The Plainfield Plan Commission met on Monday, February 5, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. In attendance were Mr. Matrana, Mr. McPhail, Mr. Brandgard, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Kirchoff and Ms. Whicker.
ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM
Mr. Carlucci administered the roll call.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to approve the January 4, 2007 and January 9, 2007 Plainfield Plan Commission minutes as submitted. Second by Mr. Gibbs. Motion carried.
OATH OF TESTIMONY
Mr. Carlucci administered the Oath of Testimony.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Ms. Whicker reviewed the Guidelines Governing the Conduct of Public Hearings. Our first petition this evening is DP-06-031 and has requested a continuance.
Mr. James said yes. I recommend that we continue this request to the April 5th Plan Commission meeting. They are still working on their plan and we need to take this plan back to the Design Review Committee. I'm going to recommend that we continue this to the April 5th meeting.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, is that a reasonable date?
Mr. James said as far as I know yes.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to continue DP-06-031 to the April 5th Plan Commission meeting. Second by Mr. Brandgard. Motion carried.
Ms. Whicker said first on our agenda this evening are the continued petitions for public hearing this evening PP-06-011 as well as DP-06-032.
Mr. James said if you will recall, this request was heard at the January meeting so I'm just going to give you a brief explanation of what they are proposing and then give you a brief summary of what was discussed at the January meeting. The petitioner will need two actions by the Plan Commission tonight. One is for a Primary Plat to create two commercial lots and the other is for Architecture & Site Design Review of a 3,936 square foot gas/convenience market at the proposed northeast corner of Halliburton and U.S. 40. This is the 3.5 acres that is proposed to be primary platted. It is split into two commercial lots. There is a 1.1 acre lot right here at the corner where the gas/convenience market is proposed. It is currently zoned General Commercial. Just to the northwest you have the Medallion Meadows single-family subdivision that is not in the Town. It is in the County's jurisdiction and is zoned RA, Rural Residential. There is General Commercial down here and right through here is where the Ronald Reagan Parkway is currently under construction. In order to do this proposal they had to do a Development Incentive to reduce the front setbacks off Halliburton and U.S. 40 from 30 feet to about 25 feet. So, the incentive is to increase the perimeter landscaping to go from a Level 1 to a Level 2. The Comprehensive Plan recommends Regional Commercial. Here is the site right in here and here is the Ronald Reagan Parkway Corridor under construction and U.S. 40.
Here is the Primary Plat and the two lots. The corner lot is where the gas station is proposed on the 1.1 acres and the remainder of the 3.5 acres parcel. They would have a shared access right here off of U.S. 40. Adequate provisions have been made for access drainage and utilities. DRC recommends approval with stipulations. The DRC did not support a waiver for a pylon sign. Plans have been revised addressing DRC's comments. Some issues last month were the HVAC screening, which that has been addressed. The photometric plan has been addressed. We do have a little light spillage at the entrance, which we feel is acceptable to increase lighting at the entrance for better safety. Here is the site plan for the building. The gas station will have access off of U.S. 40 and it will also have access off of Halliburton.
Here is the rendering of the building. It is all brick. They have a variance to allow signage from the front of the canopy to the sides. They also have a variance for the changeable copy sign that will be on the building. This screening has been addressed for the rooftop mechanical units. Here is a plan showing the gate across there. On the photometric plan we show some spillage here but we feel that is appropriate. These are some photographs of the site. Here you see the Ronald Reagan Parkway under construction and here is Halliburton.
At the January Plan Commission there were some issues brought up and the issue of most concern was the safety and the impact of the Halliburton/U.S. 40 intersection. It was agreed that the conditions could be made better at the intersection and the gas station could have some negative impacts for access of ingress/egress at the intersection and also the construction of Ronald Reagan Parkway doesn't help things because of the need for a left turn lane. Several Medallion Meadows residents came to the podium and expressed their concerns about the intersection and the impacts. One idea was to re-establish access to the parkway from Bradbury Drive that had been cut off when the parkway went through there. Other issues - were gas stations allowed within the Ronald Reagan Parkway Corridor Master Plan and overlay? The final issue - were pylon signs allowed along the Gateway Corridor based on the sign hierarchy? Considering those issues possible solutions were – our Transportation Director, Don McGillem has been in touch with the County Highway Department and they have agreed to a right out from Bradbury Drive to allow access to the Ronald Reagan Parkway and improve ingress/egress at the Halliburton/U.S. 40 intersection. But there still needs to be some type of agreement and we still need to determine when improvements are made and who pays for these improvements.
Looking at the Ronald Reagan Corridor Master the Plan Preferred Alternative of the plan recommended commercial uses around the U.S. 40 intersection as it relates to General Commercial zoning. A gas station is allowed in Plainfield's General Commercial District.
Regarding the sign issue, as a compromise on the pylon sign, Speedway has proposed one ground sign with a sign surface area of 72 square feet per face and the height would be seven feet and eight and a half inches including the brick base. Here is a rendering of the proposed sign. So, they are proposing just one ground sign instead of the pylon sign or they could have two ground signs but the signs cannot be combined to total more than 100 square feet because that is based on the amount of frontage that they have on Halliburton and U.S. 40. So, as an alternative to two ground signs and a pylon sign they are proposing just this one ground sign. So, with that I will turn it over to Mr. Wocher. He spoke to you last month and Jonathan can fill you in on any details that you might have some questions about.
Mr. Jonathan Wocher at 5725 Dragon Way, Suite 220, Cincinnati, OH, 45227 said I'm a land use planner representing Speedway Marathon on these two applications, both the Primary Plat request and the Development Plan Architecture Review. Mr. James has summarized issues once again for me. I will not go through the discussion debate on the interpretation of sign regulations tonight as I did at the last meeting. I believe at the last meeting we resolved the issues related to lighting or at least presented an issue for resolution on the lighting and on the rooftop mechanical screening issue, which left the signage issue to be resolved. We are proposing this sign based on the comments from the Plan Commission meeting in January. It appeared that you were not inclined to approve the pylon sign so we thought that this would be an appropriate compromise. The height does exceed the ground sign height, which is limited to six feet. We are requesting approval to have seven foot and eight and a half inches so a seven foot and nine inch sign. It is less than the 100 square feet maximum; we are asking the board to approve a 72 square foot sign. This allows us to have a brick base and stay within the sign areas that we feel we need and really it is the base that causes the height difference. But again on this corridor I don't think it will look any different than a regular ground sign in the speeds that they will be traveling. I do have this handout but I think the slide presents it just as well.
The other issue that received a fair amount of discussion at the January meeting had to do with the access at Halliburton/U.S. 40. Just a couple of brief comments on that; we recognize that there is an access issue that currently exists. There is a turning conflict issue today without Speedway there and based on what we heard it is anticipated that the Ronald Reagan Parkway construction and opening eventually will acerbate that turning conflict for residents in Medallion Meadows trying to exit. Based on those comments it is my understanding the Town met with the County and the County set a right out access from Bradbury. We have been to the site and they have built a cul-de-sac now where Bradbury terminates. So, there is a three-fourths of a cul-de-sac I would say that there still needs to be some paving done to complete that turn. If I understand it correctly, the solution that is being proposed would be some kind of an on ramp. We are calling it a right out but basically a ramp or a drive that would connect that cul-de-sac to Ronald Reagan Parkway. Speedway supports that solution. We are, however, in a delicate situation where we don't really know what that design looks like and don't know exactly what the cost of that solution is. Mr. James was gracious enough to share the Staff Report with us in advance and I believe the recommendation that was presented states that Speedway shall commit to the cost of putting in a right out from Bradbury Drive onto Ronald Reagan Parkway. If I may, I would ask the board to consider this alternative language, which I will pass around. Basically, we are asking a little bit softer language, which would commit Speedway to work with the Town and the County on determining the appropriate fair share cost of that. I will read it for the record. We are asking the Plan Commission to modify condition number six to would be the following “Speedway shall commit to continue to work with the Town and the County to determine the appropriate funding for the right out driveway from Bradbury Drive onto Ronald Reagan Parkway and to contribute the mutually agreed upon cost that reflects Speedway's fair share of said improvement. Basically, we just don't think it is appropriate to sign a blank check tonight. We don't know what the cost is. It could be a low number; it could be a high number based on various design issues. I believe that it is agreed that you don't want Speedway to design it and Speedway to build it. I think that is something the County's contractor would do as far as building it and the County's engineer would design it. We think that is the appropriate thing to do because that is what they do and we build gas stations. So, as far as that issue, I think that is the direction the Town is going. We just don't feel it is appropriate to commit to an unknown cost at this point and would ask the Commission to accept this wording or something similar to it that allows us to work with you to determine what is the appropriate funding. So, with that we would ask the Plan Commission to approve the Primary Plat and to approve the Development Plan with the conditions on lighting and screening and the modified sign and this issue to be resolved so that we can continue to work on that. We do want to start construction. We still have some technical permitting that needs to take place and we hope to be in a position to start construction in April. If we are delayed in trying to resolve this, that won't be possible so we think we can resolve this with the County given some more time and work with the Staff directly on that.
Ms. Whicker asked, do you have a proposed ground location for that ground sign?
Mr. Wocher said we don't at this point. We would want to work with the Staff on that. It is my understanding it has to meet the required setbacks; I believe it is 10 feet. There are some easements that run along the frontage so it is probably going to be near the corner but farther east, if that makes any sense. We would probably slide it a little bit more in front of the store but still generally to the corner. We may need to look at adjusting the landscaping slightly just so that it is not blocking the sign but obviously staying within the required PUD values.
Ms. Whicker said I know you are requesting going with a higher sign and I was just thinking of the view from all vehicles and safety. So, you don't have a proposed location?
Mr. Wocher said no. We think the pylon sign is the thing that we need but I don't think you are going to approve a pylon sign so we think this is a better alternative. A ground sign would really be a difficult issue for us.
Mr. James said they would still have to meet vision clearance requirements with the appropriate sign.
Ms. Whicker asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this matter?
Ms. Zainal Van Horn at 10190 Bradbury Drive said I'm just off Halliburton. I just had a few other things that came to my mind between the last meeting and tonight. I would like to be sure that there would be a way for the fire department to give some kind of all clear on the distances between the gasoline pumps and the front doors of the apartment building right across Halliburton. I think the first set of pumps is quite close to the corner to the Halliburton/U.S. 40 corner. That's what it looks like on the drawing. The apartment building really also comes quite close to the edge of the street and the distance right there to make sure if there was an explosion one day. Between the time we met here from the last time on the news there was one gas station with the propane exploded and it had quite a bit of damage.
The other concern I have is about the face on Halliburton. Is there a sidewalk for access to walk out? Halliburton is going to become very congested right there with ins and outs both to the gas station and our neighborhood. Would we be able to walk out on that side to continue because I know there is a sidewalk in the front. I know they cut back the setbacks so that leaves less land there. I'm just concerned that we would not have a way to walk physically out of the neighborhood.
Mr. Wocher said in response to Ms. Van Horn's question in reverse order we do have a sidewalk proposed on Halliburton. That was a requirement of the Town on our side of the street. Regarding her first comment about distances and dimensions I'm not aware of any restrictions that she is referring to as far as State code or whatever. We have to go through town fire department review and State fire safety review and will comply with their standards. So, I'm not aware of dimensional requirements that guides that but we will comply with State requirements along that line.
Ms. Whicker said with no one else coming forward the public portion of this matter is now closed and I will open it up for any discussion from the commission members or a possible motion.
Mr. Brandgard said a quick comment relative to the issue on the pumps relative to the location of the street and the apartments. The fire department does do a review and they review all of the plans that are submitted for building to make sure they meet the Indiana fire code, which we support in this Town. I have to agree and I don't know of any distance requirements on that but generally you have a road between the gas station and any buildings. There are a lot of places that you have filling stations right up against other buildings but again that is something the fire department will be looking at when they do their review of the building plans.
Ms. Whicker asked, does the Staff have any comments on the change of verbiage for the proposed road?
Mr. McPhail said I have a couple of questions I would like to ask Staff. Can we legally approve a ground sign that exceeds the standard height?
Mr. James said there are two ways that we can look at it. Is a pylon sign permitted in a General Commercial District? A pylon sign height is 20 feet so we could look at this as a pylon sign and say it meets the requirement under the 20 feet height. Or we can say it is a ground sign and it exceeds the six foot height restriction and it can be approved as maybe an alternative plan or the worse case we have to take it to the BZA to get an approval.
Mr. Brandgard said I don't want to approve this as a low lying pylon sign because that allows somebody to come in and put a pylon sign in there, if you approve it as a pylon sign.
Mr. McPhail said my other question would be to Mr. McGillem. Do we have any cost estimates on this connecting Bradbury?
Mr. McGillem said no we haven't gotten into any design or any cost. (Inaudible).
Mr. McPhail said I see that there is just as much advantage to the gas station because otherwise all of their traffic is going to have to end up going west and figure out a way to get back east. So, it is a win, win situation I think and I certainly understand Speedway not wanting to have an open checkbook and I don't want the Town to have an open checkbook either. I was hoping that we would have enough information to put a cap on their contribution or something but I wouldn't have any idea what that would be.
Mr. Brandgard said I think what we are saying here is I would like to see that verbiage modified just a little bit where what was given to us tonight is that “Speedway shall commit to continue to work with the Town and the County to determine appropriate funding. I would like to change that to “Speedway shall commit to reach an agreement with the Town Council to determine the appropriate funding for the right-of-way. The reason that I put it that way is it is a County problem; it is not ours but we also know that the only way it is going to be fixed is if we drive it.
Mr. Carlucci said I think you make an excellent point here. On both sides of the old Six Points Road the County's approach has been just to shut it down and not even take into consideration what it was doing to those neighborhoods on either side of U.S. 40. Given that approach this certainly is a solution to get it this far. Mr. Brandgard's point too is that this is really a Council issue and would have to go to the Council for approval.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, (inaudible).
Mr. Brandgard asked, do you mean the road?
Mr. Kirchoff said no the agreement.
Mr. Brandgard said yes. I think any approval that we give has to be subject to the agreement being reached. You are not going to get it constructed but we have to have an agreement in place. As he said, he's got two months before he figures he can start construction. If we can't reach an agreement in two months, we are never going to.
Mr. Carlucci said back to the issue of signs I think Mr. McPhail may have brought this up about the pylon signs but we argued at the last meeting that it was not a pylon sign on the hierarchy unless I have that wrong. Our position was that it was not a pylon sign, is that correct?
Mr. James said the issue was the question whether pylon signs were allowed instead of a ground sign based on the hierarchy. (Inaudible).
Mr. Brandgard said I think what we were kind of saying up here is we are not going to approve a pylon sign.
Mr. Carlucci said that being the case if it is a ground sign, I've never known the Plan Commission having any authority to change the requirements of the ordinance that says you have to have so many square footage. Anything above that they will have to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals. I just don't see any way around it.
Mr. James said they are okay with the square footage; it is the height. If they want to keep the height at seven feet and eight and a half inches, then they would have to go to the BZA or they can reduce it to six feet.
Mr. Carlucci said which includes the brick base.
Mr. James said that is right.
Mr. Carlucci said it is the base and the sign that has to be six feet but did you say the square footage is okay?
Mr. James said yes the square footage is okay.
Ms. Whicker asked, would you show that slide one more time?
Mr. James said as far as the base, if it is at least two feet, it doesn't count against their square footage but if it is lower than two feet, then it does. No, it's the other way around if it is higher than two feet, it counts for the square footage and if it is lower than two feet, it does not.
Mr. McPhail said but still the maximum combined the sign and the base is six feet.
Mr. James said it is still six feet.
Mr. Brandgard said I guess when I look at this, the sign itself is six feet and the base is approximately one foot and nine inches.
Mr. Carlucci said I will go back to my original comment we can't approve it because it has to go to the BZA.
Mr. Brandgard said we can approve it subject to the BZA approval.
Mr. Wocher said we went through this in pretty good detail last month. You can approve a pylon sign and I clearly showed, as an outlot or a single lot, all the different options the signage that we were allowed. What we are asking the Plan Commission to do on the signage issue is you call this a pylon sign that is limited to seven feet and eight inches, 72 square feet. I don't see where that's a problem. I would agree you can't call it a ground sign because that would be a variance but if you call it a pylon sign, you certainly have the ability to attach conditions and you limit it to the sign that we submitted and I don't see how someone could come in and say you gave them a pylon sign, therefore, you have to give me 20 feet tall. There are different situations, not transferable necessarily. I would agree that you cannot call this a ground sign; that would be giving us a variance but you can certainly call it a pylon and cap it at the height that we submitted and be completely consistent with the regulations, the complicated system that you have adopted. Your hierarchy would be met.
Mr. Brandgard said just a comment to your statements there is a filling station to the west of your location that has a ground sign where they normally have a pretty high pylon sign. If we were to approve this as a pylon sign, if they weren't back in wanting a pylon sign, I would think there would be something wrong with the planners. Understand we try and do things on a level basis.
Mr. Wocher said I respect that. I think to say that you can have a 100 square foot ground sign, which is one of the alternatives presented to us, that is a maximum six feet tall, and by the way you would like for us to have a brick base on it, which we would be willing to do; which would mean we would have a five foot by 10 foot sign. Dimensionally it doesn't work. I don't know how the gas station to the west could come in. If they want to come in and say hey we deserve another one foot and eight inches, I guess that is something they could argue, I don't know. I don't see the connection there. They have the same setback requirement that we have and the same conditions.
Mr. James said let me clarify something. You can approve a pylon sign with the waivers. (Inaudible). If someone else would come in, they would have to get a waiver to have a pylon sign.
Mr. McPhail said this is one of the issues that I see. This is the first sign along the Ronald Reagan Parkway we have been asked to approve and we have said with that overlay we are not going to allow pylon signs. If we approve this one, we have set a precedent that anybody can come in and ask for a pylon sign. The next guy is going to want eight foot six and the next one is going to want eight foot nine and then you are going to be to 20 feet. It is either a pylon sign or a ground sign in my mind.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail said I think it is a matter of setting a precedent that I don't want to defend next week or next month. They could go to the BZA for a variance for the height of a ground sign. That would be the normal procedure.
Mr. Wocher said you have real issues with the way your regulations are written and you have a hierarchy set up that says pylon signs were permitted and then you are saying they are not permitted and then you are saying if you are an integrated center, which the Town would like to call us at some point during the review, then we are allowed a pylon sign but then if we are a single use site, which you would like to call us during another part of the review, then we are only allowed a ground sign. I mean the sign regulations are going right to left and right to left and we think we have proposed a fair compromise that I think is defensible.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. Wocher said I don't think I'm going to get the sign that I want.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. Wocher said yes.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. Brandgard said subject to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Mr. Kirchoff said we can't do it but you are going to get that sign through the BZA.
Mr. Wocher said if that is part of the motion, we are all for that.
Mr. Carlucci said it can't be a part of the motion.
Mr. Wocher said, of course, it can't be part of the motion.
Mr. Brandgard said it can be subject to the BZA approval.
Mr. Carlucci said you can technically meet every requirement of the ordinance and Development Plan Approval. The Plan Commission is never obligated to approve it. They may have different opinions about colors and schemes and stuff that they think would be inappropriate, not only on a Gateway Corridor, but also on the Ronald Reagan Parkway. So, as you continue to argue for those things, and you should because that is what your company wants you to do, but the Plan Commission can reject it all and say you need to go back and start over on the whole site. So, I think they are trying to be accommodating here but they don't have to approve anything. It is not automatic.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion that the Plan Commission approve PP-06-011 as filed by Marathon Petroleum Company requesting approval of a Primary Plat to divide and create two commercial lots from 3.5 acres finding that:
1. Adequate provisions have been made for regulation of minimum lot width, minimum lot depth and minimum lot area.
2. Adequate provisions have been made for the widths, grades, curves and coordination of subdivisions public ways with current and planned public ways.
3. 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:
1. Compliance with the Town Standards, including but not limited to: Plainfield Ordinance 1-96 regarding Floodplain Management; Plainfield Ordinance Nos. 4-94 and 3-86 regarding Sewage Works; Plainfield Ordinance No. 17-97 regarding Drainage; Plainfield Ordinance No. 19-97 regarding Municipal Waterworks and Plainfield Ordinance No. 18-97 regarding access Permits.
2. Compliance with the standards and specifications of the Plainfield Subdivision Control Ordinance.
3. All necessary easements as determined by the Town Engineer shall be incorporated into any Secondary Plat prior to approval and recording.
Second by Mr. McPhail. 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.
Mr. Brandgard made a motion that the Plan Commission approve DP-06-032 as filed by Jonathan Wocher requesting Architectural & Site Design Review approval of an approximately 3,936 square feet of a Speedway gas/convenience market at 3066 E. Main St. with 600 feet of a Gateway Corridor finding that:
1. The Development Plan complies with all applicable Development Standards of the District in which the site is located.
2. The Development Plan complies with all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Control Ordinance for which a waiver has not been granted.
3. The Development Plan complies with all applicable provisions for Architectural and Site Design Review for which a waiver has not been granted.
4. The proposed development is appropriate to the site and its surroundings.
5. The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
And that such approval be subject to the following conditions:
1. Substantial compliance with colored rendering, landscaping plan and trash enclosure details file dated December 1, 2006.
2. Site plan submitted with ILP shall be revised to show location of proposed outdoor display of seasonal items such as salt and mulch. Outdoor display shall not encroach into setbacks or vision clearance areas and shall allow for safe maneuvering on site.
3. Substantial compliance with light fixtures file dated December 27, 2006.
4. Building elevations submitted with ILP shall be revised to show that rooftop mechanical equipment is fully screened.
5. Signs for spandrels, pumps and pump bollards shall be limited in use.
6. Speedway shall commit to reach an agreement with the Town Council to determine the appropriate funding for the right out driveway from Bradbury Drive onto Reagan Parkway and to contribute to the mutually agreed upon cost that would reflect Speedway's fair share of said improvements.
7. The ground sign, as presented, is approved subject to BZA approval and site location approval by the Staff.
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.
Mr. Brandgard said for those of you tonight that are residents of Medallion Meadows I'm speaking both from the Plan Commission and from the Town Council to tell you that I have heard the term and I have seen it written of being second-class citizens. From the Town's standpoint I want you to understand that we do take your needs into consideration as we do our planning in and around the area in which you live. It is not our intent for you to be second-class citizens. Although at times it seems like you are it is not Plainfield's intent for that to happen and we appreciate you coming in and letting us know what your thoughts and concerns are out there and we will try and help work with you to get them corrected.
Ms. Sprague said tonight I wanted to present to you the Development Plan for the Indiana Members Credit Union. It is located on the northeast corner. It will be located on the northeast side of Stafford Road and SR267. It was primary platted as Stafford Crossing awhile ago and all they need to do is secondary plat their lots in order to get that approved out there. One of the main considerations that we have at this point for that site is that their entrance needs to coincide with the entrance to the south. That looks like they are going to need an off site easement to get access to that entrance on Stafford Road.
The site is surrounded basically by General Commercial. Marsh is across the street. The south side is the new Plainfield Commerce Center and to the north I think is a sub station but is zoned General Commercial. Stafford Road and SR267 are both Gateway Corridors so all sides of their property need to comply and they do. They did use a development incentive for reduction in depth of yards, which is now a Staff approval for the west side and they have increased their landscaping to accommodate that.
They went to DRC twice. It was just a little bit of an update that they needed to do and they have approved all of those. This is what the building would look like in the front. On December 12th DRC recommended approval with a couple of stipulations that the petitioner has provided new plans for. They had a secondary material that was just split face concrete block and they changed that to a granite. All the plans comply with the Gateway Corridor standards and then the shared drive is the main issue maybe for the petitioner and as far as the Town is concerned for this property.
Here is the site plan. The entrance that comes back over here is not on the site plan from this view. Here are the elevations. They are a little hard to read in black and white. Here is the landscape plan and that complies. With that I would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Bob Beaman said I'm the petitioner/design architect. We have met with DRC on a couple of different occasions to make sure that we had a building that was appropriate to your standards. I believe we have worked that out, everything from lighting to exterior finishes. The secondary plat is being filed by the owner of the whole development currently. And then the access to the drive; this is lot one; lot two is the next one over, which is where the current access is at today. That is being moved and relocated farther to the east and we have been assured by Greg Allen, who is the developer, that they are aware of that. They are going to be working with the drive and getting an access agreement across there. As it sits today, we would still have access to this drive, which would give us a right turn out and a right turn in but the left turn access would be closed to that drive and we are aware of that. I think that is the only issue. We resolved the landscaping and the lighting and I think everything else is in agreement.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, are you talking about the shared drive?
Mr. Beaman said it is a shared drive anyway but it is being relocated to the east. I think there are three lots in that Stafford Crossing development.
Mr. McPhail said you will have the shared drive plus a right in/right out is that correct?
Mr. Beaman said as I understand it now I don't believe they are taking the drive out that is there now but they are just adding another one farther to the east that would have a right turn/left turn, as I understand it.
Ms. Whicker asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this matter? Being no one coming forward I will close the public portion of the matter and open it up for discussion or a possible motion.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, what kind of spacing are we talking about? Are we talking about multiple accesses off of Stafford?
Mr. McGillem said the right in/right out as they indicated is where the current opening is, which is being closed by the development to the south. (Inaudible).
Mr. McPhail said the right in/right out will be shared also right? Because they have the far west lot and there will be one east of you and then one east of that.
Mr. Gibbs made a motion that the Plan Commission approve DP-06-030 as filed by R. Beaman Associates requesting Architectural & Site Design Review approval of an approximately 3,139 square feet credit union at approximately 799 Quaker Boulevard finding that:
1. The Development Plan complies with all applicable development standards of the district in which the site is located.
2. The Development plan complies with all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Control Ordinance for which a waiver has not been granted.
3. The Development Plan complies with all applicable provisions for Architectural & Site Design Review for which a waiver has not been granted.
4. The proposed development is appropriate to the site and its surroundings.
5. The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
And that such approval be subject to the following conditions:
1. Substantial compliance with the site plan, building elevations, colored rendering, sign plan, light fixtures, photometric plan and landscaping plan file dated December 15, 2006.
Second by Mr. Kirchoff. 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 PUD-06-001. This is the Oak Tree development by Bay Communities.
Mr. James said this request is for a rezone to a mixed use, active adult, lifestyle community PUD. It is currently zoned RA, Rural Residential. The location would be around the Oak Tree Golf Course on the west side of Town. The Oak Tree Golf Course is on both sides of the CR500E and south of the Vandalia Trail. Bay Development is the developer and Centex Homes would be the homebuilder. What they are proposing is about 992 units on 266 acres for a proposed density of 3.7 units per acre. They would have five areas and each area would have a different dwelling type and density with different models. At the center of the development would be what they call their village center, which is the area in red. It would be like a small town center as a focal point for the community, a gathering place. In Area “A they are proposing multi-family or triplexes. In Area “B would be smaller detached units with a lot width of I believe of 46 feet. In Area “C, which would have the most number of units, it would have 52 foot wide lots and then Area “D would be their largest lots at 90 feet with what they call a Rivera detached unit. Also in Area “E they are proposing perhaps some condos that would be stacked flats within the village center so there are five different housing types and five different densities with the village center as a focal point. It is an active adult lifestyle community with a specific market. They are targeting baby boomers that are reaching retirement age. The golf course would not be part of the development but residents of the community would be able to use the golf course. This will be an age restrictive community. That means a minimum of 20% of the dwellings would be restricted to individuals at the age of 55 years and older. I also wanted to point out that in the village center there would be about 16,000 square feet is what they are proposing. There's a recreation center and maybe some shops and some retail and maybe some dining, a pub within this village center. Also, there will be a place for an auditorium facility where they could hold special events and things like that.
So, this is a unique proposal. There has been one done in the Indianapolis area. It is being developed in Fishers right now. It's the Del Webb product, if you have heard of the Del Webb type of community. So, they have a specific market that they are going after. With this comes some positives but also we still have what we believe are some negatives with the density and positives would be less impacts to the school system. In fact, there would be no impacts to the school system because there shouldn't be any school age kids in here. There are less traffic impacts. They say this would only generate about 25% of the traffic that a normal traditional single-family development would generate. There would be less rush hour traffic because a lot of these residents wouldn't be going to work. There would be less water and sewer impacts and they say even less crime impacts so there wouldn't have to be as many police officers patrolling this area.
Surrounding this proposal we have Saratoga over here, a Saratoga PUD with different densities that ranges in densities from two units per acre all the way to four units per acre with Kensington. You've got Yorktown and then the Paddock at 3.3 units per acre so Saratoga is similar. It has different densities. The Comprehensive Plan recommends medium-density east of CR500 and then as we go to the west away from the urban center, it recommends lower density. Medium-density is about 1.5 to 4 units per acre and low-density would be about a half unit to two units per acre. They are also proposing a trail path system throughout the community to help promote an active lifestyle. It would be a no maintenance community. That means for a monthly fee they will take care of most of the maintenance throughout the community. Most density is with the attached triplex and the village center and then the smaller lots being east of CR500 and it will be less dense with the larger lots on the west side of CR500E.
This is a unique proposal. When we compare this to our Zoning Ordinance and development standards in the Zoning Ordinance, there are some differences because the Zoning Ordinance was created for your traditional single-family residential development and not a community like this. That can also be said for the residential design guidelines. Those were created for your traditional single-family so when you compare the development standards and the design guidelines, we have to be flexible because of this specific type of community. We compared their models and housing types with our residential design guidelines and we think most of the models comply with the design guideline standards.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, (inaudible).
Mr. James said all except for three, three or four out of 20 to 30 models. Area “D complies with the garage size standards of 484 square feet. Only Area “D complies with the ratio less than 40% because Area “D is proposed as a side load garage. For the vinyl standards they are proposing plywood or OSB or hard surface to take advantage of the item six for vinyl siding. The traffic impact study has been done but even though it is going to generate less traffic than your traditional single-family development we think improvements would still be needed to CR500E and most importantly at the intersection of U.S. 40.
It was continued by the DRC. Issues were they would like time to review the ordinance. No landscaping or trail concept plans have been submitted. They are proposing street widths of 26 feet back to back to curb. The Town standard is 30 feet.
Mr. Carlucci said you might explain the reason of what they want to do on the street and the parking.
Mr. James said they would like to do parking on one side and use street trees and by using the smaller street width they have a larger planting area and less conflicts with sanitary sewer and sewer pipes.
This is a comparison of the development standards. There are some differences comparing it to similar zoning districts; setbacks, front setbacks, lot widths and minimum lot area. This is the matrix that we did during the housing elevations to our residential design guidelines. Out of all of these just these four right here don't comply.
Mr. Carlucci asked, was that four out of 60 elevations?
Mr. James said I'm not sure of the total number.
Mr. Carlucci said but those four could also represent 50% of the houses built, is that correct? Is that possible? It is one thing to say that there are four elevations that don't meet the requirement but that could also be elevations that are mostly built out there too.
Mr. James said it is possible. More Staff comments: most models have at least 50% brick on the front facades but no models are proposed with brick wraps. Like I said fewer impacts for the traffic, school impacts, crime, water, sanitary sewer. Road improvements will be needed to CR500E and U.S. 40. With the Beazer plan we have a trailhead for the Vandalia Trail but no trailhead proposed with this proposal. Are the architectural standards adequate enough to provide resale value and create a sustainable community? We have no landscaping or trail path concept plans. Once we get those we would like to take them back to DRC to get their approval. Along CR500E are additional architecture elements required? The amount of open space has not been provided. Compared to similar communities the amount of open space is inadequate and similar communities are less dense and lot size, lack of open space translates into higher density. This is a table that I did comparing other active adult communities that have been done. These are all Del Webb communities. I compared them just to see the density was, open space, what type of amenities they offered. I could only get density for two. That was one done over at Fishers, which is called Brick Falls. They are about at a 3.2 units per acre. Then there is one around Chicago that was at 2.27 units per acre and then you have Oak Tree proposed at 3.73 units per acre. Square footage of the homes start at 1,900. It is just a minimum. I believe they go all the way up to 2,700 square feet.
Staff concerns are lack of open space, which means higher density and the development is very compact and there is a lot size concern and then with a “no maintenance is there really justification for smaller garages? No landscaping and trail path concept plans have been provided. We would certainly like to take a look at those. We want to take it back to DRC so that we can get their recommendation. Only a minimum of 20% of the building will be age restricted. Is it going to stay at 20%? What is going to happen to the other 80%? Does that mean a family could go in there and buy a home? Are the architecture standards enough to provide for a good resale value creating a sustainable community? Lack of brick is a concern. Maybe we could wrap the corners or at least along CR500E to do something to it to enhance those lots. What are the scope of road improvements needed for CR500E and the U.S. 40 intersection? Hopefully, I have given you a good summary of this request and I would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Jon Isaacs is here representing Centex. He would be glad to answer any questions that you might have and Bruce Sklare is here representing Bay Development.
Mr. Bruce Sklare with Bay Development Corporation said we were here at your last meeting on a “Wishes to be heard. Very shortly Jon Isaacs will speak, as Mr. James said, and what Jon is going to talk about is taking the PUD ordinance that was submitted and highlighting a number of the distinguishing characteristics of this community that are different from a standard residential development that you see.
A key point is to have an annexation of the Elks Golf Course and I had hoped tonight to have a document in hand that would achieve that. I don't have it but we are working towards it but that is a key element for us to have that accomplished. I also do not want to sound argumentative but I do not believe that things are as bad in terms of what Mr. James went through during his discussion. Actually, this is a different development than what has been presented to Plainfield before. I want to make a suggestion, which you can do with it as you deem fit but given the differences and uniqueness of this community as opposed to taking an hour and a half or two hours here to go through it, which really I think is what is justified to really go through the issues and to talk out how the standards that we are asking to do fit this development, as opposed to a standard development, I would ask that you set up a subcommittee that we could meet with and go through the entire PUD ordinance. And explain and have discussion back and forth about that and come back to this commission next month for further discussion. I will leave it at that and what I would like to do, as you listen to Jon go through the highlights going through the PUD ordinance and explaining how this is different, I think you will see how maybe that may be appropriate to do.
Mr. Jonathan Isaacs said I'm the Land Entitlement Manager for Centex locally here in Indianapolis at 8440 Allison Pointe, Indianapolis, IN 46250. Briefly I just want to run through this and I will take about 10 minutes or so and run through the active adult community that we are proposing. I will highlight some of the unique characteristics that we can identify with. Hopefully, when we get done here, like Bruce said, perhaps move to a committee discussion type situation where we can dig a little deeper.
What makes Oak Tree community different is for one we are looking at an active adult community. The center of the active adult community is a themed village concept that Centex is developing. This is the most important part of our community. It is part of a multi million dollar investment by Centex Homes for the commitment to construct the first phase of this village center in this development.
We will have park areas throughout the community typically centered around amenities and open space throughout the community. Mr. James mentioned a minimum of 20% of the residents will need to be age qualified. That is a commitment that we are making in the ordinance. The minimum number of the area would be for age qualified at age 55 and older. The balance of the community is targeted to that buyer type. Not all buyers in that buyer type want to live in an exclusive age restricted community. So, we are going to set up areas in the neighborhood that would be age restricted only verses age targeted. How do you get to age targeted? Age targeted plans are typically all range plans. So, this community will have 100% ranch plans in it. The only exception to that is some of the plans will be offered a second story loft, roughly 400 square feet of area that is not a second story but the living area would be on the main floor and then the loft area. That would be the only modification to that. All come with standard nine foot ceilings with six foot tall windows. That is something that we have asked the DRC to consider adding into the design guideline criteria to allow a six foot window with a nine foot ceiling as the equivalent of like a transom window, which is identified in the ordinance.
Also, Mr. James mentioned the three house plans that did not meet the requirements. Those three house plans, if we take a look at them, and I will lay them out, all three of those plans have a hip roof structure. If we were to put a normal gable roof on it, all of them have a reverse gable to the front elevation, which would qualify but because it is a hip roof the gable is not being counted. So, it is not that they have any less architectural desire to them but it is the way that the ordinance would be interpreted.
Walking trails; we will have three miles of walking trails throughout this community with three connection points to the Vandalia Trail. There will be connectivity to the Oak Tree Golf Course via an agreement to be established between the Elks Club and Bay Development to annex the golf course to the Town and preserving the golf course in perpetuity.
There will be exterior maintenance for the attached products in this neighborhood. In addition to that all the other yards and all of the other product types will be full yard maintenance provided by the HOA for all homes in Oak Tree development. That is how we can separate ourselves from a standard development to age restricted or age targeted because the typical household with four kids cannot afford to pay the monthly maintenance fees for that service.
There will be no school children or virtually no school children in this community, which results in a positive impact on the schools via tax dollars with no school kids coming to them.
Also, there are substantially fewer people per household in an active adult community and fewer vehicle trips per day in this proposal from others that you have seen on this site in the past.
So, who is our buyer? Different from a conventional neighborhood active adults want to be near their children and grandchildren. The past generation of active adults were considered the silent generation. They wanted to move away to Florida or to Phoenix and be left alone. The boomer generation is an active generation in the grandchildren's lives. They want them to sleepover. They want to be able to go to the aquatic center. They want to take them shopping and take them to restaurants. They attend sporting events including the Superbowl champs, the Colts. More active adult communities are being built in cold weather climates for this very reason. So, what about our buyer? Our buyer, at the time of move in, generally 70% of them will still be working. They are generally 55 years of age or older. However, they are desiring that lifestyle, that resort style lifestyle, that you find in the south in those active adult communities. These people have more time on their hands. They have already raised their children. They volunteer regularly in the community. Again, they are family orientated. They desire the low maintenance living. So, there is no need for large garages because they don't have lawnmowers, snow blowers and other things to get in their way.
The top desire amenities are based on research that we have conducted nationwide. The top five items that an active adult buyer is looking for in a neighborhood in order is a coffee shop, a destination, which results back to that resort style lifestyle living, great and well landscaped neighborhood, security and staffing for active adult communities. So, there would be a designated staff person for an HOA neighborhood to provide that service. Down the list from those top five are the architecture and home design. These people don't live in their homes 24x7. They are a social generation. Simple amenities are things that we have gone through and highlighted what type of amenities might occur in Oak Tree. Again, resort style living is on the top of the list, maintenance free lifestyle, maintaining the exterior of the homes and the yards, gate houses, gazebos, swimming pools, golf, walking trails, social clubs and internet cafes.
As part of our proposal, the village center is kind of the key to the entire development and I want to bring you into the development a little bit from this standpoint. We are developing nationwide a prototype for what we are calling the boomer brand. Establishing consistency around the country is the goal. You all have heard of Del Webb and associate with what they do. If you said Centex Homes is going to do an active adult community, the name recognition does not exist like the Del Webb situation. We are creating that situation. The way to do that is to cater to the new baby boomer market, which is something different than what some of our competitors are doing in recent years. We are going to be creating this active adult community with the village. This is where people will come and spend their social hours. The prototypical buildings include a business center, a multi purpose room, fitness facility, a band shell, a tavern and the owner's club.
Now I will move to our proposal, which you can see the format is very similar to the layout. Every village center in any active adult community is going to have a village theme based on the character and the area that you are located in. We have identified a theme of “Back Home in Indiana for this neighborhood. The architecture will be carried out, not only through the village center, but through the homes as well. So, as you go through the packet of the booklet of the home styles, there is a craftsman style, there's a farmhouse style and there is a traditional style home. Those all come from our land planner that spent numerous hours in Plainfield driving through neighborhoods identifying what existing older architecture within the community was and that is what we will continue to build on this character theme. The center will become the place for gatherings. Activities will be planned from concerts in the park to farmer's markets. That would be in the village center, which is highlighted in green in the middle, that is the village green. There will be perhaps a gazebo where a band shell could be constructed. The goal would be something going on through the summer months every day through the summer. The entrance to the village is going be through a covered bridge. The idea of that is to drive them through and kind of pass through time into this village center. The existing silos that exist on the site will be maintained. The buildings surrounding the village green including the owner's club will have workout facilities, indoor pool and the owner's club. That building is number three on that diagram and primarily that will be for owners and guests only. As far as kids are concerned, it would be a very limited time that they would be allowed into that facility. That is probably the only place where the kids will really have a true restriction. We are okay with that because Plainfield, with the aquatic center just a half mile away, can provide that need for the grandchildren to have a place to go as well.
The design is intended to have a historic architecture. One of the buildings, building number two, we are anticipating would have a field house, like an old Indiana field house feel. If you picture a small version of Hinkle field house, the picture at the top corner. This would provide for the ability to do indoor basketball but more importantly it is a multi-purpose venue that can have social events, dances and things like that. This is generally opened to residents and its guests. Also, in that building would be a tavern where you can invite friends to come and watch basketball games or whatever on a Tuesday evening. Again, just an opportunity to get out of the house and into the village center because the goal is to turn the people to the village center. The key component to the village center is people and the way to get people is the number, is the rooftops. That is the importance of the number of rooftops that we are showing in this development. Not only does it help pay for that but it also helps to sustain it and keep it alive and going.
Finally I just want to touch upon the Elks Club deal that Bruce mentioned about and that we are moving towards an agreement with them. The idea is to have CR500 lined with landscaping to help create both a buffer and also a sense of entry into Oak Tree. An asphalt path or concrete golf cart trail is to be built with a mutual agreement between both parties. The landscaping would be continually maintained by the homeowners association. Likely there will be an agreement to remove the old pool and bathhouse that exists on the Elks Club property and a three year membership paid at the time each home is closed for our residents. In return we are expecting that the Elks will provide a deed restriction to be enforced by both the Oak Tree HOA and the Town of Plainfield that they would not allow that property to be used for anything except a golf course. Again, the preservation of the golf course, as a golf course, in perpetuity is the key bill in this measure. Part of that agreement will be to annex the golf course into the Town of Plainfield.
This is currently out of our site plan. All of the yellow areas within that development are open space. There are approximately 65 acres of open space, which equates to 62%. There are three miles of internal trail network, again three areas that connect to the Vandalia Trail including one at the corner of CR500 and the Vandalia Trail. Again, there is a minimum of 20% of all of the homes that are age restricted. All the home plans are ranch style. We are connecting this neighborhood to the Oak Tree Golf Course. Again, the neighborhood HOA is maintaining all of the yards. In the triplex in an attached product area we are providing for full exterior maintenance of the structures as well. There are no school children and you get all of the benefit of the taxes and fewer people per cost with less vehicle trips per day.
So, what is next? We ask that you consider our request to create a subcommittee where we can spend much more time in depth going through the standards of the ordinance and talking about lot sizes and densities and kind of go through from that prospective. Hopefully, we can do that in an hour and a half to a two hour meeting with the expectation that we could be back here next month. Thank you.
Mr. Brandgard said I think what has been presented, as we noted last month; this is kind of a unique development. It is a little different than what we have seen before and I think the suggestion that we have a subcommittee of the Plan Commission to look at this before we bring it back in for an approval so that we can kind of work through and understand what it is; I think rather than a subcommittee I would rather set up a work session of the Plan Commission. So, that everybody has an opportunity to see and hear and offer input as we go through this. We do that a lot with the Town Council. There is a lot of benefit to doing that.
Ms. Whicker said I agree the public should be a part of it.
Mr. Brandgard said it is a public meeting so as far as the public can be there but it is a work session for the Plan Commission and the developer.
Mr. Kirchoff said I like that idea. We can devote two or three hours that night to it and get into the details and look at Mr. James' comments, etc.
Mr. McPhail said I have had an opportunity to go through this a couple of times with DRC and a couple of private meetings with the developer. One thing that continues for me to have concern is as far as I'm concerned this project without the golf course is useless to us. I don't want to spend a lot of time in a work session and two or three other things if that is not going to happen. We approved one project for this developer in conjunction with the golf course and that agreement never got signed. I don't know what would have happened had the builder not backed out when we had that. This is a much different project. I think the work session is the way to do it but until he has a signed agreement with the Elks Club, I'm not sure I want to spend a lot of time on it. I'm a member of the Elks Club. I have been in several meetings and I don't know where they are today. I don't know where we are at but I don't want to spend a lot of time and then all of a sudden we don't have an agreement as that being a part of the PUD and being annexed and zoned and properly protected to protect this community.
Mr. Brandgard said you bring up a good point and I think it was about a year ago, if my memory serves me correctly, that we went through this before and it kind of fell apart and basically over the fact of dealing with the Elks Club on the golf course. I think looking at it from the standpoint of this commission's time and our Town's Staff's time as well as the developer's time and effort going into putting this together there are some basic things that have to be put together and that is one of them is where is the Elks Club Golf Course in this whole mix?
Mr. Sklare said as of today, I spoke to their attorney and they have presented me with a document that I was supposed to receive some time ago and I got it last Friday. I responded to it with nine points. The attorney called up today and said of the nine points there are probably two that we need to talk further about. He was optimistic that we could work things out. I'm just giving you a quote from their attorney so we seem to be going in the right direction. It just seems to take them forever to come to a decision but I think we are very close. I believe the Elks are going to contact the Town this week and seek a meeting. I was led to believe by their attorney that once that happens and they come to some understanding on some of their points that next week we will meet and supposedly work this out. That is what I was told by the attorney because I have been telling the Elks all along as Mr. McPhail said this is a requirement, not only because of the Town's position, but our position because we can't go through this whole process and find our partner isn't there and we are trying to integrate this together. So, I'm saying sincerely I think we are very close but frankly comments from the Town that it is a major item is probably good for them to hear if there is anyone here from the Elks tonight.
Mr. James said I did get a phone call from the Elks' attorney requesting a meeting with the Town officials and they would like to do it this week. (Inaudible).
Mr. Brandgard asked, is there anyone here from the Elks that is willing to make a statement? Apparently not. (A work session was scheduled for Tuesday, February 20th at 6:00 p.m. subject to an agreement being reached with the Elks Club).
Mr. Carlucci said at a work session the public can be there and they can listen so if the people are here tonight on this project and if they want to hear the discussion, then they can be here on February 20th at 6:00 p.m. But it is not a public hearing; it is only for the Plan Commission to take information and ask questions and nothing can be decided at the work session. It has to be done at the Plan Commission meeting but that is usually how we do work sessions. The Plan Commission can take information and exchange ideas but you can make no decisions because we do a public notice. They can give direction and say we think this might be a good idea but the final approvals always are at the meetings of the Town Council or the Plan Commission. It would be good for the people to be at the work session because they will get more information that night on how everybody feels about the project at that point. It is my understanding that unless there is an agreement with the Elks this work session will not take place.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to continue PUD-06-001 to the March 5th Plan Commission meeting. Second by Mr. McPhail.
Lady from the audience said (inaudible).
Ms. Whicker said I think Mr. Carlucci explained the process that due to the lack of information right now we are going to then have a work session on the 20th.
Lady said (inaudible).
Ms. Whicker said there are no decisions being made this evening because we need more information and the work session would be pending with the Elks. So, there would not be any comments from the public this evening.
Gentleman from audience said (inaudible).
Ms. Whicker said March 5th.
Gentleman said (inaudible).
Ms. Whicker said there won't be any decisions made in the work session.
Mr. Brandgard said as was said, in a work session there are no decisions made. Since there has not been enough detail provided here to understand what it is that they want to do and how they are going to do it we are going to have a work session with them and Staff to go through that and make sure that it is all worked out. And then they will come back in at the next meeting and make a presentation with all of that. At that time you will have an opportunity to offer your comments against what the plan is they are really going to be presenting.
Lady said (inaudible).
Mr. Carlucci said I understand that but quite honestly because they left so much out of this I don't think the Plan Commission could ever approve this tonight under any circumstances because it doesn't meet the requirements of the ordinance.
Lady said (inaudible).
Mr. Brandgard said the problem that we have with this is there is not enough information that has been presented to comment about it.
Gentleman said (inaudible).
Mr. Brandgard said you will have input at the next Plan Commission meeting when they present their plan. They have not presented a plan. They have presented a concept tonight. That is about as much of a plan that we have here. There are no details. There is no landscaping information. There is really nothing here for you to comment on.
Gentleman said (inaudible).
Mr. Carlucci said they didn't even present a landscape plan to our Design Review Committee, is that correct?
Mr. James said that is correct.
Mr. Carlucci said there is no landscape plan. They could say whatever they wanted tonight but there is no landscape plan in here for us to comment on here. There is nothing here.
Lady asked, can those that have been invited to this session, this public hearing, make a statement at your work session in writing?
Mr. Carlucci said typically no. Work sessions are not public hearings. This is a public hearing that the Plan Commission wants to continue because they don't feel they have the information at this meeting. It doesn't keep you from going to the next public hearing and making your comments. They don't have the information.
Lady said (inaudible).
Mr. Matrana said the discussion that we are having now depends on a proposal that we are going to meet with the Elks Club. We can't do anything until after we have met with the Elks Club. Nothing is going to happen until after we meet, the Town Council, the Town officials, with the Elks Club so that is why we would like to continue this to the next meeting because there are so many things we have not discussed and there is no proposal.
Lady said (inaudible).
Mr. Matrana said in order to get an agreement with the Elks Club.
Lady said (inaudible).
Mr. Brandgard said again this Town, whether it is the Town Council or the Plan Commission, is always opened to hearing from the public. Again, the problem that we have is this was to be a public hearing on this project and a public hearing is based upon what the developer comes in and presents to us for our review and consideration. And after that is done we ask for public input on what was presented. Our feeling about what has been presented is it is not adequate to make a decision on or comment on because they did not present anything to us to comment on. That is our problem but with that if they have something they would like to say, I would let them say it.
Mr. McPhail said it would be pretty general in content because we can't respond to anything specific at all.
Mr. Brandgard said because we don't know.
Ms. Whicker said normally that is not the procedure but we will make an exception this evening if you would like to come and state your concern and comment. Since we aren't able to make a decision but we would be able to take those into consideration during the work session and as well you are invited to come March 5th when we come again and decisions made. But a motion was made and a second to continue PUD-06-001, Oak Tree to the March 5th Plan Commission meeting. 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 now if there is anyone in the audience who would care to state your concerns relative to PUD-06-011, you can state those at this time.
Ms. Peggy Abner said I own two houses along CR500E. My home address is 4633 S. CR500E and I also own 4615 S. CR500E. The concerns that I have with this development is the 20% minimum that they are addressing are 180 homes. That out of 992 has some valid points. What I would like to address here is the concerns of residential verses commercial. Once commercial licenses are granted in this development could not someone come in and redo everything and have a shopping mall down my road? They are going to have a miniature size Hinkle field house, a pub, social club, a dance club, proposed ice cream parlor, places for outdoor concerts, post office, all on a road that they say will not have a lot of traffic because of the minimal age of the people that are going to be living there. The children are not going to be there also so there is going to be less traffic yet they are proposing all of these dance clubs, social clubs, fitness clubs. I think they are shortsighted in that aspect. I personally don't want a pub down my road. I don't want commercial. I thought we, as Plainfield, developed the Metropolis as a big, big, large draw for commercial productivity for people to come to Plainfield. The people in this community, 180 of their homes that they are talking about for the 20% minimum of 55 years and older, those people they have cars, they can drive to the Metropolis. They can drive. They don't have to have a pub next door to their house. They don't have to have a Hinkle size field house or a shell for open air concerts. We have Hummel Park. We have developed a lot of green areas in Plainfield for that. The sense of community that they are wanting to expound upon in this development, in essence, I think snubs the rest of Plainfield because they want to create their own little utopia, so to speak, as opposed to being part of our community, Plainfield. That is my main concern, residential verses commercial.
Is it supposed to be a place to live or are we going to shop and have fun there? We have developed the aquatic center, which is just around the corner from these people. We realize that the development of this land is going to take place. Do I think that one story single-family or triplex homes is the way to go? Drive in Avon; they have nice developments. They have all brick homes and yet this development wants to squeeze in 992 homes in 266 acres and that's if you take minus their green space for the field house and the swimming pool and all of those. That 266 acres goes down drastically so they are squishing in 992 home sites and I don't think we can be so shortsighted as to understand that people 55 years and older do not have school age children. When I turn 55, I will have two school age children still at home. We are not even talking about the people that will have grandchildren that they are raising. I think that is a little shortsighted from their prospective homebuyers.
We have a lot of concerns with their landscaping developments. They want easements. They informed us that they want easements. We along CR500E have had trespassers over the course of living there. I have lived there 18 years. I have people wandering through my yard constantly. They propose a split rail fence on both sides of the road and with landscaping and trees and everything that will promote people wandering more through my yard. The people down CR500E do not want sidewalks. We have no desire to have any sidewalks on the east side of CR500E. That is for the most part all of the homeowners along that situation that I'm talking about. There are 10 homes. We have had people wandering through our yards. If you put a sidewalk there, they are really going to wander. The Clarks have people outside their bedroom window looking for golf balls. It is a fact of life. We live there; we understand this. If you go down and look at the condition of the farm fence that the Elks Club put there, it is destroyed practically because people are climbing over it. A chain link fence would still get a lot of climbing over it. A split rail fence will be dilapidated in no time. There are a lot of issues with this development that I don't think that there is a lot of consideration for the homeowners along CR500E and thank you for your time.
Mr. Herb Kinkead at 4172 Scioto Dr., Paddock at Saratoga said first of all I want to apologize. I wasn't trying to speak out of turn. I just want to make sure I understand the process because we border the back side of the development there at Saratoga and I guess my concern, and I want to make sure I'm clear on, is you are going to have the work committee and then you are going to come back here and there hasn't even been a landscape plan developed so we know what is going in that is going to border our home. Some of that concern comes from seeing these neighborhoods go up everywhere and they end up backing up to each other and they don't put anything in to border between the back yards. Obviously, that is a personal concern but they say 20% of this is going to be 55 and older and there aren't going to be any kids. Like Ms. Abner said there are a lot of homes that could have children in them so are they going to be able to maintain the back yards that I have to look at? The plan that came in front of us this time last year with Beazer had landscape berms incorporated into it and that type of stuff. Part of my concern there is too we have a lot of wildlife that transverses through there right now and we don't want to lose that. So, I guess my question is if you have the committee or the work session and there is no landscape plan and that type stuff together, are you really going to be able to work everything out? That is what my concern was and can anybody help me with that?
Mr. Brandgard said I think that is the reason we want to have the work session. At this point the developer working with the Staff we don't have what we should have had at this point when this came in. So, we want to sit down with the developer and walk through this and make sure that they have what is required and how they are going to do it when they bring it back in to us.
Mr. Kinkead asked, so what will happen if you do the work session and they don't bring the landscape approved plan or whatever?
Mr. Brandgard said if all they bring back is what they have here, it won't be approved because there is nothing to approve.
Mr. Kinkead said I want to make sure that we are going to have a chance to see the landscape plan and have our concerns answered on that before they start sticking 900 houses in our back yard so that is what I didn't understand. Like I say I do apologize for speaking out of turn but I wanted to make sure where I was.
Mr. Brandgard said that is our concern is at this point we don't know enough about what the plan is in order to make a decision one way or the other on this. We just want to make sure what is ultimately presented to us is something that will work or maybe it won't but at least it will come in in a public meeting for us to decide and have comment.
Mr. Kinkead said the other part of that history, just so you know, is that right now that farm field floods my yard, the drainage back there is horrible. Part of my concern is if we put that many houses back there, are we going to help that issue or make that issue worse?
Mr. Brandgard said the answer to that question is yes. Virtually every place where there has been a water problem when development has gone in there, we make sure that it is taken care of the best we can. Sometimes you can't because of the topography of the land but we do the best we can with it and it is usually less of an issue than it was before.
Mr. Kinkead said so the next time we come back here in March after the work session then we should be able to get some of these questions answered.
Mr. Brandgard said we certainly hope so.
Mr. Kinkead said I appreciate your time.
Mr. McPhail said I would just like to make a comment. We have ordinances and anything that is developed has to meet the ordinances of the Town in abutting property. If that is a residential property next to it, it has to meet the guidelines for abutting residential. We do have guidelines and a set of rules that they have to meet in terms of landscaping or whatever in adjoining properties. Obviously, commercial property is treated much differently against residential than residential against residential. New development is typically not held at any higher standards than the adjoining property if it is under current ordinances.
Mr. Kirchoff said there will be no more notices because we are continuing this. For clarification tonight is your notice.
Ms. Whicker said next on our agenda we have PUD-07-001, Wellington at Saratoga.
Mr. James said this request is a request to amend the Saratoga PUD to increase the aggregate side yard setback from 15' to 12' for the multi-family section of Wellington at Saratoga to allow a specific duplex model. Since this Saratoga PUD and the Wellington Primary Plat was last approved and amended in 2003 the developer has been changed. So, now Larry Good Patio Homes has taken over this development. In order to use a specific duplex model they need to reduce the aggregate side yard setback. This is the property right here. It was primary platted in 2003 as Wellington. It is about 20 acres. This is called the Redbud Lake here. It was platted with 77 dwelling units and here it is within the Saratoga PUD. When the Saratoga PUD was originally done, this area was done to single-family on the north section and multi-family on the south section. This is the proposed lot configuration. This is basically the same lot configuration as the primary plat that was approved in 2003 except they did do a change down here to the cul-de-sac. But the number of units haven't changed and it has actually decreased by one unit. So, this will all be single-family along here and then this will be the duplexes in this area right here. So, there will be 38 single-family and 19 duplex lots or 30 duplex units. When the PUD ordinance was amended in 2003, the garage size and the minimum living area requirements were changed for both the single-family section and the multi-family section. But when the PUD was amended in 2003, it was done with the condition that if any model does not meet the basic standards of the residential design guidelines, the remaining standards of Section 2 must be met. But they are proposing that there will be all brick wrap.
The Design Review Committee looked at this and recommended approval as submitted with the two setbacks. Here is the lot configuration. This is one of the single-family models with all brick wrap. The front elevations meet the design guidelines. They are proposing two models of single-family. Instead of doing a triplex, which could have been done in the multi-family portion they are just going to do duplexes and that is their duplex model. We feel that all the models meet the basic standards except for the garage sizes and the living area but those were amended in 2003 to allow those standards less than the residential design guidelines. But what they submitted does meet what the PUD ordinance allows. Here is the floor plan for the duplex showing the reduced setbacks and the setbacks will be six feet on each side so it's an aggregate of 12 feet. So, that is what this request is and Mr. Jay Arnold is here representing Larry Good Patio Homes and he would be glad to answer any questions that you might have.
Mr. Andy Kult with Comer Law Office in Danville at 71 W. Marion Street said I have Jay Arnold and Brian Good with me on behalf of Larry Good Patio Homes. As Mr. James said, obviously the original PUD for Saratoga was approved in about 1994. In 2003 the PUD was amended and the nature of that amendment for this area was to reduce the square footage from what was originally approved in the PUD. So, we are now at 1,600 for the detached units and 1,300 for what was slated for multi-family. The garages were 420 and 400 for the detached in those areas. So, we are in line with that. Larry Good Patio Homes is the new developer. As Mr. James indicated, we are no longer talking triplex type product in the multi-family section to the south. We are looking at a duplex model that you have seen there. Also, as he indicated, we believe we met the design guidelines in the initial PUD. What we don't meet is the aggregate side yard setbacks in the multi-family section. Originally that northern section for detached units was to have six foot side yards. In the multi-family it was to have a five foot minimum on one side and a 15 aggregate. What we have with the model that we are proposing is a six foot side yard. So, we do meet the one side, however, our aggregate is going to be 12 feet. Obviously, we normally go before the BZA with that but being that this is a PUD and originally approved that is why we are before this board to reduce that setback.
Generally there is a little bit older cliental for this community that is going to be targeted, along the lines that you heard in the last petition. It is going to be a maintenance free type living and the outdoor maintenance will be taken care of. So, what we have in our models is one story homes. Again, you heard earlier tonight that there is an option in some of that for a loft type area above that or a bonus room. Anything like that would be in the loft would just be a single dormer so you are not talking two story. But with the cliental that is being targeted you are looking at generally one story homes. What this allows us to do with this product is make that a more attractive unit basically. The product that we can put out there and making the room a little bit bigger is a better product. So, as I say, the northern part we are not touching that. It is the southern part of the development that is multi-family that would be a reduction on the aggregate although the aggregate would be 12 instead of 15. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. McPhail asked, do you know what the garage sizes are in the duplexes?
Mr. Kult said in the duplexes 400. I'm sorry they are 438.
Mr. McPhail said I just have one other question. I think I know the answer but I would like for you to confirm that. We only have a front elevation but on all the front elevations we have window treatments either with shutters or with a change in the brick or something. I would just like to make sure that includes all the windows on all four sides with the same treatment.
Mr. Jay Arnold at 920 Creekside Lane, Plainfield, Indiana said we would be willing to do at least a different colored sill on the sides and the rear if that would please the committee.
Mr. McPhail said I would just like for them to be uniform. Whatever you do in the front do in the sides and in the back.
Mr. Arnold said on the front we ran a soldier course over the top with a keystone. I think that wouldn't be a normal treatment for a side and a rear of a home because of the additional expense. So, if it would be suitable, I would like to use a different color sill and then use a standard stack bond around the windows on the side and the rear, if you find that to be acceptable.
Mr. McPhail said that would be fine.
Ms. Whicker asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this matter? Being no one coming forward the public portion of this hearing is closed and I will open it up for discussion or a possible motion.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion that the Plan Commission certify the zone map amendment request RZ-07-001 as filed by Larry Good Patio Homes, LLC requesting amendment of the Saratoga PUD to reduce the aggregate side yard setback in the multi-family section of Wellington from 15' to 12' with a favorable recommendation. Second by Mr. McPhail.
Mr. Brandgard asked, do we need to add your comments relative to the building standards?
Mr. McPhail asked, how do we word that Mr. Arnold?
Mr. Arnold said we agreed to use a second tone of brick for the window sills on all elevations.
Mr. Kirchoff said I so amend my motion. Second by Mr. McPhail. 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 RZ-07-001 that goes along with a few other petitions that we have this evening.
Mr. James said this request requires four actions by the Plan Commission. The first one is RZ-07-001. It is a request to rezone two parcels with a total of about six acres to I-2 to include into the Allpoints Midwest Industrial Park pending annexation. The second request is PP-07-001. That is a request that includes the same two parcels of about six acres into the Allpoints Industrial Park Primary Plat. The third request is DP-07-001. It is a review of a Development Plan to allow orientation of loading space for the front lot line or street for a proposed 646,680 square foot warehouse distribution facility in the Allpoints Midwest Industrial Park and the final request is DP-07-002. It is Architecture and Site Design Review of the proposed 646,680 square foot warehouse distribution center just north of CR200S and east of CR900E within the Allpoints Midwest Industrial Park.
This is a diagram of the Primary Plat that was approved last year and what is being amended tonight. Here is CR200S and CR900E. These are the two parcels totally about six acres to be included in the Allpoints Industrial Park. Ronald Reagan Parkway is over here and this is the whole Allpoints Industrial Park and they have some lots up here too. It totals about 850 acres altogether and in this square right here this is the site where the proposed warehouse distribution center that is being reviewed for Architecture and Site Design Review and this is the proposed internal street that will be built to provide access to this property. That is what we need the development incentive for for the orientation of loading space toward this street. Right here you have loading that will be on the east and west sides of the building.
So, what we are doing is filling in the holes for the Allpoints Midwest rezoning and annexation that was initially done. There were about six set of parcels that were not included with that request so as Browning and Duke acquire these parcels, they are being brought in to the Allpoints Midwest Industrial Park. So, that is what the request is for the rezoning to filling in of the holes of these two parcels and also amending the Primary Plat to include these two parcels. Any site seeking tax abatement or within 600 feet of a Residential District must comply with Gateway Corridor standards. So, that is why this building is being reviewed for Architecture and Site Design for compliance for the Gateway Corridor standards. And then the loading docks on the east side will be oriented toward the proposed internal street. So, the development incentive is to increase that landscaping along that frontage to a Level 5 perimeter landscaping.
The DRC reviewed this request and approved it with the following stipulations.
Berms shall be required along the east side between the loading docks and the street.
Put some breaks on the north elevation.
The northwest corners shall be painted like the southwest corners.
No “headache bars will be used.
Revise the landscaping plan to include more evergreen trees.
The pump house trim paint is to match that of the primary building.
Include some pedestrian connection for both the internal street, which is going to be called Allpoints Parkway and also to CR200S.
Smoking shelters must match the building material and paint of the primary building.
Staff Comments: The rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would eliminate holes created when parcels were not included with the original annexation, rezone and Primary Plat. Plans have been revised and comply with the Gateway Corridor standards. The site will be surrounded by I-2 zoning and other warehouse facilities. And is the trim on the pump house acceptable?
Here is the site plan. Here is CR200S. Allpoints Midwest is here. This is north. Here we have the loading docks affronting the proposed street. This is a dry retention right in here and then this is perimeter landscaping we are going to get. There is a retention pond over here and auto parking and then more loading on the west side. They will have more warehouse buildings on the west side and possibly to the north. Here is the artist rendering of the corner, it would be the southeast corner that would be one of the entrances. These are the elevations. This is where the breaks were added to break up the linear expense by painting the design on the building and then the corners. I believe this is the west elevation where that corner was painted to match the southwest corner.
The landscaping plan complies. They will have some berms. They are able to get in the berms along that east side and help screen the loading docks and even without the berms landscaping was at a Level 5. Foundation plantings comply. The parking lot plantings comply with shrubs and trees in the parking lot. The photometric plan complies and the light fixtures comply. The line of sight analysis has been provided to make sure that any rooftop mechanical units are screened from view from the street. So, it is just needed from the south elevation and east elevations because that is where the two frontages are but they went ahead and did the analysis for all four sides to show that any rooftop mechanical would be appropriately screened. That sums up this request. They did a nice job addressing all of our comments and addressing DRC's comments. The plan complies with the gateway standards. There are representatives here and I'm sure they would be glad to answer any questions that you might have.
Mr. Brandgard asked, what is the problem with “headache bars?
Mr. James said DRC doesn't like them. They feel like a lot has been put into the design of the building and then to stick these things out there makes it not worth it. They think there are other methods to prevent truck traffic entering the auto parking lots.
Mr. Matrana said such as big wide curbs that trucks can't negotiate and they just bump over the curbs and make puddles and stuff.
Mr. Brandgard asked, what are the other methods?
Mr. James said they think there is new technology out there.
Mr. Brandgard said I don't want to hear “they think. What are the alternatives?
Mr. James said they just don't want the “headache bars.
Mr. Kirchoff said maybe the petitioner can address that.
Mr. John Hirschman with Browning at 6100 W. 96th Street, Indianapolis said thank you for the opportunity to be here. I will make it short because we have been here awhile tonight. With respect to the “headache bars I don't know that there are feasible alternatives other than making the “headache bars look attractive, i.e., landscaping them so that there are plantings around them. We are doing something with them but I think they are a necessary component to these buildings. It is a safety concern to separate the trucks from the car traffic. I think that is a big deal. You want to be able to do that and I don't see any feasible way to do that without the “headache bars so that is my two cents on the issue for what it is worth.
Mr. Brandgard said from a personal standpoint I think my issue is you have these bars and they are painted yellow so they can be seen but that makes them stand out and they don't fit in with the overall architecture of the building or the site.
Mr. Hirschman said we are not proposing any “headache bars on this building even. We let the towns dictate where they want them and how they want the traffic flow to be configured. But just thinking practically speaking looking down the road I think they are a necessary element and some thought should be given to how you make them acceptable rather than saying you don't like them.
Mr. McPhail said DRC has taken a position, and I think there is a lot validity to it, that you spend all the money to give you an attractive building and they stick the big yellow “headache bar out there and it distracts from the looks of it.
Mr. Brandgard said we are diverting here and I have no disagreement there but on the other hand
Mr. McPhail asked, are there other ways to prevent trucks from going in there?
Ms. Whicker said make the entrance like this.
Mr. McPhail said that is what I would do. I would put it where they couldn't negotiate it.
Mr. Matrana said I read signs that say “no trucks allowed but that is as intrusive as a “headache bar but it does accomplish the point.
Mr. Hirschman said other than that I think our resubmitted plans comply with the DRC's comments. I mainly wanted to thank the Plan Commission and the Town Council and Staff because it has been a long time getting to this point on this project, overall with our annexation and TIF funding and everything else, and everyone has shown a lot of patience and a lot of skill and I wanted to thank you for that. If there are any questions, I would be glad to answer them. I think the two pieces that we are bringing in to have zoned and added to the plat is pretty straightforward and I think the building is pretty straightforward as well.
Ms. Whicker asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on these petitions?
Mr. Fred McAninch at 1412 S. CR1050E said we own two properties on that street at 1760 so basically this is going to be in behind us. By trade I'm a water well contractor and I'm on a water well and so is my other property and my concern, of course, is when they go to develop all of this, this is fine. I'm not really opposed to this but I do know a lot of these properties that are in the path of all of this are either older homes or old farms. Some of them have two and three wells on them, etc. Under the standards of the Department of Natural Resources Division of Water IDEM and also the Marion County Board of Health it is required by law and by statute that these wells be properly abandoned by a licensed water well contractor prior to anything else being done. I have gotten into this with also CP Morgan, which was across the street from me when they developed. So, I saw that they got abandoned properly. We are also the water well contractor for the Indianapolis Airport Authority since 1988. So, we have abandoned a lot of water wells as they tore all of these houses down, as you know, all of these properties. What I would like to bring forth is to see that all of these wells are properly abandoned under these standards to satisfy all of these various agencies. We would be glad to assist in this or they can have a licensed water well contractor of their choosing but each one of these wells, as you abandon them, is done on a site basis. Cost can vary greatly. I just did a water well January 15th for the Indianapolis Airport Authority. Unfortunately, it was a commercial well and it cost about $2,700.00 to do. Normally a domestic well or the average farm well within this area that this development is taking place would probably range between $400.00 to $900.00 to abandon properly. In these costs are also the records that are required by the various agencies. This is a standard record of a water well that we have to fill out and file with the Department of Natural Resources and Division of Water and also the Hendricks County Board of Health gets one and if IDEM has authority over this property, as I understand that they do due to this wetlands thing that is going on now, well then they would get a copy. Also, the owner or the developer would get a copy as required. We have no problem with this. We did a water well abandonment up in the north eastern part of the County up on 86th Street and it was only $450.00. So, that was a house well so this is basically what they kind of run but I just wanted to make sure that these water aquifers, which water is our most valuable resource, are protected especially since they are going to be right behind me and I'm on a water well, both of my properties are on a water well and I don't want to see contamination or especially runoffs from these parking lots, etc. Basically, that is the comment that I have and the request that these aquifers are protected in this County especially in these two townships. Thank you.
Ms. Whicker said with no one else coming forward the public portion is closed. I will open it up for discussion or a possible motion.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion that the Plan Commission certify the zone map amendment request RZ-07-001 as filed by Browning/Duke, LLC requesting rezoning of two parcels for a combined 6.0 acres pending annexation from an Industrial PUD, Hendricks County to I-2 Office/Warehouse Distribution District with a favorable recommendation. Second by Mr. McPhail. 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.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion that the Plan Commission approve PP-07-001 as filed by the Browning/Duke, LLC requesting approval to amend the Allpoints Midwest Industrial Park Primary Plat pending annexation and rezoning so that two parcels for a combined 6.0 acres can be included upon finding that:
1. Adequate provisions have been made for regulation of minimum lot width, minimum lot depth and minimum lot area.
2. Adequate provisions have been made for the widths, grades, curves and coordination of subdivision public ways with current and planned public ways.
3. Adequate provisions have been made for the extension of water, sewer, and other municipal services.
And that such approval shall be subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the Town standards, including but not limited to: Plainfield Ordinance 1-96 regarding Floodplain Management; Plainfield Ordinance Nos. 4-94 and 3-86 regarding Sewage Works; Plainfield Ordinance No. 17-97 regarding Drainage; Plainfield Ordinance No. 19-97 regarding Municipal Waterworks and Plainfield Ordinance No. 18-97 regarding access Permits.
2. Compliance with the standards and specifications of the Plainfield Subdivision Control Ordinance.
3. All lots created by an incremental Secondary Plat shall have either; (a) direct access to and from a public street; or (b) gain access to and from a public street across a perpetual recorded access easement through portions of real estate included in the Primary Plat.
4. All lots created by an incremental Secondary Plat shall either contain within the limits of the incremental Secondary Plat or have legal access to adequate infrastructure to accommodate the fully developed needs of the incremental plat (i.e., storm water management, sanitary sewer, water, electric, gas, telephone, etc.).
Second by Mr. McPhail. 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.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion that the Plan Commission approve DP-07-001 as filed by Browning/Duke, LLC requesting Development Incentives for the orientation of loading space toward a front lot line (Allpoints Parkway) for building #1 of Allpoints Midwest Industrial Park finding that:
1. The required front yard is effectively screened with a Plant Unit Value which exceeds the standard for such yard by adding a Plant Unit Value of 4.0 to the total Plant Unit Value otherwise required by the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance or other development incentive.
2. The proposed development is appropriate to the site and its surroundings.
3. The proposed development is consistent with the intent and the purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
And that such approval shall be subject to:
1. Substantial compliance with the site plan and landscape plan file dated January 19, 2007.
Second by Mr. McPhail. 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.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion that the Plan Commission approve DP-07-002 as filed by Browning/Duke, LLC requesting Architecture & Site Design Review approval for the development of a 646,380 square foot warehouse distribution facility on approximately 41.48 acres for building #1 of Allpoints Midwest Industrial Park located within 600 feet of a Residential District finding that.
1. The Development Plan complies with all applicable Development Standards of the district in which the site is located.
2. The Development Plan complies with all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Control Ordinance for which a waiver has not been granted.
3. The Development Plan complies with all applicable provisions for Architectural and Site Design Review for which a waiver has not been granted.
4. The proposed development is appropriate to the site and its surroundings.
5. The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
And that such approval be subject to the following conditions:
1. Substantial compliance with the Site Plan, Building Elevations, Landscape Plan, Photometric Plan and Light Fixtures submitted file dated January 19, 2007.
2. If smoking shelters are used, building material shall match that of the primary building and shall be painted to mach primary building color and trim.
Second by Mr. McPhail. Roll call vote called.
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Gibbs – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
6-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Brandgard made a motion to suspend the rules to allow DP-07-003 to be heard and also CP-07-001 to be heard. Second by Mr. McPhail. Motion carried.
Ms. Sprague said DP-06-003 is for the proposed Cambria Suites. It would be just south of the Lees Inn on Gateway Drive across from Denny's and Burger King and such. To the west is Hunter's Ridge Subdivision across the Clarks Creek and then to the south is the Caterpillar, the warehouse there. They are seeking Architecture and Site Design Review for a 103 room hotel. The zoning is already correct for the property. The Cambridge Square West Subdivision was platted as an incremental plat so once again this is just another property that needs Secondary Plat approval.
It was approved by the DRC with some stipulations, which the petitioner has corrected at this point. This is the site plan. Gateway Drive is along the right side of the picture. One of the issues we had with the site plan is to the northeast here where the trash enclosure is. That is where they proposed their loading dock and a semi doesn't really fit in there so they gave us a letter, which I believe was included with your packet that said they would basically commit to basically not using any semis; just mini vans or box trucks, etc.
The main issues that we had with this property in the end was the building material percentages they have corrected for us and those comply. The lighting complies. This ground sign is probably one that would be permitted on the site. I just spoke with the architect and he said that they had corrected most of these issues with the landscaping. The last time we knew that the mechanical equipment location wasn't known yet but they did say that they would screen it wherever it is. And then the loading space they have provided that letter for us. It says that the waiver is not required for the building material percentage just because they didn't know how to calculate it at the time we had it last and they figured it out and those do comply. I believe the petitioner has some revised landscaping plans for you and we can show the mechanical equipment screening at the ILP stage. Just for reference even if they didn't change the western perimeter landscaping, the trees along Clarks Creek would probably do a pretty decent job of completing their Level 4. They were 3.5 – 3.75 depending on which spot you were talking about.
Mr. James Rybolt with SRA Architects at 6507 Stewart Road, Cincinnati, Ohio said I'm the architect representing Venkata Nattam who is the owner of the project and is with us tonight and Dave Talbot with Benchmark Consulting is the civil engineer for the project. He is also here. Questions may arise. Briefly I will hand out a slightly revised landscaping plan, which we revised following the DRC meeting. We still did not quite have the west perimeter plan adjusted. We have since revised that and this revised plan indicates that we have adjusted that. We had a lack of evergreen trees to meet the requirement and we have since adjusted that. So, we should meet the landscaping requirements. Also, as indicated, if we hadn't, we did have the natural buffer that was there.
One other item that was not mentioned that was not really submitted was the paint colors. I do have the brick sample and paint colors if you would like to look at those for review but otherwise I believe we meet everything that was requested. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Ms. Whicker asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this matter? Being no one coming forward I will close the public portion of this hearing and open it up for discussion or a possible motion.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion that the Plan Commission approve DP-07-003 as filed by Venkata Nattam requesting Architectural & Site Design Review approval of an approximately 103 room hotel at approximately 6016 Gateway Drive within 600' of a Gateway Corridor and residential finding that:
1. The Development Plan complies with all applicable Development Standards of the district in which the site is located.
2. The Development Plan complies with all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Control Ordinance for which a waiver has not been granted.
3. The Development Plan complies with all applicable provisions for Architectural and Site Design Review for which a waiver has not been granted.
4. The proposed development is appropriate to the site and its surroundings.
5. The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
And that such approval be subject to the following conditions:
1. Substantial compliance with elevations, site plan, and trash enclosure details file dated January 19, 2007 and the photometric plan dated January 8, 2007 and the light fixture cut sheets dated January 9, 2007 and the landscaping plan file dated February 5, 2007.
2. The loading dock in front of the dumpster enclosure shall be restricted for semi parking use.
3. Building elevations and/or landscaping plans submitted with ILP shall be revised to show that any additional mechanical equipment is fully screened.
4. Wall signage shall be limited to flush mounted individual letters or equivalent and freestanding signage shall be limited to a ground sign at 48 square feet or less.
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.
Mr. McPhail said this is the petitioner's third facility. He has the Super 8 and the Wingate.
Ms. Whicker said it is very nice looking exterior.
Mr. James said our last item tonight on the public hearing agenda is the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to amend the Thoroughfare Plan and last month I showed you some slides and tried to give you a presentation and idea of what the transportation update is for and why we did it and update that area south of I-70 that was not studied with the Comprehensive Plan when it was approved back in 2004. So, John Myers is here with HNTB tonight. Last month he wasn't feeling very well so he was able to make tonight so he would be glad to answer any questions that you might have.
Mr. Myers said I'm sorry I couldn't be here last month but I brought the slides back again tonight and I would happy to do anything with it. I'm going to give this to Mr. James just in case you want to look at an exhibit. I can go through all of this. I know we had a work session on it. We could jump straight to the end and I did bring along 11 x 17 copies as well. I'm sure Mr. James did a good job giving you the background last month. As he said, this goes back to the 2004 Comprehensive Plan. On the Thoroughfare Plan there was a big box and it had a big note that said “area south of I-70 is subject to further study. We were very right about that. It certainly did deserve a more detailed and close look. I've never seen any area quite like it. Things don't line up. There is a lot in the way. There are creeks and floodplains and lakes. It is really quite a challenging area. So, with that I will go ahead and distribute this. This is the exhibit from the Comprehensive Plan. I apologize for it being a little bit fuzzy. The final copy will be done by somebody that knows more what they are doing and it will be crisp. But the only area that has changed on there is the area south of I-70. I'm sure you got a copy of this back in December and I will certainly be happy to entertain any comments or corrections or suggestions you might have on that before it becomes final. But the only official action for you and for the Council is to adopt the revised Thoroughfare Plan. That is jumping to the bottom line and is what I passed out here. I think if you take a look at this in context, you will see that we have maintained good spacing of the arterials in the area, second arterials and collectors and given the constraints that I mentioned it still seems to fit in pretty well with the overall plan and accomplished our objectives.
There was one specific area that I wanted to bring to your attention and Mr. McGillem may need to talk about this some more or Mr. James. I wasn't in the meeting earlier this week but we did meet about three months ago with Heritage Environmental who owns much of the property west of the actual quarries, the abandoned quarries. So, it is kind of this area over here. This is the actual recommended road plan. I guess the orange is a little bit hard to see on this particular slide. The area for Heritage Environmental that is going to be developing is going to be here. We had shown an east/west arterial going across here. It was virtually the only place that seemed reasonable to be able to cross those quarries. That is where the existing access point is now. This is a dash line, which is actually a service road for Heritage Environmental. They are just extending the road on west, which made sense. Then tying it in farther south to where the Moon Road overpass would be. So, this was our east/west roadway. I understand the discussions that were held with them. They are looking at a pretty large development plan here, which is great to look at that all in one unit. They may have some other ideas maybe to go along the interstate with the frontage road to get east and west or even something that came up in one of our meetings, at least in my discussions with Mr. James, Mr. McGillem and Mr. Belcher, and that was wouldn't it be great instead of having a Moon Road overpass if we could go right through those rest areas and line up directly with this piece of SR267. That would really be a terrific connection. If you remember, our object with the Moon Road overpass was to serve the residential areas over here and give them another way getting to I-70 without having to drive through the same path that everybody else drives through. So, to give them a southern entrance. Well Mr. McGillem has suggested that maybe we should show a dash line here just in case INDOT may give up those rest areas. We had a coordination meeting with INDOT in November and we just mentioned that. We said it would be great if we could go where these rest areas are and one of their representatives from INDOT said yes if it was up to me, I would sure like to see those rest areas go. There is a view by some in INDOT that these rest areas are too close to the Indianapolis and Metropolitan area so there isn't really a need for rest areas this close to I-465 where all of the services already exist and services already exist in this area. So, I would have no idea whether those rest areas will ever be abandoned but if there was any advantage to showing a dash line as an alternate to the Moon Road interchange, that would be a good idea. So, I think based on the fact that it was only a week ago that if you do pass this on to Council for their consideration, maybe you will want to include that as a condition that we show that and indicate that alternate.
Mr. Kirchoff said wholeheartedly.
Mr. Myers said I don't know if it will work but it would be a good idea, if it could.
Mr. McGillem said (inaudible) Heritage is to have a giant impact study that is associated with their residential development on the south side of I-70 in connection with going in the entire north Moon Road north of I-70 and coming up with identification of what an interchange might be needed and where it possibly could be located. This would definitely be an alternative that we could look at and show that type of impact study and it might be a way to trigger it with INDOT as an initial effort to start thinking about this and having the justification. We are going to have to have justification to get this implemented so it is kind of where we are going with it and to do so our thoughts would be that it would good to at least have on our Thoroughfare Plan this alternative identified.
Mr. Myers said we would be happy to add that. I would like to add one more thing and I think we have talked about this too Don and that is the nature of a dash line. You probably all know this but a dash line on a Thoroughfare Plan indicates the beginning and ending point. It is not meant to show necessarily a specific alignment. So, when this area is developed, this is a dash line from this point that it gets on the west side of the quarries all the way over to this existing road that would tie to Moon. Like I said the idea is to have at least one good east/west road in that part of this study area because there really isn't another one. But if there is another idea that came out of that traffic study that creates that east/west connection, that would meet the objective of this plan. I just kind of wanted to point that out particularly where dash lines go through areas where there isn't any kind of development plan.
I suggest that we go up three slides to where it shows the functional class system, actually the full Thoroughfare Plan. Again, this is what you have in front of you. It is a little hard to see. The study area though is right here. Cambria Road has a more important roll given the size of the bat habitat in this area. State Road 267 is still the primary north/south arterial. If you look at the blue lines, those are the secondary arterials. We have done the best we can to create as much of a grid in here as we could and to maximize the opportunities for development over time north of the bat habitat. The study that was done by INDOT was done in 1988 instead of 1991. That is a correction of what was in the report. I also ran across a letter from Dan Orcutt from 1996 that said that they would be willing to donate land to that SR267 route if it didn't interfere with the bat habitat. That might have worked in 1996 but it sure doesn't work now.
The last thing I'm sure that Mr. James showed you what Mooresville and Morgan has advocating for SR267. It seems like it makes sense for them and it could make sense for Plainfield in conjunction with this plan and I will be happy to answer any questions. It has been an enjoyable plan. If it was easy, it wouldn't quite have the same flavor to it. This one has been a real challenge and you have good guys to work with.
Mr. Brandgard said from my point of view I think we need to incorporate what we just discussed into this and then set a public hearing.
Mr. Carlucci said this is the public hearing.
Mr. Brandgard made a motion to forward the Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Transportation Plan Update with the modification to incorporate the changes to the Plainfield Thoroughfare plan as discussed this evening to the Town Council with a favorable recommendation. Second by Mr. Kirchoff. Motion carried.
OLD BUSINESS/NEW BUSINESS
Zoning Compliance
Ms. Kimberly McDonald said I'm here to represent Vanetti (sp) McDonald. She is the owner of 435 Harlan Street. I reside there and take care of the house for her. We have received this paper about inoperable vehicles and trash. We had two vehicles and one we got rid of and the other one we are getting ready to give back to the guy we were buying it from because he decided to up the price at the last minute. So, that should be gone this week and I cleaned up most of the trash. I try to take a few minutes out of each day because I work and I have three kids and I go out there and work on the yard but the only thing that I could think of that they are considering trash is my yard furniture that I have up against the side of the house. It is not really pretty but it is yard furniture and I haven't gotten that out of the snow yet. I'm not sure what they consider inoperable; if it is in one place for a period of time.
Mr. James said (inaudible).
Ms. McDonald said like I said the van is gone because we didn't get the title on it yet and we were in the process of paying for it but since the guy increased the price it is going to be gone this week because we told him to come and get it. I have most of the trash picked up. A lot of it like I said my swing, some of the kid's yard toys and a couple of lawnmowers.
Ms. Whicker asked, are the swings made of vines?
Ms. McDonald asked, what do you mean a vine?
Ms. Whicker said sometimes instead of metal they are like wood.
Ms. McDonald said it is going to be a project for me because I want to take material and fix it up and make it pretty for the spring but I'm just going to scrap it to get it out of there. And on the other side of the yard we do have some trash because we have been having an issue with neighbors and sometimes I will find trash over there and I know it's not ours and they put their trash containers out front there but I pick it up anyway but with the weather I only go out five or ten minutes at a time because I get so cold and I work.
Ms. Whicker said thank you for being patient this evening because I know it has been very late.
Ms. McDonald said also if need be, I would like to maybe meet with inspectors at the house and maybe see what their views are because the letters didn't go into detail what all they are thinking is trash and everything else.
Ms. Whicker asked, do you have a phone number in case that would be something that they would do?
Ms. McDonald said I don't have a phone at the moment but I have a phone number on the paper.
Mr. Brandgard said I think you could call her and set up a time.
Ms. McDonald said like I said I have three kids and I work and I rarely get time to myself let alone go outside and work on anything. We do have some roof shingles on the side of the house. We had the roof done and the people didn't finish the job so we are trying to work on that but I can only put so many in the bag at a time for the trash man.
Mr. Matrana said the roofer left the shingles at your house?
Ms. McDonald said yes. We had a dumpster and everything else and we had paid them and I guess they assumed we would take care of the rest of it and clean up the rest of the shingles but that is my problem though.
Ms. Whicker said thank you for coming this evening.
Mr. McPhail said given the weather conditions and all of those things and you came before us tonight we could give them 30 days and then sometime around the first of March we can have it checked again and see if it has made suitable progress.
Mr. Kirchoff said 30 days may not be enough.
Mr. McPhail said I don't want anybody out there in sub zero weather like this trying to do it.
Ms. Whicker said next is Mr. Fitzgerald.
Mr. James said he was here. Instead he is going to file a variance.
Mr. Belcher said (inaudible).
Mr. Brandgard said before we leave the zoning compliance piece of it have you had any response from that massage/spa, whatever it is?
Mr. James said he took down the horrible sign. He put up a sign in the window but I will check on that.
Ms. Whicker asked, where is it located?
Mr. Brandgard said next to the diner.
Dismissal of RZ-06-002 for lack of prosecution
Ms. Whicker said if you could just remind me of what rezoning that is.
Mr. James said we just need to dismiss it for lack of prosecution. The timing has expired and they haven't taken any action.
Mr. McPhail asked, what was it?
Mr. James said it was Gary Allen, Whitmore Place rezone.
Mr. McPhail said he was going to take that northern section and rezone it.
Mr. James said yes, 25 acres.
Ms. Whicker asked, is there any activity over there?
Mr. Belcher said (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail made a motion to dismiss RZ-06-002. Second by Mr. Brandgard. Motion carried.
Prologis – 2363 Hadley Rd. – truck dock awnings in front of building
Mr. James said (inaudible).
Ms. Whicker asked, how do you consider that an awning and not a sign?
Mr. James said (inaudible).
Mr. Carlucci asked, is this the building next to Primo's?
Mr. James said yes east of Primo's.
Mr. McPhail said what they are saying is they want to put a small awning out there so that they can load and unload with some shelving.
Mr. Brandgard said that has more of a tailored look to it than the other.
Ms. Whicker asked, do we know the material of the awning? Is that metal or fabric?
Mr. Kirchoff asked, (inaudible).
Mr. James said we are going to take it to DRC next week. I wanted to get your opinion.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Sign Ordinance Amendment
Mr. James said we are still waiting on language for the legal non-conforming amendment for the expiration of six months. I measured the sidewalks and what we had proposed for the “A frames I think would be appropriate to leave the five feet of walking area. There are 10 feet and 10 inches on the north side and the south side is about 12 feet. So, we have room to have a walk around. The other issue was the sign hierarchy if we wanted to eliminate that for freestanding signs or if you wanted to keep it in there.
Mr. Carlucci asked, instead of pylon signs do you just want to call them ground signs everywhere?
Mr. James said yes.
Mr. Carlucci said that would solve the hierarchy problem.
Mr. James said and leave it for wall signs because I think it would be more appropriate for your older integrated centers to have the older sign types where they would be more similar looking. So, we hope to bring that back next month for a public hearing.
On the zoning compliance issue with Mr. Davenport, I don't know if you remember him or not, but he has trash and vehicles and we sent him a citation on January 22nd of $250.00 and he hasn't taken any action or made any effort to clean it up. We are getting ready to send him another citation and we will double it. We can either do that or file a lawsuit.
Mr. Carlucci said the cars are an ordinance violation. It isn't necessarily a zoning violation so at least on the cars you can ask Mr. Daniel to go to the Town Court and get the judge's permission to go on his property and get the cars out of there. That is one issue. There is also trash, which is also an ordinance violation, which we have used before. Maybe what we need to do is sit down with Mr. Daniel and go to the Town Court and get this done because you gave him extra time, correct?
Mr. James said yes. He said he had a dumpster coming in that weekend and I gave him 30 more days.
Mr. Carlucci said maybe we ought to go into the ordinance part of it and see if we can get it taken care of. I think there is a lot on his mind and he is hard to find on top of it. If we have to do something with the zoning, it has to go to the Circuit and Superior Court over there and I think we can avoid that.
