The Plainfield Plan Commission met on Monday, December 6, 2004. In attendance were Mr. Thibo, Mr. Matrana, Mr. McPhail, Mr. Brandgard, Ms. Whicker, Mr. Kirchoff and Mr. Haase.
ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM
Mr. Carlucci administered the roll call.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
OATH OF TESTIMONY
Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Testimony.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mr. Haase reviewed the Guidelines Governing the Conduct of Public
Hearings. It looks like we have four public hearings scheduled for
tonight and none on the expedited petitions’ list. Would there be
anyone requesting a continuance at this time? Being no one coming
forward we will begin tonight’s public hearings with RZ-04-010, the
Airtech Park 7PA.
Mr. Higbee said this is a rezoning petition for a few parcels near the new Ronald Reagan Parkway that is being constructed. It is out
on the site that you have seen before, the Airtech Park 7PA site, which came through for Development Plan Approval for a large warehouse building. There is also a building right next to it, to the west of Airtech Park 5PA that was approved and already constructed. So, this would be very similar to the 5PA building. However, after we went through the development plan process for the warehouse we discovered that these parcels intercept the subject parcel where the warehouse was supposed to be constructed. It is just, what I would call, remainder parcels. They used to be residences. Right-of-way was acquired for the Ronald Reagan Parkway project and then you were left over with several remainders on the other side of this right-of-way. I have noticed recently, probably a month or two ago, it may be done by now, but as of that time, the homes were still being torn down. They may all be done by now I’m not sure. At the time this came through we thought that the remainder parcels were probably going to be so small that it wouldn’t necessitate a rezoning through a public hearing process. When the owner supplied me with legal descriptions for the property, we found out that they were a little bit bigger than we thought. Some of them were 10,000-15,000 square feet in size and there were three or four of them that big and it all added up to 2.105 acres. I determined that we probably should make this right by putting it through the rezoning so that is why it is before you tonight. That is all that I have unless you have questions.
Mr. Tom Theobold with Browning Investments at 6100 W. 96th St.,
Indianapolis said as Mr. Higbee said, this is sort of a clean-up matter that we would like to get taken care of in connection with the right-of-way for the Ronald Reagan Parkway. The exhibits that you have I think are pretty self-explanatory so I will just open this up if you have any questions for me at this time.
Mr. Haase asked, is there anyone in the audience who has any questions about this rezoning request? Being no one coming forward we
will close the public portion of this public hearing the Chair would
accept a motion to act on this rezoning request.
Mr. McPhail made a motion to certify the zone map amendment request of RZ-04-010 rezoning several parcels totaling approximately 2.105 acres from R-2 to I-2 with a favorable recommendation. Second by Mr. Matrana. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Haase said please be advised that we do not do rezonings here. Rezonings are done at the Town Council level and this will be at the next Town Council meeting presumably.
The second public hearing for tonight is PP-04-011, the Cimmaron
Subdivision.
Mr. Higbee said this is a Primary Plat for 15 acres. You will recall not long ago the rezoning came through the Plan Commission and then was later approved by the Town Council. This was called the Duncan
parcel for a long time and now it is being called Cimmaron that is for the portion that is residential lots, which is the larger piece. It would be a little over 11 acres and it is broken up into 28 lots. That was zoned R-3 by the Plan Commission and Town Council. This is a
complying plat. As you know, the Subdivision Control Ordinance would
indicate that if you have a complying plat, it should be approved.
There were two conditions that were noted by the Town Engineer that I put in the Staff Report regarding the need to get an offsite sewer easement before the Secondary Plat is recorded. And also the need to obtain a waiver of the drainage ordinance by the Town Council. It is not a matter for the Plan Commission but it is something that would have to occur because they didn’t provide any on site detention in the development. I think the petitioners are aware of those two conditions and those two conditions are the only reason that I did not put this on the expedited agenda tonight.
Mr. Haase said so those two conditions have not yet happened.
Mr. Higbee said no that would be in the future.
Mr. Bill Ottinger with Benchmark Consulting at 20 E. Airport Road, Brownsburg said I really don’t have much to add. We fully understand where we are in this process. What we are looking at, as far as the drainage issues, they are due to the fact of the location of this particular project and the vicinity of Clarks Creek. And looking at the overall drainage basin of the Clarks Creek watershed we feel that we can use the theory that we refer to as “beat the peak” process.
The fact of the size of this subdivision will not create an adverse
condition of the peak flow coming from the subdivision in relation to
the peak flow of the overall watershed. I have had this discussion
with your Town Engineer and I’m certain I can satisfy his concerns when we come back with our final construction plans.
In regards to the easements we are very much aware that we need an offsite drainage easement. We have had some discussions with the
property owners in the vicinity and we feel that we have that in
control as well.
Mr. Haase asked, is there anyone in the audience who has any
questions about this request for a Primary Plat? Being no one coming
forward we will close the public portion of this hearing and the Chair would accept a motion to act on this public hearing.
Mr. McPhail made a motion that the Plan Commission approve PP-04-
011 requesting Primary Plat approval of a subdivision to be known as
Cimmaron consisting of approximately 15 acres upon finding that:
Adequate provisions have been made for regulation of minimum lot width, minimum lot depth and minimum lot area.
Adequate provisions have been made for the widths, grades, curves and coordination of subdivision public ways with current and planned public ways.
Adequate provisions have been made for the extension of water, sewer and other municipal services.
And that such approval shall be subject to the following conditions:
Compliance with the Town Standards, including but not limited to: Plainfield Ordinance No. 1-96 regarding Floodplain Management; Plainfield Ordinance Nos. 4-94 and 3-86 regarding Sewage Works; Plainfield Ordinance No. 17-97 regarding Drainage;
Plainfield Ordinance No. 19-97 regarding Municipal Waterworks; and Plainfield Ordinance No. 18-97 regarding Access Permits.
Compliance with the standards and specifications of the
Plainfield Subdivision Control Ordinance.
The indicated offsite sewer easement should be recorded prior to the Secondary Plat for any of the land within the Primary Plat.
This Primary Plat approval would be subject to Town Council
approval of a waiver of the Town Drainage Ordinance regarding the provisions for detention.
Second by Mr. Matrana. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Haase said the third public hearing for tonight would be DP-04 -025, the Residence at Towne Center.
Mr. Higbee said this is a Secondary Detailed Plan Approval. It is the second step in the three-step process for approving a PUD. The rezoning was done back in 2002 and had a number of commitments
associated with it. It is not only for this site but for essentially a little over 200 acres that included the J.C. Penney’s, the Rave Theater and another project that is going to be up right after this tonight and then some future phases.
I have a map up here. This is J.C. Penney’s right here, this white thing and then the PUD, as a whole, encompasses this whole general area that I’m moving around in here. But the apartments right here, 22.7 acres is essentially directly south of Gladden Farms Apartments. We are part of the PUD land use map, which did specify a multi-family land use for this parcel.
In the Staff Report I point out several things, the first of which, is there was a public infrastructure agreement that the Town Council reached with Premier Properties that affects the entire PUD. That was long awaited and caused a number of continuances for this project and another project. It does have, even though the agreement is completed, several contingences that would determine when this project could commence. I’m not going to try to speak to those because I was not privy to how the agreement was constructed. If Mr. Daniel or Mr. Carlucci want to speak on that during the hearing, they can.
Also I want to point out to you that you received a one-page addendum to the preliminary plan and development standards. It was dated 12/3/04. It is in memo form, which went through and made a few revisions to correct the blue notebook that you have. These are
essentially details. One of them had to do with the amount of brick on the building. One of them had to do with the fence that a sign is
mounted on. Then there were some clarifications on some errors and
omissions that were in there. This modifies your blue notebook. I
don’t think anything in there is substantial but I wanted you to be
aware of it.
The petitioner is saying that this project would utilize a
traditional neighborhood design. I gave you a handout to try to give
you some idea of what that means. I don’t want to speak to that
tonight. I will let the petitioner speak to it, however, it could
become important because I think some of his comments may hinge on the idea that their design is different enough from what our residential design guidelines would anticipate. That maybe those guidelines shouldn’t apply to this project in every circumstance.
I say that to point out my next set of comments, which has to do with the residential design guidelines. I gave you an amenities listing in your packet. There are 18 or 19 different types of project amenities that were listed. I took those out of our Zoning Ordinance, which was recently amended to reflect the residential design guidelines that were passed last year for multi-family and single-family residential development. Basically, what that says is as you develop an apartment project, there are certain minimums that all apartment projects have to have in terms of amenities and design features. Then as you increase density, as you decrease some of the development standards, like in this case he has overlapping perimeter and interior yards, that is a decrease in development standards, and you increase
building height, and he does have some building heights in here that go beyond typical multi-family standards in our Zoning Ordinance, as you do any of those things, you should add more and more amenities to the project. That goes along with what we used to call development
incentives, if you remember. That was in our Zoning Ordinance and then we amended our ordinance earlier this year to sort of change the
language from development incentive language to residential design
guidelines language but the concept is the same. As you decrease
minimum development standards or increase the maximums like the
building height or you add density, and this one is up to 15 units per acre, you should add more and more of those amenities. Based on that the list of amenities that I gave you I determined that everyone of them needed to be met for this project based on his density and based on the development standards that he is wavering from and they are not all met. So, I wanted to point that out.
I mentioned in the Staff Report that maybe a third of those are met and then some of them are partially met but there is no question that not all of them are met. So, I had a discussion with the petitioner about that and he knows that he needs to explain to you what is different about his project that would obviate the need to meet all
of those development standards or all of those amenities. Examples of
what those are for the benefit of the public I will read off a few.
Multi-family projects regardless of the density should meet the
following requirements according to our ordinance.
They should meet the architectural design principals of their residential design guidelines. Those have to do with providing variety on facades and providing the right kind of building materials mix and providing roofline changes and providing porches and different types of features. There are a variety of ways that you can get there utilizing the residential design guidelines. The key concept is you provide quality and variety in that architecture.
Regardless of density all developments are required to have
mechanical equipment completely screened.
All developments are required to have a clubhouse, some kind of common recreation facility.
All developments are required to have some kind of centralized trash collection.
All developments should have foundation landscaping on all
building facades.
All developments should have walkways or pedestrian walkways system connections.
You move on from there as the density goes up or as you start to vary those development standards a little bit what other kinds of features could be added to make it a more attractive development to sort of set off that increased density or to offset those changes in the development standards. Some examples would be:
Increasing perimeter landscaping or interior landscaping substantially up to perhaps double what it would normally be.
Doubling foundation landscaping.
Increasing the amount of open area. All developments should have a minimum amount of open space but if you are going to start adding density or varying from development standards, then our ordinance says that you should have more open space.
Providing a fenced pet run.
Providing onsite covered parking.
Providing onsite self-storage units.
Providing a car wash facility.
Providing fireplaces and private patios and private balconies, which I believe this does do.
Increasing the minimum floor areas of a dwelling unit to 1,100 square feet or more, etc. and there are a few others.
Lastly I would point out that this is a PUD, which means that it is held to a slightly different standard than maybe other developments.
If you go to Article 6.1 of our Zoning Ordinance, it says that it
requires superior design innovation in the project. So, all of those
things that I just read to you would be required even if it was zoned
PUD but now you have a PUD, which would tend to push it a little more
to a higher quality level.
This is the Metropolis PUD. It was originally called by a couple of different names back in 2002 but that PUD did have a zoning commitment that said that all development will exceed Gateway Corridor standards. So, there has always been an expectation from day one that whether it is the commercial/retail piece or this multi-family piece or anything else that it would meet a very high standard.
I gave you some information in the Staff Report about building
materials. They are utilizing brick and hardi-plank. Now we have not
seen a multi-family project come in with hardi-plank. I understand
that it is a good material from a lot of different people who have
spoken to me, however, again going back to the Zoning Ordinance and the residential design guidelines hardi-plank is not one of the materials that is listed as a primary material. So, they are offering this as an alternative. Their job would be to show us that mix of brick and hardiplank is at least equal to or better than what our residential design guidelines would request. What our guidelines say is that there is a minimum percentage of brick or stone or some of the other materials that it does encourage on the entire facade and then especially on the first floor. As you go to a multi-story building, the first floor should be completely brick or stone or some of the other materials that are identified in our ordinance. And then as you go up, you can have less but you still need to have some on the overall facade.
Another thing that was noted was the foundation landscaping. I think you have an exhibit, a little spreadsheet somewhere in your packet, that tries to summarize foundation landscaping there is on each
building. If you remember in the plan, there were four different types of apartments here. They have what they call the lofts, the flats, the carriage homes and the towne homes. They each have a little different design and layout but what our Zoning Ordinance would say is it doesn’t matter what type of apartment building or multi-family building unit it has to have foundation plantings on all four sides. Sometimes when you have a product like this, that has garages in the rear, that gets a little difficult. You have to design around where the ingress/egress is for the building to be able to find a place to put foundation plantings. Certainly I would understand the need for some deviation on those sides of the buildings. But I would say, and I think DRC said if you go back to the Staff Report, that particularly on any side of the rear facade that faces a perimeter of the development that those foundations should either have landscaping or there should be some kind of alternative treatment on the perimeter to provide for some kind of
screening. I think the petitioner has some thoughts on that. I just
want them to explain what they plan to do in those areas. I think
there are a couple of areas where maybe they are not covered with the
foundation landscaping.
Lastly, maybe this is rather a minor point, but they have a nice
pedestrian connectivity plan in your package and they revised that
substantially to provide for lots of interior sidewalk connections out to the new public streets that will be constructed, etc. But one that never got added was the connection to Gladden Road as far as I know so I wanted to point that out. If they added that connection, one of these amenities that wasn’t checked of could be checked off. There may be other instances in here where they are very close to providing one or more of these amenities if they just make a couple of changes and they could be given credit for that. I think that pretty much covers the Secondary Detailed Plan. There are a couple of other details in my Staff Report but I won’t call those out unless you want me to.
Mr. Jim Crossin with Flaherty and Collins Properties at 8900 Keystone Crossing, Indianapolis said also with me is Tim Hill who is the director of architectural and engineering services for the firm and
Gary Collins who is the president of the company. We are Indianapolis
based. We operate about 12,000 units throughout the Midwest. We are
actively developing somewhere close to 1,000 units a year.
The Residence at Towne Center is really a signature project for
Flaherty and Collins. We have been involved with the project for four
years as Metropolis has come into play. We think that this development is really the perfect fit to use traditional neighborhood design in really a Class “A” residential project adjacent to a Class “A” residential property with all of the infrastructure and traffic
improvements at the Six Points interchange. We think it all fits well
together with everything that is happening.
Here is the overall site plan. Just to get you oriented J.C. Penney’s is down here, SR267 would be out here so we will be here immediately south of the Gladden Farm Apartments. Here is our site plan. As Mr. Higbee mentioned, we have four different types of buildings, which is really unique. In fact, most of the properties that we have done we have had one building type. This employs four different distinct types of buildings and they are all organized in a traditional neighborhood design. The three-story loft buildings are in the center and then they are surrounded by two-story buildings.
It is a very walkable site, the buildings, like a traditional
neighborhood are pulled up close to the street. We have 151 garages,
which I can’t think of another project in the entire Indianapolis area that would have that ratio, 151 garage spaces for a 314-unit project. Those are all interior garages. There are no detached garages. It really encourages pedestrian activity. It is dense. I guess that we would argue that the density is what is ideal next to the mall. The residents will be active users of the mall. All the garages have a rear access. None of them face the streets. In fact, they don’t face any of the interior streets nor do they face the public streets that are around the perimeter.
As you come in here on this side, this is the main entrance to the project and we have created a town center in this area. These are all three-story buildings and the first floor of the buildings in this
area will all be made to look like they are retail storefronts. The
first floor of this building is actually where most of the amenities
are. That will be our leasing center, theater room, community room,
coffee bar, business center will all be located here on the first
floor. The first floor of the other remaining three buildings will
also have a retail look but they will be actually residential units and that gives it the look of a neighborhood. Farther back on this site we have a pool house and a pool. We will have a fitness center in the pool house and the total amenity package for the residents will really be superior to any other multi-family project on the west side equaled to anything else in the entire greater Indianapolis market.
Just a little background on our architect firm by the name of the
Fugelberg Koch, they are located in Orlando. They design properties
all over the country and, in fact, did the celebration for the Disney
Company, which was the first big planned community to employ a
traditional neighborhood design.
A couple of more things why we think this fits well in this specific site is it creates an urban feel yet is workable overall in a suburban location but being adjacent to the mall it will attract people who want to be in a suburban area but take advantage of being able to walk to the mall and other uses that will come into the area.
Our landscaping is heavy around the perimeter. The total of our
landscaping is more than double of the residential design guidelines.
In fact, it is doubled on every side except to the west. So, we have
still exceeded the residential design guidelines but that is the only
side where we are not more than double.
These are the lofts, the three-story buildings. As Mr. Higbee mentioned, we are asking for approval based on our mix of brick and
hardi-plank. We have done a number of architectural features that we
think really make this different and justify the mix of materials.
Among the architectural features that are employed throughout the
elevations on the four different types are round gable windows,
shutters, breezes, transit windows, etc. All the garage doors will be
raised panel. We are using dormers, keystone inserts, eyebrows in a
number of places, pediments and we are using, as you can see, three
different colors of brick and three complimenting colors of hardiplank, which are shown here on this board. It’s 100% dimensional
shingle that we are using. I also brought samples of some hardi-plank
to give you an idea of the quality of the material. The three brick
colors and siding colors that we use throughout the project, as you
see, is consistent with the traditional neighborhood architecture. They all compliment each other so it creates an overall look that goes together. But it also breaks it up so that you don’t have one
continuous color. I think in regards to the hardi-plank the other
thing that we ask you to consider is other than the three-story
building all the buildings are relatively small in size. So, we don’t
have any elevations where you have a huge unbroken area of hardi-plank. Hardi-plank still looks good in our opinion even in a large area. But in these elevations with the number of windows and all of the other features it really gets broken up so that you don’t ever have some big large area of just siding. Those elevations are in your package. These are the towne homes. As Mr. Higbee mentioned, hardi-plank is not in the residential design guidelines’ list. We are suggesting that this is a suitable substitute in this application. Hardi-plank is the industries’ standard for Class “A” residential and particularly of this architectural style. The architecture is traditional architectural typically features a lot of siding and we suggest that this mix of the brick and the siding is consistent with what you see in any architectural application. In fact, we asked Fugelberg Koch to design this product and they are really a far more southwest base than in the Midwest. So, we asked them to revise it to a more traditional look in the Midwest. We didn’t dictate to them one bit to come with brick or siding. These were the elevations in their opinion that was an appropriate mix. Some elevations are 70% brick and 30% siding and some are the reverse and as they went through and designed it, that was their assessment of how to mix those materials.
Mr. Haase said on the picture there point out where the brick is as opposed to the hardi-plank.
Mr. Crossin said here this would be brick, hardi-plank. That is all brick, brick and hardi-plank.
Mr. Haase said so basically the reds and oranges that are your brick colors and browns and your hardi-plank would be your tans and beiges.
Mr. Crossin said correct. In this elevation this is all brick and this would be hardi-plank.
Lastly let me address the amenities. As Mr. Higbee mentioned, there are 18 possible amenities from the residential design guidelines.
We spent a lot of time looking at those amenities in going through and making an effort to meet as many as we could. So, it certainly was not the case that we overlooked them and not aware of them. Let me go through some of those. A number of them have three or four items where we meet three out of the four. You either meet it or you don’t but it isn’t that we completely ignored that list.
We are supposed to meet all of the architectural design principals of the RDG. Where we don’t meet that is in the mix of exterior materials. I believe we meet all of the other items. On the perimeter yard landscaping our total perimeter yard values is more than double but we are not doubling on every side because on our west boundary we are up against a utility easement where we exceed the residential design guidelines but we don’t double that one. But if you add them all up together, which isn’t how it is written, we do more than double the total.
As Mr. Higbee mentioned, we didn’t get credit for the pedestrian plan, which we think is really a fantastic plan. We have oriented it so that the pedestrian access comes out onto the Metropolis Parkway or out onto the Metropolis Lane. Our property is not oriented to the north, it is oriented to the south and east. So, there are three possible sides and we connect to two out of three.
On the fenced pet run we are just choosing not to do that. We don’t think that it is a type of amenity that fits here.
We are not doing onsite self-storage units because we don’t think
that is a type of amenity that is really going to fit into this type of property and the same with the car wash. We do all of those things on other properties but this one we don’t think those are a good fit.
All mechanical equipment completely screened is another possibility. What our ordinance says is we meet the residential design guidelines for all equipment facing the outside of the site. For the mechanical equipment that is interior to the site the landscaping material at full growth will completely screen it.
Mr. Haase said say that one more time. On the exterior it is all
screened.
Mr. Crossin said it is all screened per the residential design
guidelines. At full material it will be all completely screened. I
think what we will use is probably grasses. It could be one or two
growing seasons that it would be completely screened. Our landscaping
for this site is about a half million dollars so we reached a couple of points where we were trying to keep it to a reasonable level.
The last two I will mention. With accessible units and parking spaces we meet the ADA standards. It has been our experience that this type of property doesn’t typically attract handicap residents. Every floor unit will be completely handicap assessable but we are not exceeding it by 50% but we think it would be a complete overkill if we exceeded it by 50%.
The last one is the fire protection system, which sprinkles all of the buildings and has access to all buildings over an improved street. We are sprinkling our three-story building. It is not typical
to sprinkle two-story buildings. All have direct access. We don’t
have common hallways that will create any exiting problems for any
resident. All will have their own direct access out.
I know the amenities are a big deal and I wanted to show you that we have gone through them and there are four that we don’t meet but the others I think we have met over half that was desired.
Mr. McPhail said you don’t have any onsite self-storage units but do the units themselves have storage space in them for things, other
than a closet? Are there big storage areas? Laundry facilities?
Mr. Crossin said each unit will have a washer and dryer hookup. We have committed to that. They have typical size closets but no they
won’t have significant large storage areas in addition to that. We find that there are so many self-storage facilities out there that are nearby that the residents use those. I think architecturally it would be tough to fit them in the buildings as well. None of the two-story buildings have any common area. There are no common hallways. They all have direct access. The residents will have a front door that they will enter into so that type of architecture makes it a little tougher to find a place to put those spaces in. The other place that you do them often is in detached garages people rent them and turn them into storage and we don’t have any of those.
Mr. McPhail asked, what if the resident has a bicycle? What do they do with it?
Mr. Crossin said if they have a garage, they would put it in the
garage.
Mr. Haase asked, Mr. Hill did you take the oath?
Mr. Hill said I don’t believe so.
Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Testimony.
Mr. Tim Hill said I wanted to correct Mr. Crossin on one thing
regarding the storage. I would say over half of the units have an
outdoor storage facility on their porch. It won’t be big enough to fit a bike but half of the units will have an outdoor storage area and almost 100% of the units will have outdoor patios or balconies as well. Also, on the three-story building there is a common hallway. In this hallway you can see entrances here and here. Actually this is a “U” shaped hallway. There is a hallway behind these garage doors that runs like a “U”. At the back of those garages there are actually rooms, I would say that they are small storage rooms, but there are four per each of these buildings. But the rest of the building types do not have extra storage but those do have some extra storage. What they do have in the carriage homes and in the towne homes there are full garages. The towne homes have full two-car garages, 20 to 22 foot wide and then each of the carriage homes have at least a one-car garage. But there are some garages that go up to 25 foot deep. So, there is extra storage at the back of the garages as well if they want to store stuff there.
Mr. Thibo asked, will every building have elevators?
Mr. Hill said there are no elevators.
Mr. Thibo asked, what about the handicap people?
Mr. Hill said they are the first floor units that are available for handicap. They will meet ADA’s requirements.
Ms. Whicker asked, what percentage of that is your properties that are on the first floor? You had mentioned that it would not supersede 50% so I didn’t know if you had an off hand number of what the percentages are on the first floor.
Mr. Crossin said these are the only three-story buildings so a third of those 80 units. It would be almost half of the units because the majority are two-story buildings.
Mr. Hill said I would say roughly 33 in the three-story and there are 64 carriage homes so roughly 105.
Ms. Whicker asked, so it is about 30%?
Mr. Hill said yes.
Mr. Haase said so that just means that you will have those available for ADA. You are not necessarily building those to begin with ADA.
Mr. Hill said they are classified as adaptable. We will put in all of the bracing, etc. so if someone were to come and they are handicapped and they want us to adapt that unit, we would be able to add the grab bars or swing doors out so that the wheelchairs can get into bathrooms, etc. on all of the first floor units except for the towne units.
Ms. Whicker asked, could you go over the parking verses the covered parking? You had mentioned that on the 314 units that 150 do have covered parking.
Mr. Crossin said it really varies. The towne homes each unit will have a two-car garage. The towne flats, and those are eight units
per building and there are 10 of those buildings, for every eight-unit building there are two garages and they are flexible. So, out of those eight units the garage is not connected to with any unit. There is an extra charge for the garage so 25% of those would have a garage. In the three-story building there are no garages in these three buildings up front. There are five garages each on these three buildings. Those had the lowest percentage. You would have 15 total garages in these three buildings and then the carriage homes are also two-story, eightunit building, and every unit comes with a garage. So, that totals up to 151 garage spaces, which the residential design guidelines is 40% and we reached 48% by that calculation.
Mr. Carlucci said this is roughly 15 units per acre. Mr. Higbee do you recall, I can’t, in terms of density, can you recall any project
that has that kind of density in Plainfield? Mr. Higbee said no. Plainfield actually tends to be lower than that because the Zoning Ordinance that you created in 1998 put a cap of 12 units per acre even with utilizing the maximum amount of development incentives. So, this goes above that. PUDs can do that. They can write their own ordinance but that goes back to some of the comments I made earlier, the higher the density goes, utilizing the rational of our ordinance at least, would tend to want to add more amenities to the project. But no I don’t think any of the recently approved multifamily goes that high in Plainfield.
Mr. Carlucci said recap that, either eight or 10 units per acre and then what was it?
Mr. Higbee said it was 12 in the old ordinance. You start with eight and if you go above eight, you start adding more amenities but you could never go above 12 like Crown Plaza went to 12, for instance.
Mr. Carlucci said you had to stop at 12 no matter what.
Mr. Higbee said right unless you do a PUD.
Mr. McPhail asked, is this 14?
Mr. Higbee said 15.
Mr. Carlucci said you talk about the buildings being up front closer to the street, it may not be a big deal but I remember going through, this is totally a different subdivision, but I recall that the Bentwood Subdivision on Raceway Road a lot of those buildings moved up front and it looks like it has a tunnel affect when you go through
there. I don’t think anybody anticipated that. I was wondering, I know it is kind of the new urbanism theory about moving closer to the front, but I always thought that applied to single-family units. But does this have a tunneling affect by moving them that far forward?
Mr. Crossin said no because the site is broken up enough that there is no significant distance where you just have buildings right up
on the street. You have the ends of these towne homes here. As you
come in this way, there is enough variation to the site that you won’t get that feeling. That is something that we want to avoid because that would not be particularly appealing to our residents. So, I do think you wouldn’t see that with this site plan.
Mr. Brandgard asked, who is your targeted audience for these?
Mr. Crossin said I think young professionals is likely to be our
largest segment. We will have the highest rents in Plainfield and
really for the most part the west side of the Greater of Indianapolis. So, I think it will largely be a professional group. It will be people who want the lifestyle of being close to the mall. We will have some families but even our school study showed that we will have relatively a low number. That brings up another point going back to the 18 amenities one of those that I skipped over is the minimum unit size of 1,100 square feet. We average 1,102 square feet. We do have units smaller than 1,100 but I really think that is what meets the target that wants to be here. There is a significant number one bedrooms and I argue that it is those people who you want living next to the retail. They are going to be going out at night. They have more disposable income to spend on entertainment and shopping and that is what will really energize the mall and I think that Premier would tell you that as they are leasing this mall, their marketing material shows that the potent ial of these residential units and high-density near the mall they all want rooftops so I think this will help everything that is going on at the Metropolis.
Mr. Haase said on the pedestrian plan you have external sidewalks on the south and east sides. When I say external, it’s on the outside
along the roadway.
Mr. Crossin said yes we do.
Mr. Haase asked, do you have any on the north side?
Mr. Hill said we don’t show any sidewalk running along Gladden Farm Road. What we are trying to do is target our pedestrian movement toward the mall. If you travel west, I’m not sure which Metropolis
road that is but the east/west road, there is a bikeway up there and I think the intent that was in the future was try to connect the bikeway system. So, we want to connect the south part of our site to the bikeway and the east part of site toward the mall. So, we wanted to try to get our pedestrian movement to those places so we moved away from that side. All the sidewalks connect all around the block I believe past Gladden Farm on the east side but we didn’t put the sidewalk on that side. I don’t believe we have sidewalks leading to that side of the property at all.
Mr. Higbee said let me interject a little bit because I live out
there and I know that there are existing sidewalks on Gladden Road. I
believe Gladden Road, as part of the mall project, will be extended
slowly in order to provide a connection to the Metropolis and sidewalks will be extended when the road is extended. On the exterior there will be a sidewalk. My comment earlier was there is not an internal connection coming out to Gladden Road to that sidewalk where there is on the other roadway.
Mr. Haase said so there will be sidewalks on Gladden Road.
Mr. Higbee said yes.
Mr. Thibo said we have a lot of rental properties in Plainfield right now. Do you feel the market is right for this many units?
Mr. Crossin said yes we do. We have done a market study and we think the demand is there for this project.
Mr. Haase asked, is there anyone in the audience who has any questions about this public hearing? Being no one coming forward, does any board member have any questions? What would be the overall
percentage of brick on the project?
Mr. Crossin said 46% is the overall total.
Mr. Haase asked, is the rest in hardi-plank?
Mr. Crossin said yes.
Ms. Whicker asked, is there a concern about the traffic flow?
Mr. Kirchoff asked, have you looked at it from the traffic flow?
Mr. McGillem said the traffic flow is subject to the implementation of the agreement that is set up with Premier.
Mr. Kirchoff said I think she is thinking internal.
Mr. McGillem said it is not a problem internally I don’t think with the three access points that they have on here. If you had one access point serving the whole thing, then I think you would be creating a problem but I think the way that it is spread out there are three access points, Gladden Road and Metropolis Lane and also the Metropolis Parkway. I don’t think there will be a problem.
Mr. Haase asked, is the south side entrance a right in/right out
only?
Mr. McGillem said not necessarily.
Mr. Haase said because what appeared in the plan it was.
Mr. Crossin said that is correct. We have it designed that south is designed as a right in/right out only.
Mr. McGillem said we are not limited to that.
Mr. Haase asked, would you have a problem if it was not right in/right out?
Mr. McGillem said not really.
Mr. Haase said there was a question about drainage. Is your drainage handled by a retention pond?
Mr. Crossin said correct. We have almost a two-acre retention pond here and then the outfall comes down here and gets to the creek.
Mr. Haase asked, Mr. Belcher have you reviewed their water runoff?
Mr. Belcher said they haven’t submitted the detailed plan design but in terms of preliminary it does appear to be going the direction that we would require. Without the road design being unfinished and we are going to have new storm sewers associated with those roads so they would have a couple of options that I could see. They have creative ways to get drainage out of there without causing any problems for anybody.
Mr. Haase said without having a watershed on anybody’s property.
Mr. Belcher said right. The east/west road will most likely have a storm sewer system with that and does not exist today. We could
probably correct some other problems that already exist.
Mr. Haase said before they get final approval to do all of this we would have to get that to your satisfaction.
Mr. Belcher said right. They couldn’t put any more water out than they are now from the current land that is there in an undeveloped
state.
Mr. McPhail said I have a comment at this point. This whole project is contingent upon the roadways and all of those other things being in place. This project won’t work unless all of those other things have happened. Although as far as I know today we have an agreement but that agreement has not been finalized and funded, etc. So, it would be difficult to move this project forward unless we know that we have all of this other stuff taken care of.
Mr. Kirchoff said let me ask it in a reverse way. If the public
improvements agreement never comes to fruition, what happens to this
project?
Mr. Crossin said it wouldn’t go forward.
Mr. Kirchoff said that is what you are asking.
Mr. McPhail said it can’t. This project can’t work unless those other things happen.
Mr. Brandgard said if we were to approve this tonight, it would have to be contingent upon approval of those agreements.
Mr. McPhail said it can’t move forward unless those other things have been taken care of.
Mr. Crossin said practically that is true and we would certainly agree and expect that to be a contingent of your approval that the
roads have to go in as currently proposed.
Mr. Kirchoff said I will look to Mr. Higbee to help me understand on page 4 of the Staff Report under DRC you have 13 items that they have recommended and in the motion you have recommended five of those. Can you help me understand?
Mr. Higbee said hopefully I put a note in there but what often happens in projects is at TAC and DRC there will be some conditions
that they are still revising and by the time that they get to the Plan Commission we get provided the information that has been asked for. That is why you see things out of there. They have already given me a revision that shows that the information has been given to me. So, I just pull those out of there and carry them forward when that happens.
Mr. McPhail said I would make one other comment. I believe that the hardi-plank product is equal to or superior than the other products that we have in our building standards. So, I don’t think that is an issue. I think they certainly meet the intent of the building standards in terms of product.
Mr. Haase said I would agree with that and I also think it is a little bit more homey in this complex. I think hardi-plank is a good
choice myself.
Mr. McPhail said I think it is a good product and it appears from the renderings that the architect has done a real good job of blending those two building materials.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, could I ask for clarification? I’m looking at page six under the items it seems to me that one, four and five would stay but perhaps two and three could be struck.
Mr. Haase said if we are going to make a motion, I’m not sure that we shouldn’t reflect this memo that was received, “the rear elevations of the towne flats are only 25% brick.” I realize that it is reflected in the drawings but number five, the wal-pac lights facing the site perimeter will be fully down-shielded. I think that should definitely be in there. So, maybe just reiterate all of these as further conditions. With that said is there anything the petitioner would like to close with?
Mr. Crossin said on the five conditions that were just referenced we are asking for approval of the elevations with the material mix as
proposed, if Mr. Higbee has written it as the DRC asked for but I
thought I would clarify that.
Mr. Haase said I think Mr. Kirchoff was saying we would be keeping one, four and five and we would be deleting two and three, which I think concurs with what you were saying.
Mr. Higbee said this was handed to me at the beginning of the meeting and it is a pool house elevation. If you want to look at it, you could strike the other condition. I will pass it around or you could just leave it. That is the first that I have seen of it. I know my preliminary opinion would be if DRC saw this, I don’t think they
would have any issues with it.
Mr. Haase asked, would you put the board up there that shows the
overall Metropolis development? Mr. Higbee in this Metropolis development, which was approved, are there any areas on that map that
are undeveloped that show residential multi-family going in?
Mr. Higbee asked, do you mean any additional areas as part of the
approved land use plan?
Mr. Haase said yes.
Mr. Higbee said kind of no and kind of yes. Let me explain that. I can hand out the land use plan but basically you might recall back to
2002 when the land use plan was created, that it specified different
land uses and ranges of acres. So, for the multi-family land use out
here at the juncture of these two new roadways south of Gladden Farms
Road it called for 20-50 acres. This is 22.7 acres but if you look at
the juncture of how the roadways are going to come together, I believe this fills the entire area that was designed. Premier may feel different about that. It was left kind of opened in terms of how many acres up to a maximum of 50 that could go multi-family.
Mr. Kirchoff said I would think east of the parkway would be another potential area.
Mr. Higbee said they had retail office farther to the east.
Mr. Haase said there may be some concern about the density of this or the density of the next project that comes in, if there is one. Does anybody else want to see this? This shows a projection of land usage when it was brought into the PUD. I would have to say just looking at this that it doesn’t look like it could be the only residential development. Is there anything else from the petitioner? Being none we will close the public portion of this hearing and the Chair would accept a motion to act on this.
Mr. Kirchoff said being fairly new could someone help me understand and expand upon the discussion about density. Is that something that is a critical issue that we should be concerned about verses what is being proposed? It is almost double of what your baseline is so if somebody could help me understand the context of that.
Mr. Higbee said I would say that although our Zoning Ordinance did cap density at 12 units per acre and no recent multi-family has gone over that in Plainfield since I have been here for almost six years it is not unusual in different communities to see multi-family development with this kind of density or even higher. So, if you are
comfortable with a few more units per acre, I think what most
communities have arrived at and sort of the direction that Plainfield
is going, which is more density, more quality. If you think the quality is there, then the density is okay. That is sort of part of what new urbanism and the traditional neighborhood design tries to fit into is that kind of thinking. As a planner too, I know Plainfield is saturated some way statically when you look at rental property, but this is the kind of location that planners would want to put multifamily. You have it next to a commercial development, you have it next to major corridors so if you are going to allow higher density, I’m not saying that you should, you should be thinking about what we have in Plainfield, as a whole, in our housing mix, but if you are going to allow it, this would be the kind of setting that you would allow. But you would ask for a quality increase. If you think that quality increase is there, then you may want to consider it.
Mr. Haase said in their comparable units they have four different
properties that they are doing. They have 9.1; a 12.41; 16.875 and a
12.38 that they are doing that is comparable and they are doing all of those developments themselves also.
Mr. Brandgard said one way to look at it, and this is why I was
wondering what the targeted audience was, if you were having a complex that would have a lot of children, I would say you wouldn’t want highdensity. But if you are going toward something that looks like it is going to be a place to sleep and you go on, this doesn’t appear to be all that bad. The mix of what you have from an architectural standpoint looks like a higher level than what you normally see. Again, where it is works. Again, you come back into new urbanism. You probably want higher density than this is showing if you really subscribe to the new urbanism. I think every project has to stand on its own and what the direction is and what it is going to do and who it is going to serve. I think that is the way we need to look at it.
Mr. Haase said I think the retail complex feeds off the apartment
complex, which feeds off the retail complex. So, I think it is a good
thing probably.
Mr. McPhail said over the last three or four years that we have
envisioned the development of this whole PUD I certainly anticipated
this type of density in the residential area. For the most part if you look at this plan, all of the parking is internal. It is not going to look like, when you drive by there, that you have automobiles all around the outside like a typical complex that we have. Most of the parking is internal to the project and you are going to see the buildings and not a lot of the parking area, etc. that we typically see in the complexes that we currently have. Again, I think the threestory building obviously makes a big difference in terms of the overall density when you do that. I certainly had anticipated something of this density that would be in tune with the mall, if it all blended together so it wasn’t a surprise to me.
Mr. Kirchoff said Mr. Daniel I’m not sure of the wording. We want to make this contingent upon the public information infrastructure. What is the wording that we want to say there?
Mr. Daniel said I think what you probably want to say is “compliance in coordination with the timing of the requirements of a certain public improvement agreement between the Town of Plainfield and PPUSA entered into in the fall of 2004.”
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion that the Plan Commission approve the request for the Final Detailed Plan Secondary Approval, DP-04-030 for
Phase 3 of the Plainfield Marketplace PUD (now called Metropolis)
finding that:
The Final Detailed Plan satisfies the Development Standards
specified for Phase 2 of the Plainfield Marketplace PUD as included in this submittal.
The Final Detailed Plan accomplishes the intent set forth in Article 6 of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
The Final Detailed Plan provides for the protection or provisions of site features and amenities outlined in Article 6.,C.,4.a. of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
And that such approval be subject to the following conditions:
Substantial compliance with the building elevations, building renderings, site plan, landscape plans, photometric plan and sign plan file dated 12/03/04 and the rest of the Secondary Detailed Plan as provided in the document entitled “The Residence of Towne Center,
Plainfield, Indiana, November 23, 2004.”
An HVAC screening plan shall be supplied to Staff for review.
The rear elevations of the towne flat is 29% brick.
Entrance signs will be mounted on a wall or fence three times the sign length.
Multi-family residential guidelines subsection “A”, item “C” the first sentence is amended to read “the residents of Towne Center features 121 interior “attached” garages containing 151 spaces.” Item “D” is deleted entirely. Item “F” is amended to replace 809 square feet with 795 square feet.
All traffic signs will be substantially similar to a submittal, however, signs approximate to public roads will meet governmental requirements.
Wal-pac lights on walls facing the site perimeter will be fully down-shielded.
The PUD Ordinance will include this language. Except as modified above in these standards the development for the residents of Towne Center shall substantially comply with following articles of Plainfield Zoning Ordinance in affect as of the date of this Secondary Detailed Plan application 2.7; 4.1; 4.2; 4.7; 4.8; 4.9; 4.10; 4.13; 4.14; 5.5; 6.1; 7.4; 7.8; 12 and 13.
Compliance in coordination with the timing of the requirements of a certain public improvement agreement between the Town of Plainfield and PPUSA entered into during the fall of 2004.
Second by Ms. Whicker. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Higbee said procedurally this is the same kind of an approval
that you just did. It is a Secondary Detailed Plan for the PUD and it
happens to be the same PUD, the Metropolis. This is Phase 3 that they
are calling. Phase 1 was J.C. Penney’s. Phase 2 was the Rave Theater
project and this phase here you can see a lot of the buildings that are part of it being proposed. That is over 441,000 square feet of retail and really is the heart of the project. It would result in the
interior streetscape getting built and the majority of the commercial
buildings. There are some additional anchors and what some of us call
“B” shops, the smaller shops that would be between those anchor
developments. There is a variety of architecture in there as expected. As you recall, when they first came in, they showed us some other live style centers two or three years ago. When they came in with their subsequent phases, they showed us the architecture here would be varied and would be unique and would be a high level of architecture that I think Staff and DRC would agree has been provided here. They provided a development standards’ document similar to what you saw in the last project. Obviously, the development standards here are modeled off General Commercial types of development standards where before it was off of multi-family development standards. So, Staff has reviewed that document and discussed those issues with the DRC process.
This development has the same contingency too with the public
infrastructure agreement. So, since you made that subject to that you
might want to repeat that same language.
There was some discussion about landscaping. One of the things that I pointed out in my Staff Report is that DRC made some comment about specific landscaping issues partly because the landscape consultant was missing from the DRC meeting. They wanted her to have the opportunity to review the plans before they were finalized. She
wanted to look at the overall distribution of seasonal color through
the development. She also wanted to look at whether the ground cover in some of the landscaped areas was adequate. I understand that a meeting has already been set up for that in the next week or so. So, there is the reflection of that in the proposed motion in your Staff Report.
In addition, one thing to notice about this site layout is as you go out toward Perry Road, you have service areas that are facing Perry
Road. Perry is where trucks will pull in and areas where dumpsters
would be, etc. Our ordinance, if it weren’t a PUD, would say the way
that you can have those is utilizing something called a Development
Incentive. They are writing their own ordinance with a PUD so they
don’t have to utilize that approach. But what you can see that they
have tried to do is squeeze down the throats of the service areas to
make them as narrow as possible to try to limit that visibility. But
in addition to that Staff and DRC suggested that you might want to look at taking some of the concrete near those throats and seeing if you can reduce that and add more landscaping. So, that is reflected in the suggested motion as well. The idea would be to strategically place some plantings to minimize what you can see as you look into the service areas. They are quite away from Perry Road. There is obviously a large parking area there. There is an area that could have future outlots up here on the north, north of the detention ponds. This is a detention pond area here and then you have this area that is kind of undefined. There is a distance there but we still feel we want to minimize what you see when you look into those service areas. That would be consistent with the rational of our Zoning Ordinance.
The interior plaza, or what I sometimes call the streetscape going down the center between these buildings, doesn’t have all of its design features completed yet. The petitioner does intend to come back later with those as they detail out that design.
They also have not completed their freestanding sign package. There was conceptual information in your packet about freestanding signs but it was not complete enough to constitute a sign package. It was more to give you a heads up I think of what they might be look at
doing when they come back. Our preliminary opinion was a freestanding
package showed some very large signs that we were concerned about.
They also had a wall sign package in here, which I don’t think there
was concern about. DRC said in its motion that they agreed with the
variety of styles of wall signs that were being proposed. They
suggested 10% of the facade area on the exterior facades, such as out
here, would be the limitation of the size of the wall signs. On the
interior facades they could be much larger on these streetscape areas.
DRC reviewed it and recommended approval subject to several conditions a few of which I mentioned. There were a couple of building elevations that were specifically mentioned. Building “J” on the south was mentioned was because the question was asked what would happen in the next phase to the south if it doesn’t get developed? They put a condition in there to allow them to vary the south facade if that becomes a final facade and the face to the south does not develop.
I was called by Mr. Cronk when we were doing the final preparation for the Plan Commission and he let me know that building “H” was not specified in the packet. No one caught it but the elevation wasn’t there for building “H”. I recommended in the Staff Report that the elevations for building “H” could be completed and come back to DRC for approval as long as they are consistent with the rest of the elevations.
Mr. Haase asked, Mr. Cronk did you take the Oath of Testimony?
Mr. Cronk said no.
Mr. Haase said Mr. White I know you will want to speak too so we will take you both at the same time.
Mr. Daniel gave the Oath of Testimony to Mr. Ryan Cronk and Mr. Chris White.
Mr. Ryan Cronk with Premier Properties at 5252 82nd St., Indianapolis, Indiana said this is the second time we get to present
the third phase of the Metropolis. I think we came in last month and we got to show you some pretty exciting renderings, etc. of what is going on. Mr. Higbee gave you a quick overview. Again, we are 441,000
square feet approximately in this phase. With the anchor position with Dick’s Sporting Goods the building that Mr. Higbee mentioned that we didn’t include in this elevation we are saving that building for a more prototype typical type tenant so the building configuration hasn’t been set yet. We are constructing that as a shell building like we are these other ones that are currently designed. That is why we left it out of this package.
As we are looking at the site layout that Mr. Higbee pointed out as areas of concern with the loading dock areas that face the road, we
talked about it at DRC. We crunched the buildings together to narrow
those as much as possible. The two things that I pointed out to the DRC and TAC is if you look at the angles of visibility in those throats, you have to be driving on Perry Road and turn your head left and see it. You are not going to see it at an angled drive north or an angled driving south. You are not going to peek in there. Some of you will see per the elevations the facade materials and those loading areas are high in quality. So, we feel strongly that those areas are screened well.
The comment with DRC of beefing up some landscaping at the two
corners has been addressed and was actually part of the re-submittal
package that is in your hands tonight.
The center plaza area here we have shown you 3-D images. This is a more colored rendition. This image was based on what we presented at
the last Plan Commission hearing. The building elements are what they
are. They are not going to change and the thing that we have been
struggling with internally is not the streetscape so to speak or
landscaping the sidewalks. It’s what is this feature going to be?
What’s this element? What’s this sculpture? Mr. White has been
working diligently with our architects to come to conclusion in how
that is. I think we got off this design and we are now on a different
design. It still holds some similarities. This piece here in the front has changed. It is an aesthetic product that I guess that Mr. White is trying to come to a conclusion on. The thing that we like about this is that it looked good at this angle. In the pedestrian view as you are standing here, you really don’t get the feel of this huge thing. It towers over everything so we thought the scale was rather large and people standing in the street really couldn’t appreciate what it was. At the same time we have some alternatives that are just as aesthetically pleasing, just moderations of what you see here. This plaza area is a work in progress. We intend to develop that as soon as we can but again it is an aesthetic element that is exclusive of the buildings and the streetscape.
The other thing with respect to the signs we have an interior sign package as far as the wall signs that I think DRC has agreed is
acceptable. The perimeter sign package that we are developing is kind
of contingent on this centerpiece element. As we are designing those
signs, our sign team that is part of the architectural crew, is kind of waiting as this piece gets done. This piece is an architectural element that is critical to the design of the signs. I think I told the Design Review Committee that the signs always seem to be the last thing to come in on every development that we do and it’s not by choice. But it is really in this instance we are trying to get this centerpiece developed and that is going to be contingent on the sign package. I think I told Mr. Higbee tentatively we would like to come back to the Plan Commission for a February 1 submittal to present that sign package, which I would call all of the freestanding signs.
Some of the other issues, with respect to the landscaping, we have set a meeting with Elaine Taylor to further discuss the DRC comments. As I said, we have addressed a lot of the screening elements that the DRC suggested, i.e., beefing up some landscaping at those critical areas and we have done that. We will work with Elaine Taylor to address any other concerns that she might have.
The HVAC study included a site line study in each one of your packages. I think you will clearly see that the HVAC units will not be seen in this development at all. Our building heights, as we
discussed, are up to 47-50 feet in height.
Onto the building elevations, you see that we have a balance of
multi-color bricks on the side. We have a cast stone product. We have
a lot of metals and the top portion is where the DRC was a little bit
confused with what exactly that product was. It is tough to see on
this material board of what that is. You will see on the elevations
there are a lot of what we will call mesh metal screen panel. You can
see the metal mesh screen. It is in front of the building but behind
that there is still a brick and/or stone and/or EIFS product. This is
the actual metal product and they come in various patterns. That is a
little deceiving. I also brought pictures of what that looks like. If
metal sounds hard to you, I think when you see it, it has the
Metropolis feel and is down to the urban look that we have been trying
to get.
We submitted a material calculation as part of the package. Again, it technically doesn’t meet the ordinance as far as “x” percent brick or “x” percent EIFS but we feel we are well above the standards in terms of the balance, the multiple materials that we have and the fact that I guess the high-end materials. They cover 100% of the facades all the way around the building. Material calculations do not include the glass, storefronts and/or glass on the second floors. As you will see by looking at the elevations, there is a lot of glass on this project as well.
As every tenant comes in, they will have a portable, approximately 15 feet in height, that includes their storefront and when they come in, they will design their storefront. So, they don’t have an impact necessarily on the design of the materials of the building. But Bath and Body Works when they came in, they wanted a red and white awning stripped element underneath a canopy that we already designed for them. These types of tenant want that distinction store front on their storefronts. The only way they can get that designation is within what we will give them as a 15-foot area and whatever the
width of the store is between the piers to do that. The materials that they are required to use are still consistent with what you see here but the biggest example that I always bring out is Talbot’s. They want a red door. They want that to distinguish themselves and they do this at a lot of different centers with this style and we like to give them that flexibility. Do you have any questions specifically on the materials that we have presented?
Mr. McPhail said the metal design that you have is it a noncorrosive
material base?
Mr. Cronk said yes.
Mr. Kirchoff said back to the sign plan where you are talking about the loading areas that’s not the back of the building but it’s on the interior.
Mr. Cronk said Perry Road is right here. Dick’s Sporting Goods has a loading dock here and it faces Perry Road.
Mr. Kirchoff said when Mr. Higbee pointed, he pointed to the little outshoot of the building. You are going to have entrances on both sides right?
Mr. Cronk said yes. Dick’s Sporting Goods has a dual entrance. One of the architectural elements that we have changed over the course of time, and Mr. White will tell you as these things are evolving, you
don’t want them just to face in but you want to get as much inside/out, exterior face/interior face, as you can. You are limited because you have to have service areas and you have to have certain things. We wrapped this building just to do that so that we can get another opportunity to have a storefront out here because we don’t want anything to look like the back of a house and that is the challenge that we have. Here is Dick’s Sporting Goods’ front door. Again we wrapped this building to create another front door entry. This is what we are trying to get a bookstore deal here. This will be a restaurant. So, that is the challenge where you put these loading docks. Fortunately, if you look at the plans, for example, the architects draw these and it looks a little more scary than it really is. Dick’s Sporting Goods has a loading dock. There is not a loading dock here. These truck templates they have shown here, we show actually two and this is a trash compactor, the truck templates are just that. They want to make sure that trucks can get in and out here. Most of these retailers here are a smaller truck use but we have to make sure we can get a truck in and out of there but this is the designated loading area and it is not a loading dock. So, they are not backing up and docking. They don’t have the opportunity to back up to a store and park there. That eliminates that. It’s just a loading area. They will back up, unload and leave. Besides J.C. Penney’s and Dick’s the bookstore will probably require one. Most of the tenants in Phase 3 I don’t believe we have any other loading docks so to speak, just loading areas. When they have loading areas, most of the time it is smaller trucks but again we have to prepare for the worst. Do you have any other questions specific to the elevations or anything that I have said so far? Being none I will go to the lighting package.
The yellow lights are obviously all of the parking lot lights, the same fixture that we have existing at J.C. Penney’s. It’s a 35 foot bronze pole, flat lens fixture. The blue lights are a smaller more
architectural light. If you remember the Rave lights that came through, it’s similar to that style. It is an up-shooting light that
hits a reflector and comes down. It is in the package. By and large we submitted all of the building lights and I think DRC was okay with what is going on.
Mr. Haase said you made mention somewhere in all of this that some lighting would not be a flat lens.
Mr. Cronk said the light on the perimeter is, I guess you could call it a flat lens, but it is a light source that shoots a beam. So, you kind of see a beam of light.
Mr. Haase said but there will not be a hot spot.
Mr. Cronk said there is a hot spot on the reflector that it hits and then it comes down. So, you don’t technically see the source. It
doesn’t technically fit with the definition that you would show in the ordinance. Within the development we have said we will want the
ability to do other fixtures that are not flat because there will be
more architectural in there.
Mr. Higbee asked, how tall are the poles, the ones that you talked about with the reflector?
Mr. Cronk said 15 feet.
Mr. Higbee said so that is maybe more of a pedestrian scale light.
Mr. Cronk said they are definitely a pedestrian light and we did a photometric plan for Mr. Higbee without them and then we included
them. You probably haven’t seen the first one but if you look at the
first one, you will see there’s hardly any photometric impact at all.
I think Mr. White is a firm believer that these roads, these perimeter roads, light up by people’s headlights mostly, although we still have quite bit of parking lot lights that are going to get on them. So, they are not necessarily meant to perform the light the roadway as much as they are meant to have an appealing look driving around the shopping center. It is similar to the one that Rave has in the front.
I think I have addressed most of the outstanding issues that were
presented with respect to the DRC and TAC. We have another potential
phase here and again I think ideally in a perfect world I’m sure we
wished that we would have slam-dunked this thing three years ago but
unfortunately we couldn’t. The thing that Mr. Higbee was talking about earlier in terms of these buildings, similar to what we did when we approved J.C. Penney’s, what if this doesn’t develop, what are we going to do with these buildings? We have said we will add some metal relief. They already have upgraded materials but we will add some metal relief like we have done elsewhere in the center and create it like it’s not going to be expanded on. If you look at the elevations, they are either brick or EIFS and the DRC asked to have some metal, if this part doesn’t develop. So, we have agreed to that.
Mr. Haase said you also made mention of outside storage.
Mr. Cronk said we didn’t want outside storage. I think what the intent there was, and that was the outdoor operations section I
believe, the way the ordinance was defined it says you basically can’t have outside operations on internal drives and required parking areas. But the definition for outdoor operations was kind of vague so I talked to Mr. Higbee about this a little bit and said this road right here we plan to shut down a lot especially on high traffic weekends. If we shut this down and we have a farmers market going on out there and there is a kiosk out here selling things, technically I have outdoor operations in a required drive and required parking because we have parking there as well. So, I have said we want those opportunities to do that. We reworded that to say in the interior streetscapes that this would be allowed. I think Mr. Higbee clarified with me that technically we could still come out here in the parking lot, in the exterior of this thing and have our safety fair, etc. Is that correct somewhat?
Mr. Higbee said yes somewhat. He asked me specifically about the
safety fair, which honestly is a type of festival and there is a
provision under the General Commercial standards, which would allow
what we call a temporary seasonal retail use. Basically what we do for festivals, kind of a public use festival like the safety fair for the fire department, is we use the seasonal retail provisions, which tell you how to set up that kind of an area on a site without interfering with the traffic and safety things that need to be adhered to. You don’t use up required parking. It has to be in an access parking area. It can’t be in an area that blocks the vision and causes a safety hazard, etc. I was telling him that I didn’t think the Town is going to have a problem with something like a safety fair. I don’t think the Town desires to see the equivalent of what Wal-Mart would put out in its parking lot. So, that is when he rewrote the language to say let me have outdoor operations on the interior streetscape. Generally throughout the standards whether it is outdoor operations or anything else signage was more flexible and lighting was more flexible. The idea was on the interior it is your baby do whatever you want, kind of up to a point. And then out here try to respect what it is going to look like from Perry Road.
Mr. Chris White with Premier Properties at 5252 82nd St., Indianapolis, Indiana said one of the things that we have struggled
with a little bit with this project is the size of the project. The
length from north to south is approximately five to six football fields long. The scale of this is a bit abnormal compared to most real estate projects that you see. When we got into the design phase in the interior or center of the two main streets, we realized to create a variety of facades and those that are attractive with the parapet, etc.that we approached a second-story. I know that we all have talked about the square footage of this project from a value standpoint and what it does to create some revenues, etc. We actually have another 70,000 square feet in the upstairs. That is 70,000 square feet that we plan to split up 35,000 here and 35,000 on the other side. Traditionally what you are seeing in the marketplace today is maybe you would have multi-residential on top of this project. But I’m not convinced that is entire successful. Especially in a more rural community I would be afraid to go three-story high with apartments on here. That is why we tried to generate the apartments to feed this machine a little bit the way that we did. What we are going to try to attempt in this second floor is some kind of community space. Gradually I think we will be able to develop office space. Right now we have another 100,000 square feet that is empty across the street that we have to fill so we are not going to see this fill up in any short time. But I think that is our hope that the space brings some unusual amenity whether it is space for people to have weddings or whether it is a food court or it is just simply office or retail at some point and time but we are not going to see it this year or next year likely. It is probably something that you
are going to see three to five years out for the space to get an
identity as to what it is. We spent well over a million and a half
dollars accommodating uses, the stairwells and elevators, etc. to
provide uses up there but it is still a little bit too early yet to say this is what is going to happen. It won’t be until you have a greater success from the retailers and their sales reports, etc. before you are going to be able to attract uses to that upstairs space.
Mr. Matrana asked, what about the Rave Movie Theater complex? Is that still under development?
Mr. Cronk said yes it is. We hope to get to building that at any time. Right now we are a little muddy. We have a permit. It is just a
matter of getting started. One of the issues was getting them
comfortable if this was going to get built as well and getting the road agreement done. Both of those are done and now it is time to move forward with them.
Mr. Carlucci asked, you don’t have a permit do you?
Mr. Cronk asked, for Rave?
Mr. Carlucci said yes.
Mr. Cronk said well I take that back. There is a permit available to be picked up.
Mr. Thibo asked, will people be able to go from one building to
another without going outside?
Mr. Cronk said no. You have to walk outside unless you are going
upstairs or downstairs. All the stairways are internal but to go form
one store to the next it is outside. You can cut through Dick’s
Sporting Goods to walk inside the project as opposed to walking around. There are some shortcuts to walk through buildings. Just like you go through a regular mall you would walk through the anchor store to get to some of the other stuff. There is some of that opportunity.
Mr. White said we have tried to design cover throughout the projects whether it be canopies or awnings that extend out to try to give a little bit of weather protection if there is rain or snow unlike what you may see at Clay Terrace. They really didn’t do a lot of that.
This product is far superior to what you see at Clay Terrace in design and so forth. The distances of the streets between one side and another at Clay Terrace is a big problem they are having up there right now with the abundance of traffic. This north/south road is only 98 feet across where I think Clay Terrace is probably 200 feet across, maybe 170. We are trying to make it more friendly.
Mr. Haase asked, is there anyone in the audience who has any questions on this matter? Being no once coming forward we will close
the public portion of this hearing. The Chair will accept any
discussion from board members or a motion to act on this Development
Plan Approval.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion that the Plan Commission approve the request for Final Detailed Plan Secondary Approval, DP-04-030 for Phase 3 of the Plainfield Marketplace PUD (now called Metropolis) finding that:
The Final Detailed Plan satisfies the Development Standards
specified for Phase 2 of the Plainfield Marketplace PUD as included in this submittal.
The Final Detailed Plan accomplishes the intent set forth in Article 6 of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
The Final detailed Plan provides for the protection or provision of site features and amenities outlined in Article 6.,C.,4.,a. of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
And that such approval be subject to the following conditions:
Substantial compliance with the building elevations, building renderings, site plan, landscape plans, photometric plan, wall sign design concept, other plans as noted in the petitioner’s Exhibit “A”, and the Phase 3 development standards file dated 12/3/04.
Dock entrances shall be enhanced to decrease concrete, increase landscaping and block views of service areas to the extent possible.
The center plaza features shall be completed and submitted for DRC review and approval.
Plant unit value calculations and complete species selection charts shall be provided for all perimeter, foundation/plaza, parking areas, etc.
The petitioner shall confer with Elaine Taylor for the adequacy of ground cover plantings and seasonal color throughout the development.
An HVAC light-of-sight analysis demonstration screening shall be submitted to DRC for approval.
The south elevation of Building “J” shall add metal features to break up the EIFS until Phase 4 obviates the need for this.
The proposed styles of wall signs are acceptable in concept. DRC withholds further comment on signs until more details are filed.
The building material palette, building architecture, photometric plan and lighting types are recommended for approval as submitted except as noted above.
The elevations for Building “H” shall be completed and brought back to DRC for review and approval and they shall be consistent with the other elevations in Phase 3.
Mr. Higbee said I wanted to clarify number eight just because I
probably didn’t write it that clearly. Mr. Cronk pointed out to me
that DRC recommended, if you agree with them, that the wall signs
standards, as submitted, were acceptable and that Staff would be able
to approve wall signs administratively. When they said they withheld
comment, they were only talking about the freestanding signs so those
would not be included. That was their recommendation, if you choose to carry that forward.
Mr. Haase said so DRC withholds further comment on the freestanding signs.
Mr. Higbee said correct.
Mr. Kirchoff said so I amend item eight with that wording. Then I will add number 11.
11. Subject to Compliance in coordination with the timing of the requirements of a certain public improvement agreement between the Town of Plainfield and PPUSA entered into during the fall of 2004.
Second by Ms. Whicker. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
OLD BUSIENSS/NEW BUSINESS
Zoning Compliance
Mr. Higbee said one item from your report from the Zoning Compliance Inspector, Jill Sprague, Ms. Payne’s replacement. Last month we didn’t do anything on this report because of time but the first item on this report in your packet is action items on the top. That means I need to act on this one. The rest of them we can defer any comment on, if you wish. What it is some of you might recall that there was Mr. Lampe who had property at 846 E. Main Street with a big red truck that was parked in violation of the ordinance. There was a fine and you instructed a fine and the text is written how that came about but you instructed a fine to be levied at $50.00. Then he did not proceed to remove the vehicle right away, which then accrued an additional fining up to $100.00. Then he got the vehicle out of the way before the fine got any bigger. He has never paid his $100.00 so I don’t know what, if any action, you want to take regarding that. He has
ceased to respond to Staff but as far as I know, the truck has been
gone for quite awhile. If you want to cancel his fine or do something
else, I just need your direction.
Mr. Haase said we severely lowered his fine that he was supposed to have paid so I would collect the $100.00 if it was me.
Mr. Higbee said we weren’t getting a response from him so I wasn’t sure how we would do that.
Mr. Haase said send the police. We have to have a mechanism.
Mr. Carlucci said maybe he will take it seriously if the letter comes from the Town attorney because he has ignored you enough.
Mr. Haase said I don’t know what our resources are. I know we have a Town attorney. I know we have a judge. I know we have a police
department. It’s not the $100.00 but it is the principal of the thing.
Mr. McPhail said the chances are he will be back.
Mr. Haase said it’s his nature to deny us so we need to take whatever avenues are available to us and proceed on.
Mr. Daniel said I suggest we give him a deadline until December 31 and if he doesn’t, we will pursue it and I will send him a letter to
that affect.
Mr. Haase said I don’t anticipate having to come back here until I’m told we have collected the $100.00. So, whatever actions you need to take past this just keep going with it.
Mr. Haase asked, what about the green and yellow dumpsters that are in Town?
Mr. Higbee said I told Ms. Sprague to do some research on them.
Because Abbey-Tibby is the company that visited with me several months ago and I told them in our opinion that was in violation of our ordinance. But then he asked us for proof from our ordinance of how we defined what is trash and what is not trash and what requires an enclosure and what doesn’t, etc. I asked Ms. Sprague to put that
together and get that information to them. I will have to follow-up
with her to see if she has gotten that done.
Mr. Haase said before we recess I would like to wish everybody happy holidays and Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to adjourn. Second by Mr. Haase.
Motion carried.
_____________________________________
Mitchell P. Haase, President
