The Plainfield Plan Commission met on Thursday, January 4, 2007
at 7:00 p.m. In attendance were Mr. Matrana, Mr. McPhail, Mr.
Brandgard, Mr. Gibbs, Ms. Whicker and Mr. Kirchoff.
ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM
Mr. Carlucci administered the roll call.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Ms. Whicker said since this is the first of the year we would
like to have the election of officers.
Mr. Carlucci said I would ask for nominations for chairperson of
the Plainfield Plan Commission for 2007.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to nominate Ms. Whicker as chairperson
for the Plainfield Plan Commission for 2007. Second by Mr. McPhail.
Mr. Brandgard made a motion to close the nominations. Second by
Mr. McPhail.
Mr. Carlucci said all those in favor of Ms. Whicker as the
chairperson for the Plainfield Plan Commission for 2007 say aye. None
opposed. Motion carried.
Mr. Carlucci said I would like a motion for the vice chair person
of the Plainfield Plan Commission for 2007.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to re-appoint the existing vice
chairperson, Mr. Matrana. Second by Mr. McPhail.
Mr. Brandgard made a motion to close the nominations. Second by
Mr. McPhail.
Mr. Carlucci said all those in favor of Mr. Matrana to be the
vice chairperson of the Plainfield Plan Commission for 2007 please say
aye. None opposed. Motion carried.
We need to appoint a member of the Plainfield Plan Commission to
the Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals. I believe that is currently
Mr. Gibbs. Is there a motion to appoint Mr. Gibbs to the Plainfield
Board of Zoning Appeals for 2007.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to nominate Mr. Gibbs to the
Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals. Second by Mr. McPhail.
Mr. Brandgard made a motion to close the nominations. Second by
Mr. McPhail.
Mr. Carlucci said all those in favor of appointing Mr. Gibbs to
the Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals for 2007 please say aye. None
opposed. Motion carried.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
MOMENT OF SILENCE
Mr. Carlucci said I?m going to ask everybody tonight to have a
moment of silence for Herb Thibo who passed away on December 31, 2006
and was a member of the Plainfield Plan Commission for 27 years.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to approve the December 4, 2006
Plainfield Plan Commission minutes as submitted. Second by Mr.
Matrana. Motion carried.
OATH OF TESTIMONY
Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Testimony.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Ms. Whicker reviewed the Guidelines Governing the Conduct of
Public Hearings. This evening we had a request for two continued
petitions, the first petition, DP-06-031, GPS Development, LLC.
Mr. James said the petitioner has asked for a continuance for
this request because they have had some difficulties getting through
the Design Review Committee. So, they are going to go back to the DRC
January 16th and hope to be back to the Plan Commission in February.
Ms. Whicker said the next request for a continuance is PP-06-030,
R. Beaman Associates.
Mr. James said we have to continue this request because of a
failure of a public notice to be sent out to the interested parties.
Ms. Whicker asked, do they plan on returning in February?
Mr. James said yes.
Mr. Gibbs made a motion to continue DP-06-031, GPS Development,
LLC and PP-06-030, R. Beaman Associates to the February Plan Commission
meeting. Second by Mr. Brandgard. Motion carried.
Ms. Whicker said our first petition for public hearing is PP-06-
008, Verus Partners, LLC.
Mr. James said this request is to approve a non-residential
incremental primary plat to create two blocks of 127 acres. The
property is located east of the Ronald Reagan Parkway and north of
Stafford Road. The 127 acres is approximately in this area in here.
It has been rezoned and it has been annexed. Here is a diagram of the
plat. Here are the two blocks. This block was rezoned to C-I,
Commercial/Industrial to an office/flex type building. It?s
approximately 92 acres. Block two was rezoned to I-2, Office/Warehouse
Distribution to allow that type of use. They did have to vacate one
block, which has been done and allowed us to meet the building
standards of the respective zoning districts.
The main issue at the last Plan Commission meeting was the
alignment of their internal street network and the alignment of that
intersection of the proposed Metropolis Parkway corridor. At the last
meeting they had their proposed internal street network and
intersection just aligning up with the Metropolis Parkway corridor at
this location, which went through the Stout property. This was not
consistent with what was recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. The
Town had also made commitments that they would do everything possible
to avoid taking additional right-of-way from the Stout property. So,
now they have moved the intersection down to the southern property line
and it is now consistent with what is recommended by the Transportation
Plan for the Metropolis Parkway corridor to be on the south property
line of the Stout property.
Here is the Transportation Plan and the proposed alignment for
the Metropolis Parkway. Again, they moved their intersection to the
south property line and would do a cul-de-sac until the northern part
of the property develops. Then at that time they would extend it up to
their north property line. This is also consistent with the
Transportation Plan as a corridor to provide access east of Ronald
Reagan Parkway, which is this alignment right here.
This is the intersection design that they proposed. It doesn?t
line up perfectly with the proposed Metropolis Parkway intersection. It
would be just offset a little bit. Here is their property line right
here and then when additional lanes are needed, they can be added to
the south, which gives the intersection a better alignment.
Staff Comments: Sanitary sewer and water would have to be
extended to the site. Lift stations are proposed. There is a flood
plan along the east property line. Adequate provisions have been made
regarding public ways and drainage. They requested a waiver to have
only one sidewalk on their proposed internal street network, which
would be an industrial collector and that is common in our industrial
parks to have only one sidewalk. And then on the east side of Ronald
Reagan Parkway they would have a pedestrian path. There is a proposed
cul-de-sac to insure future connection to the north. The proposed
industrial collector right-of-way will be dedicated to the north
property line with the secondary plat. And then while slightly offset
the intersection does align with the recommended corridor of the
Metropolis Parkway. Access could be provided to properties to the
south with the internal street network on the property line. The
intersection could be fixed as more lanes are added. Hopefully, that
gives you a good summary of where this request stands with the main
issue being the alignment of the Metropolis Parkway. There are
representatives here representing the petitioner and I?m sure they
would be happy to answer any questions that you might have.
Mr. Kevin Cavanaugh with Banning Engineering at 853 Columbia
Road, Suite 101, Plainfield said with me this evening is Mr. Tom
Theobold with Verus Partners and we are here basically to answer any
questions that you might have. We are well aware that everyone has
seen this several times before and I would like to thank Mr. James and
Mr. Belcher and Mr. McGillem and the Town Staff for working with us to
come up with an answer for the roadway and the Metropolis Parkway that
works well for the development and certainly fits in with the
Thoroughfare Plan. With that I think Mr. James has covered it very
well. I would be happy to answer any questions that you have.
Ms. Whicker said I remember us discussing last month, and I?m not
sure if Mr. James could flip back to this slid that shows all the
adjacent properties, the property that would be the southeast corner of
the intersection. There was talk of that property owner having to agree
with this as well. So, that has come about. It would have been the
property to the southeast, that first property of the intersection
where they were going to join.
Mr. James said (inaudible).
Mr. Cavanaugh said all the roadwork that we would do for the
right-of-way is entirely on the Verus property.
Ms. Whicker said and then the proposed direct meeting is only
once the traffic would have the need for making it wider.
Mr. Cavanaugh said when we did the basic design for the roadway,
we worked with Mr. McGillem and there is a slight offset in trying to
come up with a solution that can predict the eventual development of
the Metropolis Parkway from the Town?s prospective and potential
development to the south of the Verus Partners. What we have is a
setup that allows additional entrance into the Verus property with an
in lane/two out lanes and it is anticipated that would align up
initially with development to the south of the Stout property with
Metropolis Parkway being developed on the Browning property only
thereby creating the offset. And then for future development as the
property to the south from Six Points Development would come on line
there is the opportunity there to create two additional lanes on the
Six Points property. And eventually full development on the Stout
property and the Metropolis and at that time the intersection basically
is in full alignment.
Mr. Brandgard said I would like to thank them for listening to us
at the last meeting.
Ms. Whicker asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care
to speak on this matter?
Mr. James said earlier I had passed out two letters from
surrounding property owners expressing their concerns about the
approval of this plat.
Mr. James said earlier I had passed out two letters from
surrounding property owners expressing their concerns about the
approval of this plat.
Ms. Whicker said I believe at this point Mr. James you had
mentioned the two letters that were submitted from the adjacent
property owners.
Mr. James said(inaudible).
Ms. Whicker said for public purposes are these letters read or
are they addressed or does the commission just take into consideration
their views?
Mr. Daniel said I think all of the commission members have a copy
of them and they are part of the record.
Mr. Cavanaugh said I would just like to offer the opportunity to
address any questions that might be brought up in the Browning letter.
We have not seen a copy of that but I would certainly be happy to
address any of their concerns. I would like to point out that their
property is adjacent and the plan for the roadway and extension of
Metropolis Parkway through that piece would be a Town project and we
would try to align our work to match up with the Town?s expectations.
We are not really having any impact directly onto their property.
Ms. Whicker said with no one else coming forward the public
portion of this matter is closed. The commission will open it up for
comments or a possible motion.
Mr. Brandgard said I just have a quick comment relative to the
letter sent to us by Browning/Prologis. I guess I?m somewhat
disappointed that they would at this point and time come in and say
they didn?t like the alignment of that road because we have had that
out and have had discussions with them for some time. They were in the
meeting when we discussed last so I express some disappointment that
they wait until the last minute to send this letter in.
Mr. Kirchoff said plus at the last meeting they said in essence
that they supported what we wanted to do. I don?t understand that
change in position.
Mr. McPhail said I think Browning has been consistent in their
position that they wanted this roadway shifted all the way to the north
on Stout?s property. We have taken the position from day one that we
wouldn?t do that. I do think they have been consistent in that and
they obviously opposed the last proposal by Verus because it pretty
well split the north site. Their opposition has been consistent and I
think the Town?s position has been consistent that this is the proper
alignment and that is where it should be. I think we need to respect
their opinion but move forward with the alignment of that road where we
think it belongs.
Mr. Brandgard said I agree. With that I move that the Plan
Commission approve PP-06-008 as filed by Verus Partners, LLC requesting
approval of a Primary Plat pending annexation to be known as East
Plainfield Business Park creating two blocks in a non-residential
incremental subdivision on approximately 127 acres 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 subdivisions 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 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.).
Right-of-way for the proposed new N/S Industrial Collector shall be dedicated on a Secondary Plat to both the south and north property lines before an Improvement Location Permit (ILP) is issued for any development on properties within this Primary Plat.
And regarding the waiver from Article 3.4,A. of the Plainfield
Subdivision Control Ordinance requiring sidewalks on both sides of a
public street I move that the Plan Commission grant the waiver finding
that:
The granting of the waiver will not be detrimental to the public safety, health or welfare or injurious to other property.
The conditions upon which the request for a waiver is based are unique to the property for which a waiver is sought and are not applicable generally to other property.
Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the specific property involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of these regulations are carried out.
The waiver will not contravene the provisions of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance of the Comprehensive Plan.
Second by Mr. Gibbs. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Matrana ? yes
Mr. McPhail ? yes
Mr. Brandgard ? yes
Mr. Gibbs ? yes
Mr. Kirchoff ? yes
Ms. Whicker ? yes
6-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Ms. Whicker said our next petition is DP-06-026, Value Place.
Mr. James said the second petition tonight is Architecture and
Site Design Review of a Development Plan for a 10,678 square foot hotel
with 12 rooms. This site is located at the end of Gateway Drive in the
northwest quadrant of the I-70/SR267 interchange. The zoning is
General Commercial and Tri-L Development PUD. This is the site right
here. Here is Gateway Drive. The site is approximately 2.2 acres.
This request has been to the Plan Commission before. It is
within 600 feet of a Gateway Corridor, the I-70 right-of-way so it must
comply with the Gateway Corridor standards, road standards. Since this
project was first proposed many changes have been made to bring this
request into compliance with the Gateway Corridor standards. The most
significant changes have been to the building itself and to basically
the type of building material and the percentage of the building
material. Other issues were taken care of, landscaping, lighting so
now the only remaining issue is with the canopy size and the ?800?
number and the pricing advertised on the changeable copy sign.
I wanted to show you the changes that have been made to this
request. This is when it was first proposed. This was all hardy plank,
which did not meet the building material standards of the Gateway
Corridor. The second version they added 20% brick and changed the
hardy plank to EIFS but the brick was not real brick; they proposed
brick veneer. Now we are at this version where they are now doing real
brick and elevations have at least 60% brick. Another issue at the
November Plan Commission was the size of the canopy. They have
improved the canopy and redesigned it. It is now with EIFS and brick
columns but the small canopy that they had on the rear of the building
has been removed and it has been replaced with an awning. This will be
the front of the building that has frontage on Gateway Boulevard. Here
is a 3-D rendering of this version with at least 60% brick on all
elevations and the size of the canopy has been increased so the
petitioner states that it is now at least the size of the adjacent
property, the adjacent hotel to the northeast, which is the Wingate
Inn. These are the building material percentages. I just wanted to
show that all elevations are at 60% or more brick.
So, this went to DRC in December and DRC recommended approval
with the following stipulations: They did not support the changeable
copy sign with the changeable copy sign showing the price. They must
submit building material samples and paint samples to Staff. They did
submit the brick sample and they have shown us the paint samples
previously at DRC but I think they may have brought those tonight.
All elevations are now more than 60% brick. All plans comply
with the Gateway Corridor standards. Landscaping, parking, lighting,
light standards, light fixtures, brick and EIFS have been added to the
canopy and the south of the canopy is now the same as the adjacent
hotel. The petitioner has proposed using only pre-approved messages
for the changeable copy sign, which I have passed out an addendum to
the Staff Report with the condition that they would commit to certain
messages with the changeable copy sign.
Has enough been done to the building design to make it acceptable
at this location? It leaves us with the remaining issue of the
changeable copy sign, which is an LED sign and where it is located. It
is on the southeast elevation of the building. It would be prominent
from I-70 and SR267 so can anything else be done to provide a comfort
level needed by the Plan Commission to approve this plan of the
changeable copy sign? They have committed to only certain messages.
Here are the proposed commitments on the five messages that they would
allow on the changeable copy sign. By ordinance the sign can only
change messages six times per hour, ?lowest weekly rates; full
kitchens; cleaner, safer and simpler and check out our low rates and
then welcome to Plainfield?. I?m not sure if they are still going to
include the pricing as part of the messages but they can clear that up
tonight. So, with that I will hand it over to the petitioners and I?m
sure they can answer any other questions that you might have.
Mr. Steve Granner, a Zoning Consultant with Bose, McKinney and
Evans said I?m here tonight representing the petitioner. With me this
evening is Gina Wolfe from Value Place and Darci Pellom with Civil
Designs, engineers on the project. I believe they have been here
before. I have not been before you before or the Design Review
Committee because Joe Caldron in our office has normally been in
attendance but he is out of the State this week. Obviously all of you
know more about this than I do but I have tried to bring myself up-to-
speed a little bit and Mr. James has done a great job with the Staff
comments and bringing the history of this project up-to-speed and they
have obviously come a long way from when they originally filed it.
We are down to the two issues that Mr. James has just summarized
for you as to whether or not you as the Plan Commission on the design
of the building has reached the comfort level that the Design Review
Committee did in that regard and it is whether it is acceptable or not.
Secondly, whether you can reach a comfort level on the changeable copy
sign for the site given the commitment that we are making limiting the
sign to only those five messages to be on the sign. Hopefully, that
gives you that comfort level that has been sought over the past months
both at the Plan Commission level and at the Design Review Committee
level. I do want to ask you to keep in mind some issues with regard to
that that has already been presented to you in previous meetings and
that was as Mr. James mentioned a changeable copy sign is a permitted
sign type within your ordinance for this location. But we are
proposing it as a wall sign and not as a freestanding pole type sign.
In fact, all of the signs for this development are wall signs; there
are no freestanding signs of any kind proposed. As previously stated
before in previous meetings, the signs still play a large part in
marketing of this business, as it does with most businesses. I think
they have previously testified to you that 40% of Value Place?s
business is generated from drive-by traffic. So, their signage is very
important to them to have a successful business. To be able to use
this changeable copy sign to market their product, their product being
the hotel, using these five messages is very important to them. So
with that we would be glad to answer any questions that you might have.
If there are questions that Gina or Darci need to answer, I think we
need to swear them in before their testimony because they did come in
after that was done. I would be glad to answer any questions that you
might have.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. Granner said the price will not be one of the messages.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Ms. Whicker said it is 10 minutes per message. I just had a
question regarding the third sign, the copy text that was wanting to be
used; cleaner, safer, simpler and just as a citizen there is something
about that ?safer?.
Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Testimony to Ms. Pellom and
Ms. Wolfe.
Ms. Gina Wolfe with Value Place Hotels at 8621 E. 21 St.,
Wichita, Kansas 67206 said that statement actually I don?t know if you
have had an opportunity to visit our website at all, but one of our
marketing strategies you will see on a lot of our signage one of the
messages is ?cleaner, safer, simpler? and it is based on our quality
control issues internally. We have our quality assurance safety
procedures all based on our Harford business model so that is just a
marketing tactic and it is proven by our QA standards per our safety
procedures that we utilize the cleanness and the cleaning process we
take throughout our hotel so that is where that statement comes from.
So, that just kind of clarifies that because I don?t know if you have
had an opportunity to visit the website at all but that is kind of the
basis behind it.
Ms. Whicker said so it is a slogan that you use.
Ms. Wolfe said yes.
Ms. Whicker said we pride ourselves on a safe community so you
see the word ?safer? it?s safer than what?
Ms. Wolfe said I understand. If that needs to be modified, we
are more than willing to work with you to get this done as we have
tried to over the last several meetings. I?m free to answer any other
questions that you may have also at this time.
Mr. Gibbs said (inaudible).
Ms. Wolfe said correct.
Mr. Gibbs said (inaudible).
Ms. Wolfe said they would scroll on and once on the screen they
would maintain on the screen for 10 minutes before a second message
would scroll on and then maintained for another 10 minutes. But each
one of these messages would only be on for 10 minutes. Now obviously we
can have six messages. One of the main messages that we would probably
repeat would be the ?full kitchens?.
Mr. Gibbs said (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail said I think I would like to clarify the
recommendation from the DRC. DRC took a very strong possession that
they were opposed to any changeable sign on the building. They said a
changeable monument sign, ground sign on the building they could live
with the changeable there but they were totally opposed to any
changeable sign mounted high up on that building. I support that
position and believe that if we allow this changeable sign, we have
deviated from any approvals that we have given in the past for this
type of signage located like that on the building. I just don?t
believe it is something that we want flashing down the highway. I
don?t think it meets the quality of what we are asking for in this
development on this intersection. A monument or a ground sign with
changeable copy I think I could live with. Mr. James has mentioned
that the ordinance does allow a changeable sign and I don?t have a
problem with that but I do believe that with this PUD we don?t have to
allow anything in the ordinance that is not covered in that PUD, is
that correct?
Mr. Daniel said PUD standards can be flexible.
Mr. McPhail said it just seems to me that we have been pretty
consistent in the past since I have been on this Plan Commission about
these changeable readable signs like that and I think that was the
position that DRC took, is that correct Mr. James?
Mr. James said there was an issue with the location from the
southeast elevation and the height of the changeable copy sign.
Mr. Gibbs asked, (inaudible).
Ms. Whicker said it says it shall match the signs on the main
elevations is their recommendation.
Mr. James said yes DRC said ?does not approve of the changeable
copy sign and sign shall match signs on main elevations.?
Ms. Whicker asked, is this property left of the exit?
Mr. McPhail said yes.
Ms. Whicker said west of the exit they see the sign, they are
going 65 mph by the sign and then the next exit would be the rest stop.
Mr. McPhail said that is correct.
Ms. Whicker said which has no ?U? turn capability. They would go
to the next exit if they wanted to turn around from that.
Mr. McPhail said as best as I remember, the orientation of the
building it would be very visible and as you come off the interchange
heading north on Quaker Boulevard.
Mr. Brandgard said we have been pretty consistent with not
allowing the changeable copy signs up on the buildings out there. They
have come in before asking for it and we have not allowed it so once
you set a pattern I don?t think it is good to advantage somebody new
coming in over somebody who has been there for awhile who was told you
can?t have it. I think from not only the aesthetics but the
consistency of what we do here says you can?t allow it because we have
already disallowed several times before.
Mr. McPhail said I will say that as far as the building materials
and the change of the building I think they have come a long way from
their original proposal. I liken the current proposal similar to the
Staybridge that is almost complete on the other side. It happens to be
stone and EIFS but it is about the same mixture and the same type so I
do think they have come a long way and the design of the building is
acceptable.
Mr. Brandgard said I would like to compliment them on the work
that they have done to come back with a design that meets our
requirements. I think you have done a great job there.
Mr. James said Mr. Granner brings up a point about the
transferable rights of a PUD across property lines. So, if the PUD
does not have standards for a sign, can they be enforced?
Mr. Granner said I raised the question with Mr. James that it
appeared to me from the exhibit in the Staff Report that only part of
this site is on a PUD but the rest of the site is zoned something else,
I forget what. A comment was made that the site was zoned a PUD and
that gave you the latitude and flexibility to approve or not approve
something. It appears to me that perhaps maybe the sign that we are
talking about isn?t located on the portion of the site that is zoned a
PUD. So, I raised the question of whether that could be a basis for
using the PUD to be used as a basis for the denial, if the sign isn?t
on the portion of the site that is zoned PUD and if it is not, we need
to maybe approach it from a different angle. We?ve heard the opinion
of two of the Plan Commission members and we would need a little more
feedback from the other ones and we can move this along.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, (inaudible).
Mr. James said we are not sure if it is entirely a PUD or if it
is divided into two separate zonings.
Mr. Daniel said it is a good question. A lot of times PUDs come
in and request to receive special and particular standards and that is
why they are a PUD a lot of times to allow some flexibility otherwise.
But a site such as this, if this map is correct, it looks like more of
it is out of the PUD than in the PUD, which doesn?t necessarily answer
the question.
Mr. Gibbs said (inaudible).
Ms. Wolfe said we do and that was originally our first proposal
but it was a 50-foot pole sign and we understand that pole signs are
not acceptable in Plainfield so we retracted that one very quickly and
that is why we wall-mounted the sign.
Mr. Gibbs said (inaudible).
Mr. James said (inaudible).
Mr. Carlucci said just a quick comment about that PUD. We
specifically carved that out. I thought maybe that was even included
in the Zoning Ordinance for a separate attachment. There was a
document done on what the legal descriptions were where that boundary
is. Do you recall seeing it in the Zoning Ordinance that it was
mentioned as a specific PUD?
Mr. James said no.
Mr. Carlucci said we would have to go back to the rezoning
because I know that we separately pulled that aside because there were
some issues on that area. And to accommodate the developers at the
time because they wanted the flexibility to go a couple of different
ways. The difficult thing here is whether it is in or out. Part of it
is in and part of it is out; we just don?t know how much. Again, I
still think the PUD they can say well you can have the sign but maybe
you don?t want the hotel. You can say yes we agree and the whole
project goes down in flames or something like that.
Ms. Whicker said so with the DRC it was more the location, which
means we are probably in the location of the sign.
Mr. Granner said right.
Mr. James said and the height.
Ms. Whicker said I agree with Mr. McPhail that the appearance of
the building and the changes I think it looks very nice. I try to see
and imagine the people that see the sign and the building and driving
by and every 10 minutes how many cars go by. That elevation and that
view of the building is seen from I-70, correct? So, when they go by
they are probably going by once.
Ms. Wolfe said I hear and I understand there are a lot of
concerns with the changeable copy and obviously this is a large part of
our marketing but I do understand where you are coming from. I know
you mentioned the height and possibly a ground sign. Just from our
Value Plus standpoint by putting it on the ground there we don?t feel
it would do enough for the visibility to justify the cost behind
putting it there. I have brought a second proposal. It is very
similar to what we approached on the wall signs as currently shown that
are approved and this one I?m going to flip it up real quick and then I
will pass one out to each of you. It is a slight modification to the
wall signs. What if we could put a couple of those marketing tools
that we committed to you using the two, ?lowest weekly rates? or ?full
kitchens? in the standard type of sign that is allowed with the channel
letters mounted on the plaque? I have those elevations here as a
substitute to the changeable copy to see if that would maybe be an
option, if you would consider that.
Mr. Matrana asked, would this sign require a variance or would
this just be a normal sign?
Ms. Whicker said this does not increase the square footage of the
size of the sign.
Ms. Wolfe said it does not. The only change you will see on this
plan is that the sign that is mounted to where the LED, the changeable
copy sign was located. The other two are approved as they were.
Mr. Brandgard said you just want to change that one sign to this
new scenario.
Ms. Whicker said yes. You had mentioned that you might want to
put the ?lowest weekly rates? and ?full kitchens? as the only two
slogans.
Ms. Wolfe said we would only be using one slogan on the sign. We
wouldn?t fit two of them on there because it wouldn?t be appealing by
that fact. The side elevations we have committed to doing Value Place.
Those would be the only other locations that we would put ?full
kitchens? under but as a consideration just tonight if we can gain your
support at least replace this changeable copy sign with this one, we
would be more than willing to concede to do that.
Mr. Daniel said so the sign where you have Value Place lowest
weekly rates that would be it and it would just stay that way.
Ms. Wolfe said correct that would not change.
Mr. James said (inaudible).
Ms. Whicker said you were very prepared knowing what DRC had to
say and knowing their concerns and having this readily available.
Ms. Wolfe said I have heard all of the comments. I guess my one
confusion was there was always the comments regarding the changeable
copy and the pricing so that is why we committed to taking off the
pricing. But as I heard everybody speaking tonight there was still
concerns with the changeable itself and not just the pricing that was
going to be on the signs. So, I had that as a backup. I just wasn?t
sure exactly which way you were swinging with the changeable copy, if
it was the rate alone or if it was the sign as a whole.
Ms. Whicker said thank you for bringing that.
Mr. James said Ms. Sprague just brought up a comment concerning
Wal-Mart and their signs, if you can think back to what they requested
their slogan ?always low prices?.
Mr. Brandgard said I think the issue with Wal-Mart was the number
of signs that they wanted to put up on the building and not so much
what they were saying. It was how many they wanted to put up there.
Ms. Whicker asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care
to speak on this matter? Being no one coming forward we will close the
public portion of this hearing and open it up for a possible motion.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion that the Plan Commission approve DP-
06-026 as filed by Value Place requesting Architectural & Site Design
Review approval of an approximately 10,678 square foot hotel for Lot 1
of Cambridge Square West III with 600 feet of a Gateway Corridor
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 & 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, colored rendering, landscaping plan, photometric plan and light fixtures file dated October 20, 2006.
Drainage issues concerning this site and the Primary Plat shall be resolved satisfactory to the Town Engineer before any construction work begins.
Substantial compliance with the sign package file dated January 4, 2007.
Second by Mr. Matrana. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Matrana ? yes
Mr. McPhail ? yes
Mr. Brandgard ? yes
Mr. Gibbs ? yes
Mr. Kirchoff ? yes
Ms. Whicker ? yes
6-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Ms. Whicker said the other petitions that are mentioned on the
back of our agenda for this evening please note that they do have the
date of January 9, 2007. Due to our full docket tonight those petitions
will be heard next Tuesday at 6:00 p.m. just in case you were staying
to hear one of those.
OLD BUSINESS/NEW BUSINESS
Mr. James said Gary Carpenter with J. Greg Allen and Associates
has proposed new sign poles, more decorative poles for Whitmore Place.
There are some photos in the packet. HOA would be responsible for
maintenance of the sign poles, street poles. It is stated in their CCRs
that they would be responsible for the poles. Something similar was
done for Williamsburg approved by the Town Council last month. So, we
thought it best to get your opinion on this and see what you thought
about these proposed changes before they took this request to the Town
Council.
Ms. Whicker said I think they look nice. Normally the Town would
pay for the signage poles.
Mr. Belcher said (inaudible).
Ms. Whicker said it does state that the homeowners association
would maintain them. Would they receive a credit of what a regular
pole sign would cost?
Mr. Belcher said (inaudible).
Mr. Carlucci said I might recommend that to the Town Council
because the traffic signage is really the responsibility of the Town
Council. That is where we brought up the Williamsburg in the Woods.
Mr. Kirchoff said and again Mr. McPhail lives there and they were
willing to do the installation and maintenance and replacement, etc.
We said as long they understand that and commit to that, that?s fine.
Mr. Brandgard said and he says that in the letter.
Mr. Kirchoff said we just don?t want him coming in in six months
and say this sign is down and when you are guys going to fix it.
Mr. Daniel said from the standpoint of the record I think the
recommendation of the Town Council and a vote on the recommendation
they could move forward.
Mr. James asked, would you recommend any kind of a condition that
they be replaced within a certain time period or anything like that?
Mr. Daniel said I think that should come from the Town Council.
Mr. Daniel said I think that should come from the Town Council.
INTRODUCTION OF OAK TREE PUD
Ms. said the next item on the agenda is Centex Homes, an
introduction of the Oak Tree PUD amendment.
Mr. Carlucci said the next item is labeled as the introduction of
Oak Tree PUD amendment. There is no Oak Tree PUD because the Plan
Commission voted it down. So, there is nothing to amend. I just want
to make sure that everybody is clear on that because it says amendment.
Mr. James said you are correct. John Isaacs and Bruce Sklare are
here. John is representing Centex Homes and Bruce is with Bay
Development. You know Bruce from working on the original Oak Tree PUD
and Centex has proposed to take over the proposed Oak Tree development.
John would like to take this opportunity to introduce what they are
proposing and then we will continue to work on their proposed PUD
ordinance and hash out the issues in the coming months.
Mr. Bruce Sklare said I?m with the Bay Development Corporation.
My address is 10415 N. College Avenue, Indianapolis, Indiana. I would
somewhat further correct what was just said. The petitioner in this
case is Bay Development Corporation. What has changed is that these
are homes where the original builder is no longer the builder. Centex
Homes will be the new homebuilder. That?s essentially what has
changed. The concept has changed dramatically and that is what we want
to briefly discuss with you tonight. I think we will be back next month
but before we get into that I want to mention what may be a
housekeeping item but I want to ask if this is proper procedure. When
the Town Council voted down our petition, which we reluctantly asked
them to do because Bezar had pulled out of the project, I believe it
was voted down using the term without prejudice. So, the question that
I?m asking the Plan Commission is does that mean that we resubmit it,
the PUD ordinance, do we still need to pay the fees that are associated
with that?
Mr. Carlucci said without prejudice means that you could refile
without having to wait six months or a year to do that.
Mr. Sklare said so we still have to pay the fees. That?s okay.
I just wanted to understand. Thank you for clearing that up. Again,
the purpose of this discussion is to be brief but to clarify the
differences between the previous PUD ordinance that you had reviewed
and approved and the new PUD ordinance that you will soon see.
Probably the biggest difference is the Bezar development was going to
be a conventional residential community with approximately 700 home
sites and a variety of different homes. The part that was east of
CR500E that kind of splits the property was going to be aimed at and
targeting families. The part on the west side was going to target
empty nester households because you had a difference of school systems.
The east side area is in Plainfield and the west side area is in the
Cascade/Mill Creek school system. Also, we are going to build four new
golf holes with the Elks taking the Elks Oak Tree Golf Course and build
four new golf holes.
What happened when Bezar pulled out, I also found out that a
number of the Elks? members or the board of trustees were actually
against that concept because of the possible disruption of play and
other issues of building new holes. I didn?t realize when doing the
Bezar program, that they were unhappy with that. They did not want us
to do that so we tried to look to see how we could do the project with
a new builder and Centex expressed interest. Their interest was in an
active adult lifestyle community and John Isaacs will explain a little
more and define that a little bit more but the best example I can offer
in the Indianapolis area is right now in Fishers, Indiana Pulte Homes
is doing a Del Webb development that is an active adult lifestyle
community, which in some ways is very similar to what is being proposed
here. Just to give you a very brief history Del Webb started in Sun
City, Arizona a number of years ago and has done active adult lifestyle
communities across the United States. Del Webb was purchased by Pulte
Homes several years ago. Centex actually was a builder in a number of
Del Webb developments and I think is still currently finishing out some
that they had already started but when Pulte Homes bought Del Webb, I
believe Centex said okay we are not going to build in our competitor?s
communities. We now think we have enough experience to start doing
these on our own. So, what we have today and what our proposal in the
PUD ordinance is for an active adult lifestyle community using the
experience that Centex has developed over the years with doing Del Webb
projects and also their own lifestyle developments. I find it very
exciting because they are really targeting a market that in many ways
is still going to provide the tax base that the homes are going to
provide before but impacts on a number of areas in Plainfield are now
going to be much less. We actually just received the traffic study
that is required and this is a revised traffic study and we are going
to get this to Mr. McGillem. We just got this the other day but it is
interesting on page one it compares in the first couple of paragraphs a
conventional single-family home community with the active adult
community. The first paragraph just says this type community, meaning
the active adult, generates approximately 25% the same number of trips
during peak hours as a conventional single-family dwelling community.
So, the impact on roads is much, much less. The impact on schools is
going to be virtually zero whether you are in Plainfield or whether you
are in Cascade property.
So, I find it exciting. I think we are going to be able to offer
something and the purpose tonight really was to help explain some basic
differences between a conventional residential community and this,
which is now going to have a major amenity center and other aspects
that will appeal to the active adult lifestyle verses what we were
going to do before. Thank you very much and I will turn it over to
John Isaacs.
Mr. John Isaacs said I am the manager locally here for Centex
Homes for the Indianapolis region. We have been working probably
better than six or seven months at bringing this proposal forward and
working with a national organization of Centex that is devoted to the
active adult communities that we are corporately branding nationwide.
We have done active adult communities in the past but they have really
been modeled after the old Del Webb style developments. Those started
back in the 60s and 70s and that was designed for a different
generation than today?s active adult buyer. We have spent a lot of
time researching and identifying what the target market for the active
adult buyer is and just to give you an idea we obviously have picked
Plainfield and the Oak Tree site to be our active adult community. I
have located the Del Webb project up in Fishers up on the northeast
side of Indianapolis. It looks like we can get any farther apart and
stay within the region almost. Not so much by design did we do that
but when we started looking at the top areas that jumped out as active
adult buyers, Plainfield was number two in the entire region. It was
close to number one. Number one was Hamilton County, which is where
Del Webb is located. We have pursued opportunities up there and
continue to pursue opportunities up there but we are dedicated to the
Plainfield site. This is our number one site and this is what we are
going forward with.
Again, just an aerial photograph of Plainfield. Here is Oak Tree
in relationship to everything else. The site that we are looking at is
the Martin piece. It is north of the Oak Tree Golf Course. Obviously,
it does not have direct access to U.S. 40 but it does have the ability
to connect to the adjacent proximity to the golf course. We see that
as the opportunity for this site. When we brought our design team out,
our national design team out, and walked the site and we walked through
the golf course, they turned to us and said if we can?t make an active
adult community on this site, we are in the wrong business. So, that
gave us kind of comfort that from a corporate standpoint they are going
to be behind us 100%. We have proceeded to go that.
Very early on when we started looking at that site and
identifying the golf course, we really felt the golf course would be
better because we weren?t going to own it. Better to stay in tact
where it is rather than have it come into the community but we are
looking at connecting the golf course in other ways and I will get to
that later.
So, basically who is our buyer? Our buyer is part of the boomer
generation. Last year the baby boomers turned 60 for the first time
and there are 15 more years of the baby boomer generation coming. The
baby boomer generation is the wealthiest generation we have. A lot of
disposable income, a lot of them are becoming of retirement age looking
at what is going to happen in their future.
Active adult is the term that you have heard before. We still
kind of use the word active adult. I want to compare active adult and
the boomers to like senior housing and retirement housing. We are not
talking about a senior housing development. This is a development for
the active adult lifestyle. They want to communicate with others.
They want to enjoy comradery in the neighborhood and that is what the
boomer lifestyle is going to be centered on. So, 70% will still be
working when they move. One of the reasons that we are seeing the
active adult communities come to the north is because of the baby
boomers are not always ready to retire to that area down in south
Florida and be in the sunshine 365 days a year. So, we are starting to
see the active adult lifestyle move north. You are not missing
anything in that lifestyle. They are still looking at the amenity
packages but they are still working as well so 70% will be working.
All of them will be greater than 55 years of age. They desire the
lifestyle with the programmed activities. Not the kind of activities
that you have to do but the activities are available for you and if you
want to join in those activities, you have the choice to join into them
but it is not that they have to do those.
These buyers will have plenty of time on their hands. They have
already raised their kids. They have already put their time in
chauffeuring their kids to soccer practice and whatnot and they have a
lot of time and they will volunteer regularly so you will see a big
influx of volunteers in the community. They are family oriented, this
group. They desire to be close to the grandchildren. They want to be
involved in their lives. The old active adult generation was of the
opinion we have raised our kids and we are done with them and they can
come visit us once a month, once a year but other than that we want to
be separated from them. But this generation they go to the soccer
games, they help chauffeur the kids around to places and things like
that. This buyer is also looking for low maintenance living. They want
yard and snow removal, which will be provided by the HOA and also part
of the neighborhood would also be completely maintenance free or the
association will take care of all of the exterior of the houses as
well, painting and things like that.
The top amenities desired by this group is they want to have a
coffee shop close by. They want their area to be a destination area.
They want great and well maintained landscaping. They want to have
security in the neighborhood and they want to have an active adult
program, programmed activities that they can join in and they want to
have a pool.
So, why did we choose Plainfield? Plainfield has a great outside
amenity. We look at Plainfield through all of the trail system and
parks and recreation that you have provided. The ability with the
aquatic center that the grandkids can come and enjoy the aquatic
center. The grandkids don?t swim in the pool at the club, in the
owner?s club in the active adult community, but a half-mile away
there?s a facility for them to go there. Again, the greenway trail,
which is attached or connected or will be connected to our site.
Medical facilities are close and, of course, the proximity of the Oak
Tree Golf Course. Probably 30% of our buyers would play golf and that
is kind of an average statistic across the country. Again, it is a
safe community.
So, what would make Oak Tree unique, not just to Indianapolis but
to Plainfield? It is going to be marketed as an ?age? qualified and
?age? targeted community so all of the homes that are going to be
provided are going to be mostly ranches. All of the main living areas
will be on one floor so you may have a second story but it is going to
be like a bonus room or something like that. There will be parks
throughout the community. We are going to have an active adult themed
community. I will get to that in a minute. There will be walking
trails throughout the neighborhood connecting all of Plainfield. We are
going to work with the Elks. We have been working with the Elks for
several months now trying to create connectivity to the golf course.
We will maintain yards in the neighborhood. There will be exterior
maintenance for two of the product types that we will be within the
community. There will be no school children although they still pay
all of the taxes. We will pay all of the school taxes so that will be
a benefit to the community. Bruce mentioned the active adult buyer has
fewer people per house and we can substantiate that with there is less
vehicle trips produced by each house and that is something that we will
be able to back up through our traffic study.
Basically, the main corridor that is going to come in off of U.S.
40 is going to be CR500. That will be our main access point. We are
going to be working with the neighbors as well as Oak Tree Golf Course
to talk about doing some landscaping and some dressing up of the area
to help create that as the entry into this active adult community.
Also, we are going to be working with the Elks to try to have some
connectivity to provide some golf trail connections and walking trail
connections to the golf course.
We have proposed a deal to the Elks and again we do not have a
deal in writing. It is a deal that is ongoing and discussing that with
them but again we talked about the landscaping, we talked about the
golf cart path. We are going to provide a one-time payment for that
easement and provide for that landscaping and then we will maintain
that landscaping, our HOA will continue to do that. We are also going
to pay for memberships at the time we close each home and then we are
proposing to remove the pool and bath house that is behind the existing
club on site there.
The active adult village, this is really the whole idea of the
active adult living comes alive. This is kind of an original concept
that we started to look at with the facility. As you drive in, kind of
where you see the word ?covered bridge? that would be CR500 and you
would turn in there and the idea of the architecture theme is kind of
an old Indiana theme. So, we have two silos on site. As you drive
underneath that covered bridge and you enter into the village area,
those two silos are going to be right there on your left hand side when
you drive in. Then it terminates into that big village green and that
village green in the middle will be a place where you might have a
gazebo where a band or things can play or you can have a market on a
Saturday morning like a farmer?s market. Then the building that you
are facing as you drive in that has the pool that is the club and that
club would have an indoor and outdoor pool. It will have a workout
facility and it would have personal trainers and would also have a room
for the owners to go and socialize.
The rest of the programming we are still working it through and
it is really going to be dependent on the density, the amount of people
that can live in this community to help generate the adult active
lifestyle. So, that is really the introduction to this is in order to
create a community with a lot of cinergy you have to have some
intensity that gets generated. In the other two buildings one of them
is going to have like a three-quarter-basketball court and a pub. And
that three-quarter basketball court would really be a place where it is
going to look like an Indiana field house, maybe something like you saw
in Hoosiers but really the idea for that is that the place on Friday
nights or Saturday nights they are going to have the ability to have
dances, etc., big social events for the entire community. Then
associated with that would be a small pub/restaurant that would have a
theme on Indiana sports teams, etc. but if the Indiana Hoosiers are
playing on Tuesday night and ESPN like they did the other night, you
and your friends can hang out there and watch it on the big screen and
have a drink with them or whatever. That is kind of the whole idea of
this village is to have energy and cinergy every night of the week.
That is essentially kind of a look at it in a nutshell. We are
looking forward in getting into the nuts and bolts here in the next
month and bringing this forward. At this point I would entertain any
questions that you might have.
Mr. Matrana asked, do you have any price range on some of the
houses?
Mr. Isaacs said the price range we are probably looking at, and I
will qualify this, when you create an active adult lifestyle community,
you have to provide for a full range of income levels. So, we are
looking at an attached product that has three units attached with it
that will probably start in the $140,000.00 range. Then we have two
different sized ranch plans that are kind of the middle of the road and
those would start in the $150,000.00-$160,000.00 range. The smaller
ones would go for $150,000.00 to $180,000.00 and the larger ones would
go from about $170,000.00 to $225,000.00 and then we would have a
section that is custom community, a custom neighborhood that would
start from that $225,000.00 and go up from there.
Ms. Whicker asked, how large are your custom homes?
Mr. Isaacs said the square footage of those units start at 2,200
is the smaller ones and they go to 2,700-2,800. They would have the
ability to have basements and some of them also have the ability for
those bonus rooms as well.
Mr. Sklare said not only is the price an issue but I think as an
equitable lifestyle community why don?t you explain Mr. Isaacs about
the monthly payments, monthly fees.
Mr. Isaacs said we are probably looking at a monthly rate of
somewhere between $225.00-$250.00 so when you start talking about
looking at the ability to pay those fees, certain price points can pay
those fees a little easier than other price points. We are looking at
how that can happen. If you live in the custom community, you are
going to have larger yards so if those yards are being maintained by
the HOA, then those are going to be more costly to be maintained than
the smaller yards. The active adult buyer does not want to maintain
the yards any longer. They have done it for 25-30 years and in order
for the HOA to be affordable the lot sizes need to be smaller as well.
So, that kind of gives you an idea of when we start looking at density,
it?s a better situation to look at open space in more of a combined
pattern that is usable by the HOA that is easier to be maintained by
the HOA than putting in the front yards.
Ms. Whicker asked, do you foresee this being ready for next
month?
Mr. Isaacs said yes.
Mr. Brandgard said looking back at the housing how many big
garages?
Mr. Isaacs said the majority would be two car garages. What we
call our Rivera series, which are our custom side community those would
be three car standard. Those would be side load standard and then the
balance would be generally two bays. We would not have any ability for
three car garages in the rest of it.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE
Mr. James said John Meyers with HNTB was supposed to be here
tonight and present this to you but he gave me a call this afternoon
and he was sick in bed with the flu. So, I told him I would try to
fill in for him. I will give you a brief explanation what this
transportation plan update is for and why it is needed. When the
Comprehensive Plan was updated a couple of years ago, the area south of
I-70, this triangle by here that borders by I-70, Morgan County and
Marion County over here, was designated as a special study area to
further study in greater detail to see what type of connections are
needed to provide access to this area. So, when funding became
available through the Indianapolis MPO for regional transportation
study needs, we jumped at the opportunity to use the funding to update
this area. HNTB was contracted to do the study. They are the ones that
did the Comprehensive Plan so they are familiar with Plainfield and
familiar with this area. They looked at the existing transportation
system, the road network. Here are current ADTs, average data traffic
volumes for some of the roads in this area. State Road 267 is right
here, Center Street, I?m not real familiar with what some of these
other roads are. They looked at morning and evening peak volumes and
distribution of traffic. Eighty percent of the traffic heads north in
the mornings so it is definitely a computer route for Mooresville. And
then they looked at evening peak volumes and we have 60% of the traffic
coming back so we have 20% that are what is called the Lincoln trips
and running errands in Plainfield and doing shopping, etc. before they
head back home. They also looked at the existing land uses, the pits
over here west of Center Street and then the bat habitat areas and the
existing residential uses. They looked at all the land uses in this
area and looked at the environmental aspects. We need to know these
things to see what type of impacts we might have if you are to build
new roads.
One thing that jumped out was the difference in the protected
areas that we now know are protected and what we previously thought
were protected. It is a much larger area and one thing that it does it
sort of eliminates the alternate SR267 route that was one time proposed
right through the bat habitat area to Heartland Crossing. So, there
were several issues to look at considering transportation updates to
this area. One had to do with SR267; others Moon Road and other
possible connections; an overpass right here and do we do an overpass
until an interchange is needed someday on Moon Road. And also
east/west connections; how can we provide connections to Marion County
and over to Ameriplex and over to SR267? There is the old SR267
relocation in which we now know is not possible. Here are some
proposed SR267 options; improving Camby Road, improving Center Street
and then maybe a new connection south of the bat habitat area and maybe
even improving the County Line Road.
From a regional prospective this is what Mooresville is
considered; a bypass to the west of Mooresville. It would come down
here and connect over to SR267. I think that is 42 and then this would
have an impact on Center Street. This means we would need to improve
Center Street to a certain standard.
Mr. McPhail said that is south of 42.
Mr. James asked, is there a 44?
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. James said that was one purpose of the plan was to look at
that on a regional basis. Now we can provide connectivity in this
region. Mooresville has even added this alternative to their
transportation plan, which they are updating.
I talked about the need for the Moon Road linkage and then also a
linkage up through to Reeves. That is the rest area right there.
Mr. Belcher said (inaudible).
Mr. James said this is why I wanted to present this to you
tonight and show the importance of getting a linkage with the PepsiCo
project over to Marion County. PepsiCo would be right in here and they
have proposed connecting CR600S over here. They would not connect this
other proposed road. Mr. Meyers has seen the need to make this
connection and take it down by another connection to Camby Road and to
the south. I wanted to show you the importance of making this
connection right here.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible) it slips and then it heads west and
that is all in Marion County. So, the issue is getting that road built
to (inaudible).
Mr. James said Mr. McGillem has said if we leave it up to
Indianapolis, it is not going to be high on their priority list.
Mr. Belcher said (inaudible).
Mr. Carlucci said I haven?t followed all of the e-mails but I
think they have a meeting Monday.
Mr. Kirchoff said we met probably a couple of days ago
(inaudible0.
Mr. Belcher said (inaudible).
Mr. Carlucci said we just want to impress that the priority is
the road, the road that comes out and we will try at this level and try
to get that resolved if we can. The next step would be talk to Mayor
Peterson. My point will be to Mr. Gerrald is to open up this map that
shows all of what Guilford Township and Plainfield have contributed to
Ameriplex. So, we will see how all of that turns out but basically I
was pushing that because we have to get a decision. We have to get the
people to understand that there is a problem here and I think before we
left the meeting he understood that.
Mr. McPhail said on top of that the PepsiCo project, this is the
only value we get out of it is we are getting half of a building and no
jobs. All the jobs are going to be credited to Marion County.
Mr. Kirchoff said and the office is going to be located in Marion
County.
Mr. McPhail said that is even if they expand the building.
Mr. Carlucci said in terms of the income tax. I also mentioned
in the expansion, he is talking about when it gets expanded, the larger
portion will be in Hendricks County. I said I?m still waiting for Pep
Boys to expand, CCX and John Deere. I?m still waiting for those to
expand.
Mr. McPhail said I remember Hitachi had plans.
Mr. Carlucci said we actually lose jobs on this from what they
originally planned so it was good to have that meeting.
Mr. Belcher said (inaudible).
Mr. Carlucci said when he says he swapped that land, the existing
wet habitat land, I kept thinking how plungable is this, if one day it
is in the habitat land and the next day it is out?
Mr. Kirchoff said the airport owned the land and they needed more
habitat.
Mr. Carlucci said he traded his floodplain with that.
Mr. Kirchoff said that?s what he did.
Mr. James said here?s a closer detail of the PepsiCo project and
the proposed linkage to Marion County.
Mr. Kirchoff said understand too as you are going west that arrow
gets to the County Line and that arrow and everything else south of
that is not built. There is no road there for us to connect to. That
is one of the arguments they are saying why should we build a road that
goes one way?
Mr. Brandgard said because it will someday.
Mr. Kirchoff said I understand that but that is their argument
with us is why should we build a road and it dead ends?
Mr. McPhail said so they can get to both sides of their building.
Mr. Belcher said (inaudible).
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. James said their argument is why build a road now when we
don?t need it. So, this just shows the other proposed linkages.
Mr. McPhail said those are all existing; it?s just improving
existing.
Mr. James said you have your packet that Mr. Meyers put together
and he does have the recommended roadway plan and then also a
recommended classification for the Thoroughfare Plan. I wanted to show
this to you tonight and then get your comments and see what you thought
about this plan and maybe bring it back next month or advertise a
public notice and possibly have a vote on the plan.
Mr. Belcher said (inaudible).
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. Belcher said (inaudible).
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. Brandgard said I?m going to have some conversations now that
I have a map.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Ms. Whicker asked, how recent ago did they say hey you can?t put
a road there?
Mr. Brandgard said it is a protected area.
Mr. Belcher said (inaudible).
Mr. Carlucci said a lot of that land was already gone. They were
in the conservation plan but what they are doing now is continuing to
expand that whole area.
Mr. Kirchoff said and they are swapping with Marion County.
Mr. Carlucci said they are buying land out here for the wetlands
or bats and they are using that to allow them to free up land to build
in the Ameriplex. And Morgan County is next because they are in front
of them. I think they are out there trying to acquire land for that
right now. I know they are studying to move some of those high-tension
wires although I think it is going to be a little less impact than I
originally thought it was going to be.
Mr. McPhail said one quick comment while we are talking about
roads. January 18th the Chamber of Commerce is having a meeting at 7:30
in the morning. INDOT will be here and make a presentation on the
governor?s proposed I-69 business corridor. Mr. Kirchoff has 10
minutes and Mann Property has 10 minutes. I had a request from the
governor?s office to send somebody out here to promote that project so
we thought we would accommodate him. It?s at the recreation center.
The chamber now meets at the recreation center and it has much better
meeting conditions and they really do a good job for us out there.
Mr. James said something else that we looked at with this plan is
the need to provide linkages for a pedestrian plan also. We met last
week with Clay and looked at the existing pedestrian system and path
plan to see where we could provide these linkages and mobility to this
area. Another thing that this plan points out is there is maybe a need
to go back and look at the future land use plan since now we know that
a lot of this land will not be developable.
Ms. Whicker asked, does that mean we would be updating the land
use of the Comprehensive Plan on those wetland areas?
Gentleman from the audience said yes.
SIGN REGULATIONS
Mr. James said we met with the ordinance subcommittee yesterday
and showed them what we had been working on. Ms. Sprague has done some
research on some sign issues and one of them that does come up are the
?A? frames that some of the businesses are putting up in the Town
Center on the sidewalks. Our ordinance doesn?t allow it so we did some
enforcement and they didn?t like the enforcement so we thought maybe we
should go back and look at the ordinance to see what we could do to
maybe allow these or something similar. While we were looking at that
I had Ms. Sprague look at some other issues. One is leaving legal non-
conforming signs and maybe putting an expiration date with that; if
they are not used for six months, they have to come down. I think that
is probably the only way we are going to get rid of a lot of these
signs.
Mr. Carlucci said most of the time there isn?t anybody parked on
that side of the street anyway so as I?m coming to the Town Hall and
heading west and looking at the sidewalk you can see the signs but what
I?m not seeing is that railing that is going to go in. When you put
that railing up, then you have the planters that are going to stay
behind it and then you have ?A? frame signs. You won?t have a lot of
room in there anyway because you are really tightening up that whole
area.
Mr. McPhail said we covered that.
Ms. Sprague said (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail said if they don?t have five feet, they can?t put it
out there. Once we get the new sidewalks there will be plenty of room
to do it.
Ms. Sprague said (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail said the railing will be 18 inches back of the curb.
We have discussed that pretty much and said you have to leave so much
room or they can?t put them out.
Mr. Carlucci said and they can only put them out in front of
their business and not in front of somebody else.
Mr. McPhail said within 10 feet of their door. Ms. Sprague did a
good job of researching that.
Mr. James said some other issues that we looked at is maybe
eliminating the sign hierarchy requiring ground signs for new
construction. That would eliminate any confusion of a hierarchy and
what is allowed, a ground sign, a pylon sign or a pole sign.
Mr. Carlucci said just go ground sign.
Mr. McPhail said I certainly approve of that.
Mr. James said we would still keep the hierarchy for wall signs
and integrated center signs.
Mr. Carlucci said by the Broadbent project I see those two big
poles. I wonder how big that is going to be when they put it up but I
haven?t seen the sign yet.
Mr. James said it?s 20 feet high.
Mr. McPhail said it wasn?t up today.
Mr. Brandgard said the weather was good to that project.
Mr. McPhail said it is a nice looking building.
Ms. Whicker asked, are you restricting LED signs?
Mr. James asked, do we need language that restricts the LED signs
so it would eliminate any confusion about the changeable copy sign?
I?m just concerned of the proliferation of these LED signs, if we
consider them changeable copy signs for businesses that aren?t new
development and don?t have to do a development plan.
Mr. Brandgard said when you talk about limiting or restricting
LED signs, I think we need to have a little more words there talking
about changeable copy verses signs. There is going to be a lot
movement to using LED for lighting everything.
Ms. Whicker said there is Wal-Mart?s gas price; that is an LED
sign.
Mr. Brandgard said you have to be careful what you are doing with
it. Some of them are so bright.
Mr. James said we need to do more research and see what other
communities have done.
Ms. Whicker asked, will the library and high school be in
compliance?
Mr. James said they would be considered grandfathered.
Ms. Sprague said (inaudible).
Mr. Carlucci said the Dollar Inn with the signage there maybe we
went the wrong way with that. They are putting prices and satellite TV
on there. Is that addressed in here at all?
Mr. James said yes. Number one, modifying the sign
identification definition, not including the price or cost of such
activity.
Mr. Carlucci asked, do you want to get the Plan Commission?s
approval to have a public hearing at the next meeting?
Mr. James said yes unless we need to go back and do some more
work.
Ms. Whicker said we want to be a little more specific on our LED
signs verbiage wise.
Mr. James said yes; we need to get some better language. As far
as the ?A? frame sidewalk signs if that is going to be taken care of on
its own with the no parking and sidewalk rails, maybe we shouldn?t do
anything with them.
Mr. McPhail said they will still want to put them out.
Ms. Whicker asked, what about the people that put the ?A? frame
signs up in the middle of grass? Because there are ?two bedrooms for
rent? but they don?t have to worry about a five-foot passageway because
they are not putting it on a sidewalk.
Ms. Sprague said (inaudible).
Mr. Carlucci said we have offices up there on Vestal and U.S. 40
and he put some out there but it is one of those things that we have
been just kind of watching it.
Mr. James said we did send them a letter because we are trying to
crack down on some of these violations. I talked to them and told them
the subcommittee was meeting and we would try to figure out something.
But I have told them that what they need to do is go in among
themselves in the center and put up a ground sign that they can share
and advertise. Another issue with that center is the signs that they
have up there are not in compliance. They have several issues.
Mr. Brandgard said the sign that is up at Provolone?s on U.S. 40
came out pretty good. It?s unfortunate that the previous restaurant in
there couldn?t do that.
Mr. Carlucci said we may have a problem with that sign only
because it may be directly off the right-of-way in terms of distance.
If you are going to have a maneuvering aisle in there for cars to go
through, he may have eaten up the width of that maneuvering aisle. I
know they said they would park their cars in the back but there are
cars parked out in front today. They are not going to park in the back
and the sad thing is they will park right in front of that sign and you
will miss half of it. It is a real problem. It is one building with
separate units. How do you handle the sign? Do you divide that up
separately?
Mr. James said yes. I talked to Ms. Sprague about that. Could
we have considered that an integrated center and made them just do one
ground sign of 48 square feet?
Mr. Carlucci said I think the whole building is under one
ownership because LaFamiglia was only renting there.
Ms. Sprague said (inaudible).
Mr. Carlucci said we need to take a look at that. How are you
going to see to back up because you have angled parking there? The
parking has always been the problem.
Ms. Whicker asked, do we vote on these proposed changes?
Mr. James said no. I just wanted to present them to you and get
some comments.
Mr. McPhail said I have one comment on the sidewalk signs. Item
4 says ?these sidewalk signs shall be located within 10 feet of either
side of the main entrance.? I think you could just say within 10 feet
of the main entrance and that gives you three directions. That means it
can?t be more than 10 feet away.
Mr. James said we were going to change that to either side.
Mr. McPhail said I would take ?either side? out of there and just
say within 10 feet. That means 10 feet of the main entrance.
Mr. James said there was a concern about putting 10 feet forward.
Mr. McPhail said you mentioned you didn?t want it setting out
clear away from the building.
Ms. Whicker said we are just saying you must have a five-foot
clearance. If you are talking about the center of Town, there is not
any place that really has more than five foot.
Mr. McPhail asked, what about Ace Hardware?
Ms. Whicker asked, what is the actual definition of Town Center?
Mr. McPhail asked, are we just going to leave it Town Center?
Mr. Daniel said yes.
Mr. Carlucci said I see what Mr. McPhail is saying. You can?t be
more than five feet out but it has to be within 10 feet of the
entrance. Then they can adjust it either way.
Mr. McPhail asked, why would we be opposed to them in other
shopping areas? Why would we limit them to just the Town Center?
Mr. Carlucci said the only thing I can think of is our ability to
use the small Staff to monitor everything out there. I would rather
try it downtown here and this is a special area.
Ms. Whicker asked, is there consent to place this under a public
hearing? Consent given.
MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT
Mr. James said the last issue is the monthly activity report. I?m
just opened to any questions or comments on that.
Ms. Whicker asked, I see Mr. Davenport has requested a dumpster?
Mr. James said yes. He said he had one coming that weekend so we
gave him an extension but that is it. If he doesn?t do it within the
extended time period, he is going to get a citation.
Ms. Whicker asked, what if he gets the dumpster there and then it
sits there for six months?
