development Plan complies with all applicable
provisions for Architectural and Site Design Review for
which a waiver has not been granted.
The proposed development is appropriate to the site and its
surroundings.
The proposed development is consistent with the intent and
purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
And that such approval be subject to the following conditions:
Substantial compliance with the Site Plan and Landscape
Plan file dated September 23, 2005.
Substantial compliance with the Photometric Plans and
lighting cut sheets file dated September 19, 2005.
Substantial compliance with the Building Elevations/color
rendering file dated September 23, 2005 provided that the
north facade of building number one and both the east and
west facades of building three shall include additional
architectural detailing of EIFS with scored areas and areas
painted to match the brick color.
Trash enclosures shall be in substantial compliance with
the dumpster details file dated September 19, 2005 and
shall be located within the loading areas located at the
rear of each building.
Mechanical units shall be roof-mounted units screened in
the elevation view from all sides.Alls signs shall comply with Sign Hierarchy set forth in
Article 5.5 of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
The easternmost curb cut onto Gladden Road shall be limited
to a right-in/right-out traffic pattern.
Final design of the westernmost interior access drive to
Metropolis Parkway shall be designed to provide for shared
access with the abutting property to the west.
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. Matrana said the next matter before the board concerns
Primary Plat PP-05-008, NAI Olympia Partners.
Mr. Valanzano said the next petition is a Primary Plat dividing
approximately 78 acres into 10 lots. It uses the incremental nonresidential
subdivision process. I have given you a scaled down
version of it on the front page of the Staff Report to give you an
indication of what is going on. If you recall a couple of years back,
there was an annexation and rezoning of approximately 160 acres into
the Town. The eastern 80 acres approximately were zoned I-2.
Subsequently Duke bought that and there are two buildings on that.
This is the western half of that property that was zoned General
Commercial as part of that annexation. The request now is to divide
that incrementally into approximately 10 lots. Nine of the lots are
proposed to be located along the Quaker Boulevard frontage from
Stafford Road on the north down to Stanley Road on the south. The
access is proposed right now at two points on Stafford Road on the
north. The first one would be a right-in/right-out. The second one
would align with the approved full access to the north and be a full
access into the site. You would have a north/south connection running
all the way through the property and exiting out onto Stanley Road.
The drive on Stanley Road that you see covered in the graphic lines
with Airwest Boulevard across from on Stanley Road, on the south side
of Stanley Road and that would be a full access point. There has been
discussion about other potential access points. The one closer to
SR267 or Quaker Boulevard would be limited to right-in/right-out only.
They went farther west subject to compliance with access control
depending on how everything works out. Most likely I think that is in
a three-lane section road and would be allowed to be a full access at
that point. Any other access on Stafford Road in the future on the
eastern half of the property would be subject to review and approval
through the Access Control Ordinance. It is uncertain what will happen
there at this point and time. There has been discussion and our
comments from the petitioner that that particular property, although it
is now zoned General Commercial, may be requested or petitioned to be
rezoned to the I-2 classification to bring industrial development
closer. That petition is not before you tonight. That is kind of an
FYI. We don’t know at this point and time whether that petition will
be forthcoming in the next couple of days or couple of years for that
matter. The access shown onto SR267, all indications that we have from
INDOT is that would be limited to a right-in/right-out only to serve
the property.
Probably the biggest question that Staff has at this point and
time, and probably that I would like some Plan Commission guidance or
discussion on, would be whether that internal road system through that
project from the full access point on Stafford Road down to SR267,
Quaker Boulevard and then back down to Stanley, whether or not that is
appropriate to be a public street or a private street. The petitioner
has indicated they can really go pretty much either way with that one.
I think their preference would be that it be a private street. I was
talking to Mr. McGillem and the thought is that that roadway really
does not serve a function through the Town’s transportation network.
It is not quite the same as Southfield Drive. We definitely just
wanted to point that out for your comment and consideration. We have
told the petitioner that it will be up to your determination tonight.
So, any final design would be subject to what your reaction is to those
issues.
I have also noted that even though the size of this project was
approximately 78 acres we did not ask for a traffic study at this
particular time because of the possibility of the rezoning. So, we
would like to alert the petitioner that at such time a development is
proposed on that eastern lot 10, which is the large lot, we would ask
for a traffic study at that point and time. It is Mr. McGillem’s
contention that the nine smaller retail outlots along SR267 can
adequately be served by the access points proposed in the street
network that is in place. So, those lots in of themselves do not
generate a need for a traffic study because we can handle their needs
but when that other parcel comes in, depending on which way it goes,
the results of a traffic study may be completely different. So, that
is why we don’t want to waste anybody’s time or money at this point and
time.
Another thing that Staff would definitely want to see on this
particular project is it has been requested on a couple of occasions a
phasing plan for the development. At one point and time we were told
that the phasing would be just for the northern portion where the first
two outlots are and colored in at the northern portion of the site. At
another point and time we were told that Phase 1 would include those
lots in the entire street network going through from Stafford
Road/SR267 and down to Stanley Road. We have not seen official
documentation one way or another yet which way that would go. That is
the reason for the notations in the Staff Report asking for a phasing
plan to be submitted with connection to the first plat.
In terms of the general infrastructure capacity we believe that
adequate services are available in the area to service the site to a
full build-out. We would also note that any of the drainage systems or
other systems shown on the plan are conceptual in nature only as there
may be dramatic changes in those. Any final details of those plans,
including the exact location of curb cuts, configurations and
geometrics of those cuts, would all be subject to review and final
detail commentary as part of the construction plan review process and
also tied in with the secondary plat.
In terms of fire protection the main water line goes up Quaker
Boulevard/SR267 and stubs into each project. That provides adequate
water service for each of the properties. However, especially if this
becomes a private road, we need to work with the petitioner for a
development of a plan to provide adequate fire protection, which will
mean the location and spacing of fire hydrants. So, we can get full
service around all of the properties and provide proper protection that
is needed for those sites.
In terms of sidewalks and pedestrian connectivity, in the
original plat that Duke had filed a couple of years for the development
of the east half of the property, a waiver was requested of sidewalks
on the south side of Stafford Road. That was to allow for the trail
system on the north side. With this being basically a re-plat of the
portion that was primary platted on the west half we are basically
looking at that request carrying forward. In working with the
petitioner what they will do is connect to the sidewalk on Stanley Road
where it comes west into the property and take that up along their
roadway up to about the mid point on the site. At about the mid point
on the site is where the Town’s trail system is going to be crossing
under SR267 coming onto this site. That sidewalk that they take up
from Stanley Road will connect into that portion of the trail system
and that will provide the connection to cross the highway as opposed
trying to do a crossing at Stanley. Then the trail system would
continue up along the east side of SR267 to Stafford and provide a
crossing at Stafford on the trail system where you then go to the east
a little bit where we worked with Panattoni to be able to provide the
trail connection farther north along George’s creek. We have been
working with the petitioner, at least in concept, to develop a
pedestrian plan that will connect all the outlots that you see on there
to these sidewalks and/or to the trail system depending on whether it
is on the north or south side of the site. So, we can get everything
connected for the pedestrians as well.
In terms of the various outlots one of the concerns that we have
is the access to the north/south road whether it is private or public.
We have seen a couple of different variations of this plan. One shows
a large 80-foot landscape buffer and berming should the large parcel be
developed for industrial development. That would be a non-penetrated
barrier, if you will, that would help provide screening and loading or
industrial activities on the east side of that berm. We have also seen
some designs that shows one or more access points into that potential
industrial area through that road. So, since we have had both of them
presented at different times at different meetings I did want to point
out to you that when the time is appropriate for that east parcel to be
looked at, there may be some concerns or details that we have to look
at in terms of the appropriate screening, orientation activity into
those properties and how they line up with any curb cut openings.
Also, Mr. McGillem had a concern with, depending on where those access
points are, whether this is a public or private road, it is still going
to handle a substantial amount of commercial or industrial traffic
through there. We would like a condition on the approval that any
access points to that road be subject to the Town’s Access Control
Ordinance in terms of the geometric spacing, etc. So, we could assure
that a safe and efficient traffic flow pattern can be maintained there
whether it is public or private. With that I will stop at this point
and turn it over to Mr. Lashenik and I would be happy to answer any
questions that you might have.
Mr. Jack Lashenik, Professional Engineer for American Consulting.
With me tonight is Mr. Daum with NAI Olympia Partners. Mr. Valanzano
did mention a phasing plan and I would just like to touch upon that and
we will definitely prepare a document in writing expressing what I’m
getting ready to state. What we are looking at is the immediate
development and the need is retail at the northwest corner of the
property. So, this would definitely be Phase 1 with infrastructure
being provided from Stafford with a right-in/right-out and a full
access cut here. Throughout the frontage of lot 4 and to a point here
it would eventually line up with our proposed right-in/right-out off of
SR267. Now we are not going to construct our access, our rightin/
right-out, off of SR267 immediately. That would probably not be
until 2006, the fall of, pending approvals with construction documents.
However, Phase II would consist of pending approval of the industrial
rezone. The industrial rezone along with this interior access, this is
a portion of the interior access north/south road that connects to
Stanley from SR267. So, basically you have Phase I up here, which is
immediate and then Phase II, which would be the remainder of the
residual of the retail and then the industrial pending the rezone
approval. So, that is something that we would put in a document in
writing as incremental platting occurs. With that I will answer any
other questions. Mr. Valanzano did a very good job.
Mr. McPhail said I don’t quite understand. You are saying you
want to get down to the point where your east/west part of the road off
of SR267/Quaker Boulevard. Why would you not want to go ahead and put
that in?
Mr. Lashenik said the expense with crossing the river and
constructing that culvert without any development is a construction
cost concern. If we can delay this cost until this developed, we can
then turn and construct our curb cut off of SR267. This is kind of
what is driving the timing of that situation.
Mr. McPhail asked, is that curb cut currently there?
Mr. McGillem said there is currently a curb cut to a residential
house but when the house goes away, that curb cut will be moved south.
Mr. Kirchoff said I would assume that it would be advantageous to
them to wait until SR267 is constructed anyway.
Mr. McPhail said I guess my concern is if we get the roadway
reconstructed before they construct theirs, then they are cutting up a
brand new roadway.
Mr. McGillem said I have been working with Steve on this curb cut
when it comes in and I think our intent is to have this curb cut
actually put in the designated location where it is proposed as part of
SR267.
Mr. Matrana asked, is there anyone in the audience who has any
comments either for or against this particular hearing? Being no one
coming forward I would like to close the portion of this hearing and
open this up to the board for discussion or a possible motion.
Mr. Kirchoff said if I measure right, the full access off of
Stafford is 600 feet from SR267 so I think that is reasonable.
Mr. McGillem said that access has already been approved as part
of the development to the north of Stafford Road and they are lining up
with that.
Mr. Kirchoff said initially when I read it, we were talking about
the first one, the closer one, being the full access until the other
got developed. Then now I’m hearing they are coming in with the full
plans so the first one will be right-in/right-out and the same thing
with Stanley would also be what? It is going to be a full access down
here but this is what 700 feet or so? So, are we okay there?
Mr. McGillem said yes.
Mr. Kirchoff said if they would ask for the other one that is
right-in/right-out only, I just don’t want another Village Pantry
situation, we’ve got enough distance.
Mr. McGillem said there will be no new full access between SR267
and the existing full access on Stanley Road. They will match up with
the existing full access.
Mr. McPhail said I’m a little confused on the fire hydrants and
the water line.
Mr. Brandgard said I think part of what we need to decide is the
internal north/south roadway going to be public or private. With that
where Mr. McPhail was going I would assume that you would want to run
your water line along that with your hydrants.
Mr. Belcher said that is one of the interesting issues about this
piece being a 14-inch water main along SR267 in each of the outlots
that they proposed in this development and would have access to that
14-inch. So, you are almost building a parallel main only 200-300 feet
away. We certainly need the fire protection to happen but I don’t know
that we gain a lot from another whole section of main through there.
So, there may be a need to get some hydrant runs from the 14-inch main
along every other property line and get a hydrant along the road so
that the fire protection would be on two sides. That is one of the
things that Mr. Valanzano mentioned. The parcel does go into
industrial and most of those projects end up with a single master
metering and loop their buildings with their own fire system so there
would be mains around those. You would almost have three sets of
parallel mains if you followed that other road. You certainly would
have a lot more water there if you had the main along that street but
I’m not sure that it would benefit that much.
Mr. McPhail said I’m not concerned about a main but we have to
have fire hydrants on that roadway. You don’t want to go to Quaker
Boulevard to tap a fire hydrant.
Mr. Belcher said I would expect the fire department would want
hydrants on both sides of the road. That is what I’m anticipating how
best to get them. We certainly wouldn’t be opposed if the developer
finally decided it would be easier to run along the new street with
another main of hydrants.
Mr. Brandgard said if we were going to have the hydrants along
there, I would feel more comfortable if that was a public road for
access to it. The other half of it is with the apartments between
Stanley and Stafford those private roads become public real quick when
they are connecting two streets like that.
Mr. Carlucci said we do have a requirement that a private road
has to be built to Town standards anyway, which the apartments were not
that way. So, there is a little difference there. It will look like a
public road but it won’t be. So, I think what Mr. Belcher and Mr.
McGillem are saying it really doesn’t meet our plan to have a road
there. It would be a public road and if you can get the hydrants
through those properties, a couple of more hydrants, and I think we
keep them 400 feet apart, you can bring them between the lots and an
easement so that they can access from both sides. Then you can pick
and choose which hydrant you want to use.
Mr. Belcher said I think another key point about the private
verses public issue is we talked to the developer about a landowners
association that would maintain that road. Even if it is private, the
idea of being maintained continually supported by the Town. We don’t
want it to be deteriorated in the Town of Plainfield. It doesn’t get a
lot of public benefit for our thoroughfare system so I don’t know that
we want to be responsible, as taxpayers, to maintain it but we want to
make sure it is maintained by the folks that own the land there. The
indication is the developer is willing to do that. That is why we
wanted to have discussion with you tonight.
Mr. Brandgard said there is one section in Town that is in pretty
bad shape and is in the hands of the developer and not the Town but it
uses access for several properties. We have to figure out some way to
deal with exactly what you are saying, how is it going to be maintained
over the long haul.
Mr. Belcher said the closest thing that we could come to thinking
about this would be coming between Chili’s and Chick-Fil-A. That is a
private road through that section of that development and then the mall
will have a private road in the middle of it. So, there is a balancing
act of how much we should take on as a public agency to maintain.
Again, that is a tough call and that is why we wanted you to help us on
this.
Mr. Kirchoff said I certainly lean toward a private road. The
majority of the traffic is going to be for the benefit of their
property owners there. I would support a private road again with the
understanding of figuring out how to do the fire protection.
Mr. Belcher said and the maintenance.
Ms. Whicker made a motion that the Plan Commission approve the
Primary Plat file dated September 22, 2005, PP-05-008 as filed by NAI
Olympia Partners requesting primary plat approval to divide 77.9 acres
into approximately ten incremental non-residential lots to be known as
Plainfield Commerce Center upon finding that:
Adequate provisions have been made for regulation of
minimum lot width, minimum lot depth and minimum lot area.
Adequate provisions have been made for the widths, grades,
curves and coordination of subdivision public ways with
current and planned public ways.
Adequate provisions have been made for the extension of
water, sewer and other municipal services.
And that such approval shall be 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: (a) direct access to and from a public street;
or (b) gain access to and from a public street across a
perpetual recorded access easement 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.)
A traffic study shall be provided and required traffic
system improvements agreed to prior to the approval of any
construction details or secondary plat for the eastern
parcel indicated on the Primary Plat as “Proposed Future
Industrial Parcel”.
All access points along Stafford Road and Stanley Road
shall be subject to review and approval under the Town of
Plainfield Access Control Ordinance.
Fire protection needs shall be accommodated along the major
internal north/south roadway subject to the approval of the
Town Engineer and the Town’s Fire Marshall.
Details of sanitary sewers, storm water management, access
location and the geometrics of access points shall be
reviewed during the construction plan review process.
Sidewalks shall not be required along the south side of
Stafford Road consistent with prior primary plat approvals,
which included this site.
Proposed major internal street north and south to be a
private street.
All access points along the major internal north/south
roadway shall be subject to review and approval under the
Town of Plainfield Access Control Ordinance.
The owner shall file documentary assurances with the Town
that all lots served by the private streets shall be
provided with the applicable services required by Article
4.13 of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance, including, but not
limited to: roadway maintenance and repair; snow removal;
and powers to enforce speed control and parking
regulations. Such services shall include the establishment
of a maintenance fund or escrow account by the owner, which
may be supplemented by regular or special assessments
against each lot owner, provided such assessments are at
reasonable and non-discriminatory rate of charge. Such
documentary assurances shall be incorporated into the
applicable Secondary Plat that is recorded in the Office of
the Recorder of Hendricks County, Indiana.
Second by Mr. Kirchoff. 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 also concerns
NAI Olympia partners and it is a Development Plan DP-05-031.
Mr. Valanzano said the next petition that you have before you on
your agenda is part of the two lots that are shown as Lot 2; Lot 3 and
what would be Lot 4 on the petitioner’s exhibit. It would be the
proposed Monroe Bank lot; the retail shop lot and another lot to the
south. This is the portion of the site that is affected by this
particular development incentive. As we were talking to the petitioner
on filing development plans, we were expecting three things to be filed
simultaneously and they were filed that way. One was the Development
Incentive that would address Lots 2; 3 and 4 and the Development Plan
for Lots 2 and 3 at the same time. As a result, I did go ahead and
waive the requirements for the filing of a landscape plan for the
perimeter of the lots because we were going to be seeing the landscape
plans as part of the architectural. Then we would be able to
coordinate the reviews of that and make sure that we got what we were
looking for. Unfortunately, since we had a lack of detail that I
mentioned before on the retail shops we have been able to look at the
landscaping for the north lot around the Monroe Bank but we really have
not been able to provide a good adequate review of the landscaping on
the south lot. So, when you look at the Staff Report and you see the
references there to making sure that the landscaping treatments of both
lots match up, at this point and point we are assuming that the Monroe
Bank will go forward first and be in a position to get an ILP sooner
than the retail shops. If that is so, we would suggest that the retail
shops perimeter yard landscaping needs to follow the landscape
treatment that is established by Monroe Bank. Part of the idea of
these incentives is you allow for the use of the required side yards
used for driveways or parking or whatever as part of the development
and you don’t have the landscape strip through the middle of the site.
So, in exchange for that you get additional landscaping around the
outside of the site and you get it to look like one unified center by
using a consistent landscaping treatment and you get additional
landscaping around the foundations of the building. That is your
trade-off for not having landscape strips between individual lots. So,
the reason that you don’t have a landscape plan in this package is
because I waived that requirement anticipating that we would have two
other landscape plans that we were going to ducktail together. We only
got one of those. Hence, when you look at the recommendations in the
Staff Report, we are suggesting that the landscape plan of the first
lot that pulls an Improvement Location Permit will set the tone for the
perimeter of the other lots that come in under this incentive. They
will all be required to meet that particular standard. With that I
would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Jack Lashenik with American Consulting said we were the
petitioner along with NAI Olympia Partners that filed for the
Development Incentive. However, since, as Mr. Valanzano mentioned,
south of the two lots, Lot 3 has not had detail sufficient the
landscape plan for Monroe Bank, Lot 2 would be, I guess the only
portion of the review of the sketch plans submitted, I guess the
northern tract would be the only site that we could review. I would be
willing to entertain any questions you may have or try to answer them.
Maybe the representative from the Monroe Bank, if it is a specific
landscape question, he may be able to answer that more appropriately
during his presentation.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, do we need to table this?
Mr. Valanzano said the reason that I didn’t suggest tabling this
was because that would penalize the Monroe Bank people who are a part
of this as well. They were ready to go and they had all of their plans.
Mr. Kirchoff said we can hear Monroe and decide on that and come
back and do this. I’m just saying table it for 15 minutes or so.
Mr. Matrana asked, does that require a motion to table it or can
we come back to it later?
Mr. Daniel said I think you can come back to it.
Mr. Kirchoff said I keep hearing that Monroe is going to set the
pace so let’s find out what that is and come back and do this one.
Mr. Valanzano said the next Development Plan that is on your
agenda is for Monroe Bank. Obviously, this is the north parcel of the
property that we have been talking about. It is what will be known as
Lot 2 in the Plainfield Commerce Center. Not only do they have a
landscape plan here but this Development Plan is for Architectural and
Site Design Review and they require a waiver of building materials on
the south facade of the building. It is a combination of brick and
limestone and glass. DRC found the design to be quite pleasing and
didn’t have problems with it but just the way the entry features worked
in on there they were not able to comply with the 50% of any one
particular material. In review of this plan we had several premeetings
with the petitioners and we got most of the details ironed
out. The mechanical units will be located on the ground. They will be
screened by landscaping. They will have no trash containers outside.
Everything will be self-contained in the building until pick-up. They
will be providing pedestrian walkways from the front door of the
building out to the trail system that we talked about going up the
frontage of SR267. It shows on some of your plans but not all of your
plans that we talked about the inner-connectivity of the trail system
within the properties. The sidewalk coming from the bank will be
connected and extended across to the drive that will go between the
bank lot and the retail shops. So, there will be a cross in the drive
and a continuation of the sidewalk. That will connect those buildings
together. We also have had discussions when Lot 1 developed, that
sidewalks be extended along this drive on one side or another. So,
Lots 1; 2; 3 and 4 will all be highly nit together from a pedestrian
prospective as well.
On the landscape plan although we do need a few revisions to be
made to the landscape plan that you have in your packets in terms of
the spacing of the perimeter parking lot screening. The only other
point from the DRC was clustering the perennials at this point, this
point and this point on the buildings. Elaine Taylor had recommended
that since about six months of the year you really don’t see anything
in there it would be nice to have an evergreen backdrop behind those so
that you have some full season color. Those would be the only two
changes that we would recommend to the landscape plan is tidying up the
spacing of the parking lot hedgerow and backing those three points with
some sort of evergreen material. Aside from that we have sugar maples
and honey locust trees as the overstory trees around the perimeter of
the site supplemented with evergreen trees through there. We would ask
for, on the prior case, that this type of perimeter landscaping
treatment be extended around along the frontage of SR267 and along the
interior drive and provide a circle. This would be very similar to
what was done on the three outlots that Premier had, I think in front
of Target when they got the incentives for those three lots there and
the perimeter landscape treatment.
Site lighting complies. Parking lot lights will be full cut-off,
flat lens design, 400-watt metal halide. I have received the details
for the canopy lights. They will be flush mounted and full cut-off
fixtures.
The wall signs will be individual metal letters and there will
also be a ground sign at the northwest corner of the property oriented
to the intersection. The wall signs and the ground sign will be lit by
the 100-watt flood light with shields on the side. They will provide
the only illumination for the sign and in all other respects the
petition complies with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Again, this landscape plan I believe should set the state for the
landscaping on the lot to the south. There is a waiver of building
materials involved and other than a couple of other minor changes to
the landscape plan I believe this site pretty much complies with the
recommendations of the Design Review Committee.
Mr. Brian Moench with Moench Engineering said our office is
located in Plainfield. With me is John Christy with Monroe Bank. As
Mr. Valanzano mentioned, there are two things that we need to tidy up
on the landscape plan. We are in agreement with those, the three-foot
spacing on center with the perimeter parking and the green backgrounds
at the perimeter beds adjacent to the building. With that said I would
be more than happy to entertain any questions.
Mr. Matrana asked, is there anyone in the audience who would have
any comments either for or against the Monroe Bank Development Plan?
Being no one coming forward I will close the public portion of this
hearing and open this Development Plan up to the board for discussion
or a possible motion.
Ms. Whicker said the waiver of the building materials, is it
reflected in the plans file dated September 23rd?
(Inaudible).
Ms. Whicker made a motion that the Plan Commission approve DP-05-
033 as filed by Monroe Bank for Architectural & Site Design Review for
the development of a branch banking facility for Monroe Bank on Lot 2
of the Plainfield Commerce Center with a waiver of the building
material requirements on the west facade of the building finding that:
The Development Plan complies with all applicable
Development Standards of the district in which the site is
located.
The Development Plan complies with all applicable
provisions of the Subdivision Control Ordinance for which a
waiver has not been granted.
The Development Plan complies with all applicable
provisions for Architectural and Site Design Review for
which a waiver has not been granted.
The proposed development is appropriate to the site and its
surroundings.
The proposed development is consistent with the intent and
purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
And regarding the waiver of building materials the Plan
Commission finds that:
The proposal represents an innovative use of building
materials which will enhance the use or value of area
properties.
The proposal is consistent with and compatible with other
development located along the Gateway Corridor or within
six-hundred (600) feet of the Residential District.
The proposal is consistent with the intent and purpose of
the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
And that such approval be subject to the following conditions:
Substantial compliance with the site plan file dated
September 23, 2005.
Substantial compliance with the landscape plan file dated
September 23, 2005, provided that the parking lot hedge row
plantings be revised to a maximum spacing of 3 foot on
center and that evergreen plant materials be placed behind
the three groupings of perennial plants located north,
southwest and south of the building.
Substantial compliance with the building elevations,
lighting plans and cut sheets, wall sign details and ground
sign details file dated September 23, 2005.
Mechanical equipment shall be ground mounted and screened
with evergreen landscaping.
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 I would like to move back to DP-05-
031, NAI Olympia Partners.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. Valanzano said I would leave it the way that it is. The
reason that I wrote it that way to refer to the ILP is there is a slim
possibility for some reason between now and construction Monroe Bank
may decide not to build and we might end up with a retail center going
forward first. Stranger things have happened hence the wording of the
condition.
Ms. Whicker made a motion that the Plan Commission approve DP-05-
31 as filed by NAI Olympia Partners requesting approval of a
Development Plan for Development Incentives to provide for the use of
required yards in an integrated center applicable to the development of
proposed Lots 2; 3 and 4 of Plainfield Commerce Center finding that:
The required Plant Unit Value in all required front yards,
whether located on a street internal to the integrated
center or on the perimeter of the integrated center, has
been increased by a multiple of 2.0 or more.
The required Plant Unit Value in all required side or rear
yards on the perimeter of the integrated center has been
increased by a multiple of 2.0 or more.
The area of required foundation planting areas located
along the building has been increased by a multiple of 2.0
or more.
The Plant Unit Value contained in such enlarged foundation
planting areas has been increased by a multiple of 2.0 or
more.
The proposed development is appropriate to the site and its
surroundings.
The proposed development is consistent with the intent and
purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
And that such approval shall be subject to the following:
Any development on Lots 2; 3 and 4 shall include a minimum
Level 2 perimeter yard landscaping, double the required
foundation planting area and a minimum Level 2 foundation
landscaping.
The perimeter yard landscaping for all lots shall be
designed to be consistent and compatible with the perimeter
yard landscaping design approved for the development of the
first lot to obtain an Improvement Location Permit.
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. Matrana said the next matter before the board concerns DP-04-
027 and DP-04-028 concerning Panattoni.
Mr. Valanzano said Mr. Kirchoff and Mr. Matrana the lady that we
were waiting to come back has not returned yet.
Mr. Matrana said let’s have a 10-minute recess. We are
reconvening the October Plan Commission and I would like to start with
DP-04-027 and DP-04-028 concerning Panattoni.
Mr. Valanzano said briefly, if you recall last year, the Plan
Commission approved a 450,000 square foot building on this site. A
couple of months ago Staff came in and said they requested a 50,000
square foot modification to the building. It is not within the
guidelines that Staff can approve will you approve it and the Plan
Commission said yes. They submitted the plans for the Improvement
Location Permit and doing a detailed review have found that there was
something on the plan that wasn’t on the plans approved back in
November, that being this area approximately 35-36 truck trailer
parking spaces on the south side at the southwest corner of the
building. I will draw your attention to this side. Those truckparking
areas would basically be in this area here. This is the
Bridgefield Manor Subdivision. There is an existing home here and an
existing home here and considering where that was going to be obviously
those two homeowners are going to be impacted to some extent. We
wanted that decision to be by the Plan Commission and the Plan
Commission said to have them send notice and have them come back here.
That is what they have done. They have sent notice to the owners in
Bridgefield Manor along the north line of Bridgefield Manor.
The landscape plan that was also proposed the last time was the
same landscape plan that you saw back in 1994. The petitioner has made
some modifications to that. In the portion of the site where they
could put a berm, and they don’t have enough for a substantial berm, it
is only a 2-3 foot berm for the most part with evergreen trees on it.
They have supplemented that with a six-foot shadowbox fence across the
top at the crown of the berm. Keep in mind that you have a line of
sight drawing in your package. One of the things that the petitioner
is relying on is the fact that although this is a small berm what they
are doing is grading out from the building to a swale that is on the
north side of that berm. Therefore, where the truck trailers would
actually be parked would be depressed. So, in relation to the grade
level when you put the berm plus the fence together, you get to a point
where the line of sight through the fence you should not be able to see
any of the trailers. Now that will work for the home that is over on
the west corner of the property. The fence will go from approximately
this point to about this point but once you get over here this pond is
going to be extended a little bit behind this first home. So, there is
still going to be a clear line of sight through there.
I will apologize to you for one thing. In the Staff Report I put
some motion information together. The first comment in there on the
first point of the motion I put in there was I said that can’t be
right. I can’t believe there is talk about the fence and they didn’t
put it in there. I put the motion in here and said they should amend
the plan to show the fence they told me they were going to put in. I
looked at the plan and got into some other things and when I came back,
I forgot to delete that sentence so number one disregard. That one
shouldn’t be there. They do have the fence shown on the plan. But all
the other things that are there are appropriate.
What can you do to provide better screening under the
circumstances that are there? If in the Plan Commission’s mind
additional screening is needed beyond what was shown on the original
plans in 1994, that fence is adequate on the west portion of it. On
the east portion of it maybe there are a couple of things that you can
do or a combination of them. One of them is at this point where there
are ornamental trees on the plan replace those with evergreens because
your line of sight from this house into that corner will be blocked
much better with evergreens than by the ornamentals. Second, the rest
of these evergreen trees that are shown along this area instead of
doing the six-foot tree at the time of planting, which is typical put
in a larger size, a 10-12 foot tree at the time of planting. This way
we will get a jump-start on the screening for the neighbors.
Considering the changes made that will be a little bit better impact
right out of the box in terms of landscaping. Another possibility would
be, if it is feasible, maybe take out of these first spaces and try to
hook that berm around a little and continue the landscaping on the berm
to try to block that line of sight coming in on the corner angle. I
talked to the petitioner briefly about upsizing the plant material. I
think they are okay with doing that. We did not really talk about
taking out any number of the parking spaces so they will have to
respond to you about that situation whether they can wrap berm around
the corner. With that I think I will leave it to the petitioner and
the neighbors to let you know their opinions on the changes.
Mr. Nathan McClure with Panattoni Construction at 5726
Professional Circle, Indianapolis said with what Mr. Valanzano said
that is correct. We are amenable to the changes with the increase in
the tree sizes. That is perfectly fine. I would be happy to answer
any specific questions that the commission has with respect to this
petition.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, (inaudible).
Mr. McClure said I think we are fairly tight on that trailerparking
requirement. It is my understanding. If I could introduce
Chris Hinkle with American Consulting. Do you have any knowledge of
the required trailer parking?
Mr. Chris Hinkle with American Consulting said we are the
engineer and landscape architect on this. As far as the particular
requirements of the parking I think it is tenant driven and I
specifically don’t know what the tenant is requesting as far as that
number of spaces that they can deal with and live with.
Mr. McClure said if we are talking about three stalls, that might
be something that we can work with. I would have to go back and check
with some others to see if that is a possibility. I just can’t speak
to that at this moment but I would be happy to check into that.
Mr. Carlucci asked, is the proposed tenant going to take the
entire building or just part of the building?
Mr. McClure said they are going to take a portion of the
building.
Mr. Carlucci said which necessitated meeting that standard.
Mr. McClure said exactly. That is why I think the trailer stall
parking is rather important to their operation, is my understanding.
Mr. Carlucci said I know tenants specifically want a certain
amount of space in a certain location but is there any way that the
tenant could be moved to the east side of the building?
Mr. McClure said we have other tenants that are looking at the
balance of the space so we are kind of blocked in to where we are going
with this as far as the tenants and the trailer parking the way that we
have this laid out currently.
Mr. Carlucci asked, would this just be trailers?
Mr. McClure said yes, just trailer parking.
Mr. McPhail asked, how many truck docks are on the south end of
that building?
Mr. McClure said 30.
Mr. McPhail asked, is that finished floor elevation 763 feet?
Mr. McClure said that is correct.
Mr. McPhail said regardless with these trailers if we don’t
buffer that, they are going to be a little farther away but they are
still going to be in with all of those trailers.
Mr. Kirchoff said the only question I would have, because of
experience somewhere else, you say it is only trailers but there will
be no refrigeration units running 24/7?
Mr. McClure said no sir not with this operation. It is a
warehouse/distribution facility.
Mr. Kirchoff said no noise, no fumes.
Mr. McClure said nothing beyond what we would normally have for
trailer parking.
Mr. Matrana asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care
to speak on this matter?
Ms. Erica Kennedy at 4308 Bridgefield Road East said I live on
the northeast lot of Bridgefield Manor Subdivision as you look at that
map. So, we border it immediately on this property. I would like to
read my prepared notes.
“My husband and I are owners of the residence of the property
known as 4308 Bridgefield Road East, Plainfield. Said property is
adjacent to the construction project, the Panattoni Development
Company, and we oppose the new change to the heretofore development
plan, which would increase density.
First let it be known that we have not received legally written
notice of any previously held planning meetings for this project. We
have owned and been in residence on our property since November of
1997. We became aware of this project only incidentally when we were
given notice of a hearing regarding the former Galyan’s warehouse
property on Perry Road. We appreciate having been provided notice of
this meeting but in no way want to imply any approval of any previous
matters for which we had insufficient notice. The Flyer newspapers
only deliver erratically in our neighborhood and its owners are
unresponsive to our complaints. We do not receive notice through the
newspapers either.
The proximity of the proposed additional trailer parking can only
increase the likelihood of exposure to the effects of any industrial
accident including fuel and oil spillage, which could contaminate
ground water. You must be aware that the homes in the immediately
adjacent subdivision, including ours, are all on wells. Another
industrial site, also adjacent to our property to the east, has had
numerous emergencies, including those which involve the hazardous
materials expertise of our local fire department. These include at
least one incident when a truck tractor and trailer actually was
partially submerged in the detention pond adjacent to our property.
This one incident potentially exposed our water to 500 gallons of
diesel fuel and about 20 gallons of engine oil and additional grease,
transmission oil, etc.
Third, we are concerned about the proximity and depth of the
extension of the retention pond along our northern boundary. We have
concern for the water table and the potential for contamination, which
can only be increased by the existence of these ponds. We were given
no opportunity to object to this pond. We do object to this pond as it
has been extended and any future ponds, detention or retention, which
may be planned. Any excavation, which exceeds 20 feet may easily
impact the quality of our water as our water table is very shallow.
In addition our experience with a warehouse next to us on the
east has shown us that the noise associated with the close proximity of
truck and trailers and a related public address system of the warehouse
can and frequently do obtrude with the residential use of our property.
The process of hooking and unhooking trailers causes a very loud
dropping noise, which creates an earthquake like affect on our home and
property. If trailers are to be parked along our common property line
on the Panattoni project to the north at a distance which seems to be
even closer than the parking of similar trailers to our east, the noise
and related quake affect can only be more intense and more
insufferable.
Further, especially in the cold weather, truckers are inclined to
leave their engines running all night. This too creates additional
noise, which added to the rest, is too much. The loudspeaker system,
which seems to address personnel outside the buildings, truckers, etc.,
is very obtrusive and can be compared to having a police car parked in
front of your house with a dispatch radio on very loud. At night these
voices are very disturbing to one’s ability to sleep and a similarity
to a dispatch radio causes one to be concerned for the security of
one’s property. It has long been known that sound carries over a great
distance and loud sounds especially. Along major freeways where noise
levels may be loud and consistent but are less likely to be as loud or
as sudden as they are around warehouses, large sound barrier walls are
constructed in residential areas and not shadowbox fences with
landscaping.
Second, the bright lighting on the exterior of most warehouses is
also obtrusive. My oldest son was an avid astronomer before the bright
lights of the first warehouse made it almost impossible for him to use
his telescope. Further my teen-agers have held nighttime laser tag
games for years but the warehouse lights are making it more and more
difficult. We will appreciate the voluntary dimming of those lights on
the residential side at night by future occupants.
Third, as homeowners, we are concerned about what all of this
commercial and industrial development so close to our dwelling will do
to our resale value of our property. It does not seem likely that
future buyers will be as interested in living in our current situation
as we were in living in the agricultural surroundings into which we
moved into almost 10 years ago. The tax assessor should make note of
the change in our neighborhood’s character when we are reassessed and
you, as tax spenders, should note that you should see less tax revenue
from us in the future.
I’m also informed by neighbors here with me tonight, who are also
adjacent to the existing warehouse to the east of my property, as they
are closer to the entrance at Stafford, truck traffic, especially empty
trailers, make considerable noise that sets off the alarms of parked
cars in the property. So, parked cars on the property near where these
trucks and trailers will be with sound alarms will be disturbed and set
off by these trailers. This is one more insufferable noise. So, in
conclusion we object to increased density of any kind but most
especially along the south boundary of the Panattoni project in common
with the north boundary of Bridgefield Manor Subdivision. We also
object to excavation of any kind, which might endanger our water
quality.”
Mr. Matrana said thank you for your concerns Mrs. Kennedy. Is
there anyone else with any comments about the development of Panattoni?
Being no one else coming forward I will close the public portion of
this meeting and open this matter up to the board for discussion.
Ms. Whicker asked, will the lighting that is being proposed be
similar to the lighting that is already adjacent to these property
owners or is it improved?
Mr. Valanzano said it is improved. The building to their east
has a wal-pac type of light on it that the wattage is appropriate. I
think it is a 400-watt fixture but it is not a shielded down that
projects light out. That building is partially responsible for
changing the ordinance to require fully shielded wal-pac lights on the
building. So, any lights that are on the building will be down-lit
lights and also the lighting that would be put out here in this trailer
parking area would also meet our standards of full cut-off light
fixtures. So, it would be better fixtures than are on the building to
the east.
Ms. Whicker said which would be an improvement and not
necessarily a schedule of lighting as far as how many at a certain hour
would be turned on.
Mr. Valanzano said we haven’t got into that type of detail with
the petitioner to say what hours would the light be at this wattage or
would they be stepped down at 10:00 p.m. to a lower level or anything
like that. But it is a good point. Ancillary to that is as a result
of putting these trailers at this location, would be the addition of
some additional lights on the south side of the property to light this
trailer parking area, if I’m not mistaken, is that correct?
Mr. McClure said that is correct.
Ms. Whicker asked, in the past there hasn’t been any type of
schedule as far as the reduction of wattage at certain hours to any
properties surrounding residential areas?
Mr. Valanzano said not that I’m aware of.
Ms. Whicker said this certain type of light fixture.
Mr. Valanzano said when you are adjacent to a residential
property, the light trespass at the property line, which is measured at
grade level, can’t exceed a half foot candle but still when you are
looking a light fixture, you will see it but the amount of light that
it puts out on the ground would be minimal. I’m not saying this so
much for you but the neighbors. Just because you can see a light
fixture doesn’t mean that it is providing too much light. There are
different levels and different styles of that light. For example,
those light fixtures I talked about on the Prologis building to the
east, the amount of light trespass from those the way that it is
measured at grade level does not exceed the ordinance standards. But
the glare from that fixture caused more problems than we anticipated
with that type of light fixture when we first wrote the ordinance.
That’s why we changed it so we have addressed the glare issue and not
the light intensity issue.
Mr. McPhail said the proposal we have before us with the
shadowbox fence and landscaping and a mound, what do we have there if
we deny these extra trailer parking spots? What do they have to do?
Mr. Valanzano said if this request is denied, you go back to the
original plan where the edge of the pavement would be at this line.
The trailer parking wouldn’t be there. The fence would not be there.
The berm, I believe, was still there. The landscaping would stay the
same with what you see here but the two-three foot berm that you get
would go away. So, it would be straight at grade, same landscaping,
without the fence, without the trailer parking.
Mr. McPhail said it certainly seems to me that the noise level is
not going to change one way or the other. You have trucks backing in
and out the truck dock. If the headlights are on, they are pointing
into that residential area because they are backing in that dock. If
they are backing the trailer in, they are facing the other way so you
have a little less light when they are doing that and the noise level
is not going to change. It seems to me that this proposal, looking at
the site, that they are getting more protection and more buffering than
if we don’t allow it.
Mr. Kirchoff said the trailers are going to be closer to their
properties. So, hitching and unhitching is going to be closer to their
properties.
Ms. Whicker said as far as them not having refrigeration trucks
but the running of the trucks, if the drivers would stay in those
trucks and they would have it turned on all night, it’s a 24 hour
distribution point, but would it be possible to have engines off at
certain times?
Mr. Valanzano said those issues are only as strong as the
property manager is on maintaining that and that changes from person to
person over the years. Plus the enforceability of that will be
stronger or less depending on who the tenant is over time. It may be
possible with Panattoni and the first tenant it may be perfect but
after that lease expires or there is a new tenant or change in
management who knows. It is possible to do it. You can try imposing
conditions that would limit hours of operation, etc. and it may work
but again whether that is a temporary fix or a long-term fix is hard to
say.
Ms. Whicker said we did extend the hearing for the notification
of the neighbors and the neighbor to the adjacent properties.
Mr. Matrana said they’ve already been noticed.
Ms. Whicker said you’re right. That is why we had it presented
again today and they have stated their concerns and we are unsure if
the interested tenant would be able to accept less parking spaces. Is
that kind of where we stand? I was just trying to recap.
McClure said our official position is we would like to maintain
those trailer parking stalls for the tenant use.
Mr. McPhail said I honestly feel this petition gives them more
protection than if we don’t do anything and deny it. I really think
they have a better buffer.
Mr. Matrana said I agree.
Ms. Whicker asked, what are the options of walls, landscape
walls, one for blocking light and one for blocking sound? Do we know
of different materials that will block sound more than just a site
barrier?
Mr. Carlucci said if you drew a line from the two vacant lots
from Bridgefield Drive straight north and eliminated the parking spaces
on either side of those lines and you still maintain the parking that
they were planning, at least you would not have the truck parking
adjacent to either of those northeast and the northwest lots where the
houses are. These are the two vacant lots that are here right now.
There’s no houses there. If you drew a line from the west property of
the one lot and the east property line of the other and go straight up,
you could eliminate the parking spaces on either side and bring those
neighbors that never planned on that happening at least not have that
noise directly behind them.
Mr. McPhail said operating the distribution center that noise
level is not going to change regardless of where you park those
trailers. You are going to have trucks in there day and night backing
in and out of that dock and dropping them and whether they are dropping
them right behind that property line 30 or 50 feet away it is not going
to change the noise level that is happening out there. There is
nothing to stop that noise. A few feet is not going to change
anything.
Ms. Whicker said but 50 spaces verses 20 spaces would.
McPhail said I can tell you it’s not going to make that much
difference.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, is that simply a wooden fence?
Mr. Matrana said I see somebody that would like to speak although
we have already closed the public portion but I can make an exception.
Mr. James Winters at 9118 E. CR450S said I’m at the southernmost
resident. I used to be a tractor-trailer operator and I have dealt
with a similar situation like this. The biggest thing is the sound.
The noise is an issue. It doesn’t matter how close to the property
line you are. With this size of a building whether you drop it five
feet from the building or five feet from the residence the sound is
going to be the same. But the noise isn’t the only issue. The
petroleum products that close and you have 50 more spots you have 50
more opportunities for the petroleum products to be given off, exhaust
fumes. The tenants that currently plan to take over that area may not
have air-conditioned trailers but in the future they may. In that
aspect we are not just talking about noise of the trailers but we are
talking about noise of the refrigeration units, exhaust from those
units. If you have ever taken the perimeter road right behind Fed-Ex,
the aircraft is several hundred feet away but you can still smell the
fumes even long after they are gone. In the wintertime those fumes
drift and drift and drift. So, it is not just the sound that we are
concerned with. It is the petroleum products put in the ground by 50
more opportunities with the trailer parking and future exhaust fumes,
etc.
Mr. Matrana said the public portion of this meeting is still
closed and we would like to entertain more discussion or a possible
motion.
Mr. Brandgard said in looking at this when we put those in there,
we try to do our best to protect the homeowners in that area as much as
we can with what is going in there. I just have a question. What we
are seeing proposed today are those new spaces on the south side and
the proposed pond extension. The original didn’t have the parking
spaces but I believe it had pond all the way on that south side and
went up the west side. Is it a dry pond?
Mr. McClure said you are correct. At one point and time that
pond was proposed to wrap around there and, in fact, it actually was
going to be a wet pond.
Mr. Brandgard said if we can eliminate the need for it except for
this expansion, why do we need to have that expansion if we found
another way to handle the runoff?
Mr. McClure said the pond expansion to the east of this proposed
trailer parking area is for detention purposes with this building. The
reason the pond was eliminated around the south and west portions of
the building was due to the combination of detention between multiple
buildings and that was reviewed by the engineering office and they did
sign off on that.
Mr. Brandgard said I’m not taking issue. I’m just trying to
understand how that large area is gone but now we need to add that
small extension of that pond.
Mr. McClure said this small area has always been proposed there.
It might not have been on the original, original. We kind of did a
little bit of a swap and took away a portion of it but then we did have
to maintain some of it.
Mr. Belcher said what happened when they re-routed the creek,
that became a large detention area and then Panattoni had the Epson
building, this building and the other building, all three, that they
could combine some of their efforts to consolidate some of the
detention. They did that but this is still their main amount that they
put in to meet the ordinance. They still had to expand some. I guess
if you are asking the question if it would be your wish that they
reduce it even more so that the pond extension would go away, that
would be probably sharpening some pencils and maybe a waiver of part of
our ordinance to reduce down to a certain level, maybe below the
requirements. But that would be a different question that would have
to come before this board to eliminate that section of expansion. So,
they have eliminated as much as they could and re-routed it to another
area basically is where the proposal is now.
Mr. Matrana said I think part of the concern about the detention
pond was spilling diesel fuel but with or without the pond it doesn’t
change the diesel fuel getting spilled. It would still go into the
ground or into the pond. It would still be there. The pond is just
for rain runoff.
Mr. Thibo asked, when they re-routed the creek, did they fill in
the old part?
Mr. Belcher said yes. The part that went through the site, to
the Epson site was filled.
Mr. Thibo asked, is it working out okay?
Mr. Belcher said they are not complete yet but yes it is coming
along.
Mr. McPhail made a motion that the plan Commission approve the
request of Panattoni Development Company, LLC to authorize trailer
parking at the southwest corner of the site as being in substantial
compliance with the plans approved under DP-04-027/DP-04-028 subject to
the following conditions:
The landscape plan shall be amended to indicate a 6’
shadowbox fence located on the crown of the berm and
extending the full length of the crown of the berm.
All evergreen trees indicated east of the berm/fence
combination shall be 10’ – 12’ at time of planting.
The cluster of Hawthorns at the east end of the berm/fence
be replaced with the 10 – 12’ at the of planting the Norway
Spruce.
The trailer parking be restricted to non-refrigerated
units.
Second by Mr. Thibo. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – no
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. Matrana said the next motion before the board concerns
Primary Plat PP-05-006 concerning National City Bank.
Mr. Valanzano said the last item that you have on your agenda
tonight for consideration is a special request by the Plainfield
Crossing, LLC. This has come before you in two parts really, from a
letter received from National City Bank and from a letter from Murray
O’Brien on behalf of the property owner. We have come before the Plan
Commission to consider a modification to the commitments imposed on the
plat. If you recall back in July, the Plan Commission approved a
Primary Plat for what was a two-lot incremental subdivision for the
first outlot to be developed by National City Bank as a branch banking
facility and the remainder of the site what would be the second lot or
possibly divided up into two lots depending upon what kind of
redevelopment might occur in the future. The condition was that the
right-of-way for Shady Lane, which had been discussed for a couple of
years, be extended from U.S. 40 to the south property line of the
property of the overall 15-acre site that was being subdivided. And
that the right-of-way be provided at the time of the recording of the
first outlot or lot as part of the subdivision or in any event no later
than 120 days from July 11th, which I believe runs out on November 11th,
if I did my math right earlier.
The letter that we received requested a modification of that
condition that the approval of the tying of that condition to the
outlot for National City be modified to change it. So, that the outlot
could go forward and that if there was a second lot that was divided or
platted, that the right-of-way dedication be tied into that. The
letter went on to say further that if there was a time limit, it would
suggest that it be somewhere out after March 31, 2006. I did suggest
to the petitioners that this was a discussion that definitely had to be
before the Plan Commission but I also noted in the second paragraph on
page 2 of the Staff Report that for this plan, to modify a condition
that was imposed as a public hearing, that you probably really do need
to have notice and make that decision at a fully noticed public hearing
to make that change of a condition that was imposed. However, in terms
of how you interpret compliance of that condition and are there other
ways to say compliance is obtained, that could be done tonight. I know
timing was critical for National City Bank. They want to move forward
as quickly as possible so I tried to make every accommodation possible
to get them here to have some reaction from the Plan Commission. We
were not in a position where we could have done a filing in time to be
here. So, this was the only way to get them here this evening.
In terms of that second approach or second prong of it the only
thing that we were able to come up with, as Staff, was suggested that
in the same manner as the Plan Commission would allow either the
installation of a road, for example if you are building a residential
subdivision, the installation of a road, the complete installation,
construction plan approval, construction review to make sure it was
done right, that is one way to get a plat approved in getting that all
done in advance. Another way is to take bonds that would cover the
cost of all those improvements. So, if the developer doesn’t do that,
the Town has the cash in hand through cashing in of the bonds to be
able to complete the project. The only thing that we were able to come
up with, as something that could be done tonight, would be for the Plan
Commission to accept an offer of a bond or a letter of credit to cover
the cost of that road right-of-way acquisition, road construction.
Construction is already planned otherwise but in other cost that would
be associated with that, separate from the physical road construction,
which would be the additional cost the Town would be on the hook for,
to have those be bonded for and through that approach we would be able
to say the condition of the dedication of the right-of-way has been
fulfilled. Because if we have that letter of credit and we have to go
and condemn the right-of-way in order to get the right-of-way, we have
the resources with which to do that that have been provided by the
property owner.
So, the long and short of it is if something was to be done
tonight, that was the only thing that we were putting our heads
together, as Staff, to be able to come up with that was something that
could be done tonight. Lacking that, as an alternative, it can be
accomplished tonight. The next thing there would have to be notice of
a request to modify that condition to be done at a public hearing,
which the earliest that could be done would be next month. I believe
all of you are familiar with the circumstances involved with National
City and Shady Lane so with that I would be happy to answer any
questions that you might have.
Ms. Whicker said the amount of bond or letter of credit, says,
“verified by actual cost estimates.” Would they put out the bid and
take the lower of three bids the same way that the Town would have to
have the bidding process on?
Mr. McGillem said the cost that they are talking about in there
is the cost of the evaluation from the standpoint of the right-of-way,
which will be processed through an appraisal process. It is not
construction cost estimates.
Mr. Kirchoff said we have a commitment that we will have that
extended by a certain date, is that correct?
Mr. Comer said that is right.
Mr. McPhail said we have to have that right-of-way, that is all
there is to it.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, how can we make this a win win? How can we
help this thing going and down the road?
Mr. McGillem said we had the commitment associated when the Wal-
Mart came in, when Wal-Mart had got delayed and it was tied into the
platting process. Now the platting process is left and we are tied
into it and we are looking at possibly wanting to eliminate that at
this point and time. Even prior to the Wal-Mart approval, this rightof-
way commitment was tied in back when U.S. 40 was constructed and the
signal associated with the signal moving to this location at Shady when
there was dedication of right-of-way for the drive connection from U.S.
40. The parking lot was all tied into the future right-of-way
associated with Shady Lane coming in. So, this is not something that
just has come up at this point and time. The Shady Lane right-of-way
has been part of the Town’s process for even back when Gladden
Apartments was built. The right-of-way was dedicated for that portion
south of here as part of Gladden Apartments. So, this probably goes
back at least 10-12 years. And what we were trying to do from the
standpoint of what Mr. Valanzano came up with was if we put up a bond
that covers us, we eliminate our position at this time and there is a
bond put up and then the right-of-way is dedicated and the bond goes
away. Once the internal entanglement that is out there now with the
property owner, if that gets resolved, then the bond goes away and the
right-of-way gets dedicate. So, the position is out there then where
the Town can continue to move forward and go forward with its
commitment that was made at the time of Wal-Mart in order for this to
be built, which has to be done in a four year period.
Mr. Murray O’Brien said I wrote the letter to which Mr. Valanzano
alluded to with this petition. I’m one of the attorneys that represents
the Plainfield Crossing owners. First I would like to make one thing
clear to start out. The owners of Plainfield Crossing are not the same
people that owned the Wal-Mart Super Center project. I don’t know
exactly how those two got tied together but I can tell you that the
ownership is not the same. So, that there could not have been a
commitment from this property, the Plainfield Crossing Center, to
dedicate this road that was made by the owners of the Wal-Mart
property. There is some crossover in the ownership but it is not
identical ownership.
As far as the road right-of-way goes and the position of the
Plainfield Crossing owners, the owners are not really asking and never
have asked and do not intend to ask for the cost of the land that is
being taken for the road. They have always been willing and will be
willing to give the land for the road. That is not an issue. So, to
the extent that this $750,000.00 is addressing land cost, that is not
an issue as far as the owners are concerned. The commitment was
understood to have been made and is still a commitment that the owners
of Plainfield Crossing are willing to make.
The problem has arisen because as of the time of the July 11th
hearing, the owners did not have any understanding and did not know who
to communicate with in regard to the ownership of the rights to the
building, the former Wal-Mart building, which Galyan’s had offices and
which is sitting vacant. The owners had been communicating with the
Galyan’s representatives over the course of the last months, dozens of
months or however months, since the Wal-Mart Super Center concept came
in and was going forward. When it was announced that Dick’s took over
Galyan’s, the owners attempted to talk to Galyan’s to find out what was
going to happen. They even attempted to make an offer to buy out their
position and Galyan’s said they did not know what they were going to
do. Finally, in August several weeks after the July 11th hearing was
held the owners received a notice that Galyan’s had sold its position
to a new owner and that owner is affiliated with the company that you
know of as Premier. Within a week or two after we received that notice
we received notice that that new owner was exercising its right to
renew the lease. The Wal-Mart lease that was signed originally in 1984
has options to go out for another 30 years. So, the owners of
Plainfield Crossing do not have control over that building or the
rights to that building and we didn’t know what was going to happen
with that property until several weeks after this July hearing.
We had reason to believe from conservations with Galyan’s that
there was not going to be any serious issues. However, two or three
weeks after we received the notice of renewal of the option we received
a notice that the new owner was negotiating with a sub-tenant and that
the sub-tenant was opposed to the road and opposed to the National City
outlot. Subsequently, we got a letter threatening a lawsuit if we were
to go forward with the National City outlet and dedicate the road.
After having several attempts to try to get the new owners of the Wal-
Mart building to sit down with us we finally did get a meeting convened
with the good gracious help of some of the representatives of the Town.
At that meeting the owners of the building and the prospective subtenant
discussed at length with us their desires, demands, or whatever
it would be and since that meeting, which was just two weeks ago, we
have had some communications back and forth and are attempting to
negotiate something.
The real issues are what damages would the road make to the
loading dock and the parking on the property? What impact would that
have on the owner of that 30-year lease of that building? And we are
attempting to work through that. We don’t believe there is anything
there that can’t be resolved. There has been an offer put on the table
to try to get things moving to get closer to a resolution of those
items but it can’t be done in the 30-day timetable that we are talking
about here.
I first saw this Staff Report approximately at 8:30 when I walked
in the room. I haven’t had a chance to discuss with my client in
California the amount of bond issue, etc. My view is that we would
prefer that we be scheduled for the hearing in November by which time
we hope to know more about where this is going and be able to then have
a proposal that would be more concrete as to how to address this
situation going forward.
We believe the road is a good idea. We want the road to go
through. We don’t have a problem with giving the land for the road but
we do have a problem with having a blind commitment not knowing what is
going to happen with the threat of lawsuits having to do with having
the outlot go forward and having the road go through. We need more
engineering work done. Mr. McGillem has come up with a drawing that we
sent to the representatives of the owner of the building and the
potential tenant. That was sent to them on Thursday. We haven’t had
any reaction from them yet. My view from just looking at the drawing
is that there will be an impact. Certainly, you could still get trucks
in there but the trucks will not be able to go in and out without
having a substantial impact on the parking area and that is going to
have to be addressed somehow whether it be better served by relocating
the dock or by somehow reconfiguring all the parking and making it work
that way I don’t know. But it is going to take some more engineering to
work it out to put some cost numbers on it and to figure out whether it
is worth it. Whether the price of going forward with the outlot is
worth whatever that cost is going to be, if we get to that point. We
believe that it should go forward. We believe it will be possible to
get it resolved. It won’t be insurmountable but everyone needs more
information and putting this on the timetable for November 7th would put
us in a better position to do that.
Mr. Matrana asked, do you think that will be enough time to
continue it to the November meeting?
Mr. O’Brien said we don’t want to put it past that because
National City wants to say something here too because if we can’t get
it resolved, I’m afraid that National City may not be able to remain
committed to this location. That is for them to say.
Ms. Betty Conklin with the law offices of William O’Harrington,
PC at 105 N. Washington St., Danville, IN 46122 said the issue that
National City has is, of course, time is a major problem. The lease
that they have signed with the owner they only have until November 13th
to clear up all of the governmental contingencies and permitting. So,
they do not have a definitive answer regarding the plat. By that time
they are going to have no option but to walk away from the lease. Of
course, they have an issue with their lease at Kroger’s. Kroger’s is
wanting them to move so they can do things with their property. They
are looking for another site in Plainfield and that is where they want
to be. They really like what is happening in this particular area,
which, of course, as you know, this is has been sort of a somewhat
depressed area and it is nice to see that it is going to be retail
again and an outlot for a bank use is an outstanding use. The issue
regarding whether they are going to institute an eminent domain
proceedings or whether they are going to dedicate the right-of-way I
don’t know that that can be resolved by the November hearing date. But
for my client’s purposes they need a definitive answer whatever the
Plan Commission may decide at that November hearing. So, that they
will know whether or not they can feasibly build at this location or if
they are going to have to look for a new site.
Mr. McPhail said I would like to add a couple of comments to this
issue. We have tried to resolve this issue a couple of weeks ago and
got the parties together. At least one party tried to get the Town to
commit to some things that had nothing to do with this project as part
of the resolution. We didn’t feel that was the proper thing to do.
From the beginning with this particular outlot, had it not been for the
redevelopment of the Wal-Mart site and some drainage issues we were
able to take care of, this outlot would not be available. It would
still be a detention area. In working through that process with the
Wal-Mart site and the whole thing the implication was certainly there
to the Town that the property would be dedicated. I think they are
still saying that but we have to have the dedication of that right-ofway
to complete that road. We believe they can make the dock work
whether it works efficiently or not I don’t know but we did not
anticipate getting into this kind of an issue and I think Mr. Belcher
can verify that and Mr. McGillem because we have been working on this
for months and months and months. All of a sudden we have a new player
in the process that has held the thing up. I think the property owner
made a good faith commitment when we approved the National City project
to be part of it. If all parties could make it to the November
hearing, that is better. We felt like that National City was in a
position that they had to make a decision before that time. A simple
issue has become complex it seems to me. The whole site has changed
with that road. We built the road with the intention of extending it.
We got it extended on the other end and it is not an issue from the
Town’s standpoint whether we want the road in or not. It is a matter
of what it will take to get in there. Obviously, the reason with
requesting a bond is, if they wanted to move forward or not, and
apparently they don’t, the bond would be to assure us that the Town is
not going to end up paying for right-of-way that we have already been
promised. That is what it amounts to.
Ms. Whicker asked, do we need to make a motion for a continuance?
Mr. Valanzano said whatever you want to call it, whether it is a
continuance or a filing of an additional request for something, at
least a letter or a request or something we would ask to be filed by
noon on this Friday, October 7th, which is a 30-day filing deadline
prior to the next hearing. I would also suggest, if the Plan Commission
thinks it is appropriate, that not only should notice be sent to
surrounding property owners like it is normally sent but that notice
also be specifically sent to the tenant and sub-tenant who are both of
record on this so that they cannot claim that they did not know about
this. Notice is not typically required to be sent to tenants. I think
in this case, considering the parties involved, it would probably be
wise to have that specific provision.
Mr. Kirchoff said the owner and the possible tenant.
Mr. Valanzano said there is a tenant or at least a lessee of that
building right now. Then they have bought out that old lease of 1984
from the Wal-Mart building. So, there is a party who has bought that
lease and holds that lease and I understand they hold that lease for
another 30 years. Then there is a party that they are negotiating to
sub-lease that space to that is also, through the terms of the sublease,
in control of the approval of whether or not that dock that we
were talking about works or not and is satisfactory. So, I think both
of those parties really need to be given notice and make sure if they
have anything to say.
Mr. O’Brien said we don’t have a problem giving that notice so we
can go ahead and do that.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, what should the motion say?
Mr. Matrana said they have to be notified by October 7th.
Mr. Valanzano said the biggest need is to file something by
October 7th and the notice date will come up about a week and a half or
two weeks after that.
Mr. Daniel asked, it has to be filed by Friday, correct?
Mr. Valanzano said yes and that will fall into our normal review
cycle.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, do we need to include in the motion the
lessee and the sub-lessee or not?
Mr. Valanzano said since that is outside our own procedures I
would strongly recommend it.
Mr. Daniel said what I think you need to do is indicate that any
action to be taken on this needs to be filed by Friday and any such
filing notice needs to be as usual. In addition, the tenant and the
sub-tenant needs to be notified also. All that would be set for
November 7, 2005.
Mr. Carlucci said the notice on November 7 has to do with the
120-day period, is that what we are doing?
Mr. Valanzano said yes. It would be a request to modify that
original “Condition 3” imposed at the July 11, 2005 public hearing of
PP-05-006. Basically, the request is to change that and that is what
the notice would go out to say.
Mr. Comer at 71 W. Main St., Danville, IN said I just want to say
that I acknowledge what the Commission is saying. I would be the one
filing the letter application this week and send out notice. That will
all be taken care of and we will see you here next month. There is one
thing that I would like you to consider in the next 30 days before we
get back here and that is in the terribly unlikelihood event that this
plat falls through we are still back in the same situation that we are
right now and that is how to get the right-of-way into the Town’s hand
and the landowner not get sued in the process from breach of lease.
So, if the plat falls through and goes away, National City goes away,
we have not accomplished anything. So, I would like to try to get them
taken care of as well as everybody else in the process.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion that the Plan Commission consider the
request to modify Condition #3 imposed at the July 11, 2005 public
hearing on PP-05-006 at a public hearing after proper notice has been
sent, which includes notice to the tenant and the sub-tenant for the
old Wal-Mart building. 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 I notice there was a report on the Comprehensive
Plan update.
Mr. Valanzano said when the agenda was put together, we
anticipated being able to have a meeting last week of the ordinance
update committee. Because of scheduling conflicts we were not able to
do that and we are going to have that meeting this week. The Plan
Commission had directed us last month to move as quickly as possible on
some of the amendments of the Comprehensive Plan and possibly call a
special meeting for that. We wanted to have that meeting with the
committee before we did take those last couple of steps and make sure
everybody was comfortable with what we would be bringing forward to
you. So, that is why we are not ready to go forward with that this
evening.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, are you still looking for a special Plan
Commission for just that topic?
Mr. Valanzano said yes sir. Hopefully, at that meeting on
Wednesday we can set a schedule and then go through the steps to call
the meetings.
Mr. Kirchoff said we didn’t have a monthly report, which is okay.
Mr. Valanzano said Ms. Sprague told me about that today.
ADJOURNMENT
Ms. Whicker made a motion to adjourn. Second by Mr. Kirchoff.
Motion carried.
