The Plainfield Plan Commission met on Monday, March 1, 2004. In attendance were Mr. Thibo, Mr. Matrana, Mr. McPhail, Mr. Brandgard, Mr. Cavanaugh, Mr. Kirchoff and Mr. Haase.
ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM
Mr. Carlucci administered the roll call.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Cavanaugh made a motion to approve the February 2, 2004 minutes of the Plainfield Plan Commission meeting as submitted. Second by Mr. Kirchoff. Motion carried.
Mr. Matrana and Mr. Thibo abstained from voting on the minutes since they were not present at that meeting.
OATH OF TESTIMONY
Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Testimony.
EXPEDITED PETITIONS
Mr. Haase reviewed the Guidelines Governing the Conduct of Public Hearings. At this time we will begin with the expedited petitions. Mr. Higbee I will ask if you would help guide us through those. We are actually going to have four of them. We have three listed and we are adding one to it tonight. The first one is DP-04-001, Bassett Office Complex.
Mr. Higbee said for the benefit of the audience I will explain that the expedited petitions are petitions that have been reviewed by Staff for all of the Town ordinances and been found to meet all of the ordinances as well as the recommended conditions of Staff and our various committees that have seen the projects up until now. And for which there is no known remonstrance for any of these projects. We have listed three and we are going to add one. They are Bassett Office Complex on West Main Street; Griot’s Garage; American Mattress, that is just for a sign; and the one that would be transferring from the bottom of the docket to the expedited portion would be the Weldin minor plat.
As we go through these, if there is anybody here as a remonstrator or has a concern about the project before a motion is made for approval, this would be your opportunity to come up and speak.
Mr. Haase said we will take these individually so if there is anyone here to speak on the Bassett Office Complex in opposition, please step forward at this time. Being no one coming forward the Chair would accept a motion. I have a recommendation sheet on expedited motions to anyone who would care to do that. Mr. Higbee has given us that. Actually that first one contains two.
Mr. Higbee said yes. If that is at all confusing, you could just read the motions in the Staff Report.
Mr. McPhail made a motion to approve DP-04-001, Bassett office Complex subject to the findings and conditions noted in the motion in the Staff Report. Second by Mr. Thibo. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Cavanaugh – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. McPhail made a motion to approve DP-04-002, Development Plan/Architectural Review for the Bassett Office Complex subject to the findings and conditions noted in the motion in the Staff Report. Second by Mr. Cavanaugh. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Cavanaugh – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Haase said the next item on the agenda would be DP-04-004, Griot’s Garage. Is there anyone in the audience here that would care to speak in opposition to this petition or have any questions about this petition? Being no one coming forward the Chair would accept a motion to act on this expedited petition.
Mr. McPhail made a motion to approve DP-04-004, Griot’s Garage Development Plan/Architectural Review subject to the findings and conditions noted in the motion in the Staff Report. Second by Mr. Matrana. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Cavanaugh – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Haase said the next item is ILP-03-064 for American Mattress. It is an Architectural Review for a commercial ground sign. Is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak upon this in opposition or have any questions about this petition? The only statement that I will have from up here is I was just out there today. There’s a huge unenclosed dumpster out there that I think deserves the Town’s attention.
Mr. Higbee said we weren’t aware of that so we will take a look at it.
Mr. Haase said other than that I have no problem with the approval. Being no one else coming forward the Chair would accept a motion to act upon this public hearing.
Mr. McPhail made a motion to approve ILP-03-064, American Mattress request for Architectural Review for a commercial ground sign subject to the findings and conditions noted in the motion in the Staff Report. Second by Mr. Thibo. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Cavanaugh – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Haase said the final expedited petition that we are moving up from the regular public hearings is PP-04-003, Alex Rumley requesting a minor plat to subdivide Lot 8 in the Weldin Addition. I believe Mr. Higbee has slight information for us on that.
Mr. Higbee said I found out just prior to the hearing that the affidavit of notice and green cards were not here available for the hearing tonight, however, they are here now so strike that comment.
Mr. Haase asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak against this minor plat subdivision or would have any questions about this petition? Being no one coming forward at this time the Chair would accept a motion to act upon this public hearing.
Mr. McPhail made a motion to approve PP-04-003, Alex Rumley requesting a minor plat to subdivide Lot 8 in the Weldin Addition subject to the findings and conditions noted in the motion in the Staff Report. Second by Mr. Cavanaugh. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Cavanaugh – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
PETITIONS OR PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mr. Haase said we will now begin the non-expedited agenda of the public hearings for tonight. The first item on the agenda is RZ-04-002, Richard Prock requesting rezoning of 2.29 acres from AG to GC.
Mr. Higbee said this parcel is located on CR600E or Moon Road. If you are familiar with the area, it is approximately across from the prison and south of the mini storage warehouse facility there. It is in a large agricultural zoned area that dates back from when we annexed it into the Town. That is where it received its AG zoning. I think it was about 1998. Mr. Carlucci might be able to refresh you on that. Prior to that the building already existed and a lot of those other buildings up there in that area both north and south of there existed either commercial or industrial uses. The history before it came into Plainfield going back a number of years under the County’s jurisdiction is that some of that land out there was zoned industrial but then later on was rezoned by the County to low-density residential. At the time this parcel came in to Plainfield and by default became agricultural zoning it had been zoned low-density residential by the County. So, this was a legal non-conforming use at that point and continues to be a legal non-conforming use when it came into Plainfield. But then it is my understanding in late 2002 the user at the facility left and it has been sitting vacant since then. I had some discussions with the Town attorney about that. We felt the legal non-conforming status that had been there was no longer there today. When I talked to the owner about what they wanted to do, the immediate use that was anticipated was auto repair. That would be permitted in GC zoning. I then took a look at the Comprehensive Plan update. This has not been adopted but we anticipate in the next few months we will be bringing an updated Comprehensive Plan to you and to the Town Council. I believe this parcel and all of the parcels north of it and possible one or two parcels south of it would be recommended for commercial zoning. It was my advice to the petitioner that his best solution rather than getting a variance was to go ahead and look for a rezoning at this site.
There were two conditions in the motion having to do with dedication of right-of-way and a dedication of a drainage and utility easement that is related to the anticipated improvements for the Town project on Moon Road. I would be happy to answer any questions that you have.
Mr. McPhail said I’m assuming our Town Engineer has reviewed the request for right-of-way and easements.
Mr. Higbee said yes that is where those came from.
Mr. Richard Prock at 1928 W. CR571S in Clayton said I’m requesting the rezoning.
Mr. Haase asked, is there anything that you would like to add to Mr. Higbee’s statements?
Mr. Prock said I don’t think so. I think he has pretty much covered everything.
Mr. Haase asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak either in opposition or in favor of this hearing? Being no one coming forward we will close the public portion of this hearing and accept any comments or questions from board members. If there aren’t any, the Chair would accept a motion for a recommendation to the Town Council for the rezoning of this property.
Mr. Brandgard made a motion to certify the zone map amendment request of RZ-04-002 rezoning approximately 2.29 acres from AG to GC to the Town Council with a favorable recommendation subject to the following commitments to be provided and recorded on the Exhibit A Statement of Commitments form:
Seventeen feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated along Moon Road per documentation to be provided by the Town Engineer.
A 42’ drainage and utility easement shall be provided along Moon Road per documentation to be provided by the Town Engineer.
Second by Mr. Kirchoff. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Cavanaugh – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Haase said we have done no rezoning tonight. It will be done at the next Town Council meeting. We will now continue on with the next public hearing of PP-04-001, Airwest Business Park.
Mr. Higbee said what you see there is an aerial photograph from spring 2003 that the Town had made. You will see Stafford Road is the east/west road on the top of that photograph. You will see the tree line area in the center. That is where Newby Lane Park is. Stafford Road right there and Newby Park right here. The parcel in question is in this area. You have I-70 down here to the south and then your north/south corridor is going to come up here. There has been a new roadway, Columbia Road built in this area going north and south to serve this parcel.
What you have in your Staff Report are two items, both the primary plat as well as the PUD rezoning of this parcel. The primary plat covers over 72 acres. The PUD rezoning only covers about 37 acres. Obviously, the plat covers more ground. If you will recall from the primary plat, there have been two previous reiterations of a primary plat for this area. The first one was in 1999. I think that predated us knowing about Columbia Road and in 2003 there was another one and then the most recent one, this one, picks up an additional little parcel over here that is on the east side of where the north/south corridor is going to be. But other than the inclusion of that parcel and also Columbia Road that has been built, which the Town is well aware of, there is really no difference in doing this primary plat and the ones that you have already approved in the past.
So, really the big issues, if you don’t have questions about the platting, have to do with the PUD rezoning. On the rezoning the petitioner is requesting flex space uses. At least that is how they are referring to it. This is a little bit distorted but there is also a board mounted there in front of you that has a less distorted version than what you see up there. That is really there for the benefit of the audience. If it is distorted, they might understand some of my comments better by looking at this. The north/south corridor will be in this area that is coming up from I-70 going north. And this road here that is Columbia Road. So, you can see the site is bounded by roadways on two sides. As part of a rezoning, you are required to submit a preliminary plan so that is what this is part of. This site plan is part of their preliminary plan to show if this PUD is approved, what kind of development could go here. It is not precise but it is supposed to be relatively accurate as a conceptual plan for the development on the site. What they are proposing is they have four buildings here that would be sort of industrial/office flex space. And then two more buildings down here, which could be the same thing but they would be more likely to be office, if I understood the petitioner in the way that they have talked about the development.
In a PUD, as you know, the petitioner has to write their own ordinance. They are not relying on our industrial districts of our Zoning Ordinance or our commercial districts. They are writing their own specifying the uses and development standards that could be put on the site. There was a big thick PUD ordinance document that you got in your packets. This is where most of the comments that Staff has would be oriented to. Flex space, at least as a general concept, seems compatible with industrial zoning that exists out here in the industrial recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan. But there were some concerns over the types of uses that they specified as well as some of the development standards in the PUD documents. I attached to your Staff Report maybe a two-page summary of what some of our concerns are at the end as an addendum. Item number one in that addendum talks about the fact that the petitioner would like to have I-1; I-2 and some of the I-3 uses as well as office uses in this flex space development. But there was no limitation on the I-3 uses in terms of total size or percentage of the development. As an example, if all of these buildings added up to 500,000 or 600,000 square feet, without any limitation in this ordinance, it could go 100% I-3. The underlying zoning now is I-2. We haven’t had too many I-3 uses. We have a few I-3 zoning parcels around but this would be something that might concern the Staff whether or not that should be limited in any way.
You saw in your packet too that there were three or four different site plans in there. They were given to you as alternative scenarios. Again, we are at the zoning stage at this point. They haven’t got all of that nailed down yet. They are wanting to preserve some flexibility for themselves by giving you alternate scenarios. So, this is just one of them with the four bigger buildings and the two smaller buildings. You will see, if you go through your packet, they have two other alternatives that would be included as well. If you make a motion for approval tonight, they would be able to develop any one of those alternatives.
Along both Columbia Road and the north/south corridor they are asking for setback reductions. The north/south corridor would be a primary arterial and this would be a local status, the Columbia Road. The required setback in the Zoning Ordinance for a primary arterial is 120 feet in the industrial zoning district. However, you will recall that we have development incentives provisions in our ordinance that will allow you to reduce that by up to 50%. So, you could go from 120 feet to 60 feet in this case. However, since they are writing their own ordinance they don’t get to use the development incentives provisions. What they can do though is mimic them by offering some of the landscaping that our ordinance would require had they done that. Had they maintained the industrial zoning and used development incentives, they would have been required to increase landscaping to offset the reduction in the yard. In addition to the yard reduction, and it is not that clear on here, but this is a ring of parking spaces going all around the site. The parking encroaches into that yard. If you look at it as a reduced yard like a development incentive, parking actually encroaches. That is not permitted in an industrial district. The same thing happens over here to a lesser extent on Columbia Road. Because it is local the setbacks are not required to be as great but they are asking for a reduced yard and the parking coming out between the building and the yard.
In addition you will see that there is no side yard in between these buildings. That is beneficial in a sense that you have all of your loading occurring there in the middle, all of your truck docks. But if these were outlots, under our Zoning Ordinance you would be required to have a yard between each outlot. So, the elimination of an interior yard kicks in another development incentive if you have regular industrial zoning. Then it kicks in a required increase of landscaping again.
Why do I mention all of this? Because it becomes additive and the amount of landscaping, if it were industrial zoning, would have to be substantial for this type of development. Essentially, what the petitioner tried to do, and this is talked about in item number two in your addendum in your Staff Report, is he tried to mimic what
development incentives would be required under industrial zoning with this PUD. They came pretty close. You will see a color site plan in your packet that gives some ideas where landscaping would be on the site. They have done a pretty good job of mimicking what the development incentives would otherwise have required. However, I think they were slightly lower than even what development incentives require out here as well as on their foundation plantings. When they do these things, not only their perimeter plantings are affected but their foundation plantings are affected and they have to be increased. They didn’t quite reach the full level that would have otherwise been required had they maintained the industrial zoning.
There were also concerns going onto item number three in that addendum regarding signage. There was a pylon sign that was in your packet as well. And there was a lot of language in that PUD ordinance about how many freestanding signs they can have and how large they are. If the language is maintained in the PUD ordinance as it is regarding freestanding signs, it would permit substantially more square footage in amounts of signage than would have otherwise been permitted under industrial zoning. So, I wanted to point that out. I won’t read it to you but there is some explicit information about that under item number three in your addendum.
The Design Review Committee did recommend that one larger integrated center pole sign could be put along somewhere the north/south corridor. But there should not be an unlimited propagation of large signs along these roadways. They should try to respect what the underlying ordinance would otherwise have permitted other than that one large sign.
There is no explicit mention in the PUD ordinance of parking lot plantings, interior parking lot plantings or hedgerows. If you look on your color landscape plan, it shows some. So, in concept they are there. But the text would tend to override so the absence of that information, the text, is probably a concern to Staff. It could be an easy thing to fix in the text if the petitioner intends to provide that.
On the building materials I didn’t have an elevation to show you but the petitioners probably will. You have them in your packets. The buildings I would characterize as industrial in nature. That’s worth pointing out because this being a flex space development it could be all industrial; I-1; I-2; and some of these I-3s I discussed earlier. Or it could be all office or it could be a combination of any of that. If it goes all office, you are going to have all office in an industrial style building, which may be okay in this area since it is an industrial zoning but I wanted you to be aware that. There is not the intent by the petitioner nor did Staff try to obtain a commercial development standard for these buildings. We looked at them as industrial in nature.
Another item that Staff was a little bit concerned about was loading. There is a provision in our Zoning Ordinance that has to do with off street loading that says that it’s prohibited between the front lot line and the front line of the building. And also in a required yard. That was not carried forward in the PUD ordinance. We think it is likely that is what they want to do based on their design but they didn’t carry that forward in the text. So, Staff would have preferred to see that be carried forward from our Zoning Ordinance into this PUD ordinance.
This last comment is kind of both a plat comment and a zoning comment. You can’t really see it clear here but you can see it on your color plan especially that there is a sidewalk system/pedestrian pathway system around the site. That is on private property and that is probably appropriate in this area because the north/south corridor is really not under our control. It is my understanding that it is a limited access highway so we are not likely to see sidewalks or paths at least on this side of the road once this corridor goes in. So, what the petitioner has offered is a private sidewalk system with easements to insure that the access would remain open for people to use. That I think is a plus of this PUD. It is something that is a real amenity. And would connect basically creating a loop from Columbia Road around the south part of the site and then up along the north/south corridor.
There is a lot more in the Staff Report and the addendum but I would just be prepared to answer any questions about those items at this time.
Mr. Carlucci said I think I have added up the square footage of the whole project to about a little over 500,000 square feet. We have individual buildings that are being built at the minimum of that size anymore and larger. Because they are under the regular ordinance they are restricted on the number of signs that they can have. It seems to me that the signage on here seems to be pretty liberal considering the location on the corridor and the amount of square footage that they could have compared to what is happening just up the road or within the rest of the industrial park. I realize that squeezing this project between Columbia Road and the north/south corridor that it may squeeze everything down so I’m assuming that is why they went the PUD route. Because staying under the regular ordinance would require a lot of waivers or variances to get through.
Mr. Higbee said as well as the mix of uses. That was also a reason.
Mr. Haase said the petitioner can probably tell us his reason why but I think he needs to have some flexibility to move quickly when space is desired, so that he can fill the space. I will have to be the first to say that when I get a report from my Staff, I’m not a PUD fan anyway, but when I get a report from Staff that goes the length of three pages here, I have a lot of great concerns. So, my concern about this is if it goes to a final vote here tonight, my concern is that we be sure to take all of the Staff concerns and make sure that we cover all of those areas. In either allowing the petitioner to do what he wants and telling Staff that’s why we want to do it. Or just the reverse of that by backing the Staff and the ordinances that we already have in existence and telling the petitioner why we do not approve of how he is going to go about it. With that being said we will let the petitioner come forward.
Mr. Mac McNaught said I represent Airwest Associates, Denison Properties. I’m not the petitioner on the PUD but I did sell them the property and they are here and they will speak to the PUD. The reason that I handed out what you have before you is that many of you are familiar with all of the efforts and negotiations that went through to pick up the pieces after INDOT said we are putting a cul-de-sac on the north side of Middle Creek and lots of luck and businesses along Reeves Road and Airwest, etc. We picked up the pieces about a year ago and devised a plan for Columbia Road and pursued that plan last year. We got most of the asphalt done, not quite all of it, but the curbs are down. I think you can drive it if you actually want to.
I think Mr. Higbee may have mentioned that this triangular piece that is highlighted is the sole reason for the plat amendment, the second plan amendment. We added 1.47 acres on the west side of the ramps for the interstate contiguous to the prior platted and approved Section 6 of Airwest. That came about as we worked with the airport authority and U.S. Fish and Wildlife to do a swap so that we could create a right-of-way for Columbia Road going up along the tree line. We swapped on a two to one basis. Basically, a five and a half acre chunk on either side of Middle Creek. In doing it I said to the airport you are left with this triangle that is marooned. They said well maybe we can have it appraised and put it in the mix of the trade. So, that is the derivation of the amendment of the plat. But having lived and breathed, if you will, the impact of that north/south corridor I guess I would highlight as I listened to the setback issue and parking, and what have you, I would comment that at least to my mind the now named Ronald Reagan Parkway really begins at Stafford Road. That is where you will have Stafford Road north. That is where you will have curb cuts and opportunities for the traffic that you would expect with a primary arterial hence the Zoning Ordinance 120-foot setback. South of Stafford Road it will be an interstate highway. It will be a ramp system but I think people will think of it as you would the ramps getting off of I-70. That according to your ordinance is a 60-foot setback. So, if I could at least make that comment. I realize that at the beginning of this when it was filed, Staff made the determination that as soon as you left I-70 down south of this you are on the primary arterial of Ronald Reagan Parkway. I think that may be subject to some practical interpretation so I add that comment.
Mr. Bud Baumgard with Sierra Crest Equities said what I would like to do is sort of walk you through our concept is and then we can get into the technical aspects of the issues that the Staff has raised. What we are trying to accomplish here is to bring a new tenant base into the Town of Plainfield. In doing so rather than going with a large box we want to bring flex/industrial/office to the Town at the new entrance to the Town at the park. In doing so we have tried to create a park like environment with a lot of people and places and a lot of amenities for people and beautiful facades, which will attract these tenants. We have had success nationwide. We have completed similar projects in Greenwood and we are hoping to do the same here in this location. We purposely brought the park into the exteriors of the building for two reasons. One, to bring life to the park as people drive through and see that there is activity that there are things happening that draws them in. It enhances our leasing. It also enhances the life within the park. Two, we wanted to screen all of the docks from the street. We had the same success in Greenwood and what it enabled us to do is bring in more office users rather than industrial users.
The project is a speculative project. Hence that is why we have asked for so much flexibility within the project and all of the different uses that Mr. Higbee has outlined. Our goal is to go after office users for the southern portion here.
In the package you received there are three different scenarios. That’s what they are. We have one scenario where we go after the single user on a built to suit basis. We have this, which is dedicated more for office than flex. And then we have a two office component but it is subject to change. The other four buildings are relatively the same building. They are around 120,000 square feet each where we can go after multiple tenants within those buildings. We want to bring a product type to the Town that is not there that we can bring in a smaller user. Right now you have big boxes everywhere. We feel there is a need for this. We are pioneering. We will be the first really to go after this on a speculative basis.
If all goes as planned, I would like to submit very rapidly on the first building, which would be this building right here, building number one. In doing so we would like to have that building up as soon as the completion of that off ramp up there. So, that you can see we are trying to push this along. In doing so what that means is the plans really won’t change from what you see here because of the timing and because we feel that is the right product to go first. The office component down to the south is subject to change. In concept and theory this is what we think we should do but we don’t know. So, when we get into all of the other aspects that Mr. Higbee and Staff brought up, there are a lot of things that I would like to point out. All of our goals I think are intertwined. We are not looking to put up a cheap product. We are looking to spend the money and put up a product that we are proud of and the Town is proud of and you would want it to be the entrance to the Town. That is what is going to lease. We spent the money on all of our other projects and we leased our other projects and we are going to have to do the same here.
There are a lot of landscape requirements that we had to elaborate on in the PUD. Again, that is something that we planned on doing all along. It wasn’t something that we felt like we are taking and giving here. It is what this project needs. It needs to be a beautiful project when you pull onto Ronald Reagan Parkway. We want people to say I want off there and I think we will be successful.
One of the key issues with respect to the setback that has come up, the 120 feet, when we were at DRC a couple of weeks ago, we were having a very difficult time obtaining the State plans for the exact location of Ronald Reagan Parkway and what the setback was. We made a best guest estimate based on the information that had been given to us. The Town actually helped us get those plans, which we just got last week. One of the boards up there shows that. The reality of what we have is there is only one small section where we actually dip into less than 120 feet. Most of the project, and we will show you that in a moment, really doesn’t go below 120 feet or less than that.
With respect to the flexibility in uses where I-3 was concerned we took under the advice of the TAC meeting a limit of 50,000 feet, no more than a limit of 50,000 feet per user. We couldn’t lease an entire building to a single user in an I-3. Again, we have no desire to put the I-3 use in there. We want it for flexibility in case we are way off base down the road in the years to come. We don’t think that will be the case but that is really the purpose of it.
Again, with respect to the PUD why we went that route grant you it would have been far easier just to stay with the I-2 but because of the type of product that we want to bring here we needed to do that in order to arrange for the parking, the loading and get the square footage. And in order to make this a feasible project.
Signage, again in the document that we were provided here, which was the DRC’s report, they recommend the pylon. We really don’t want a pylon sign. I think when we talked there, we didn’t even want the pylon sign. Our view of the signage is that it be classy and understated but tells you where you are entering the Town of Plainfield and the name of the project. It will be consistent throughout and any language we need to put on there to do that will be fine. We don’t want hot boxes, we don’t want flashing lights, we want it very classy done. So, I don’t really think there is an issue with respect to that.
The commercial design guidelines, DRC I believe in part of their comments, wanted us to stay within the elevations that we provided, which you have for the first building. We have every intention of doing that. If anything, we would dress it up from there. That would be the minimum standard and it would have to go through the proper process for that in the next round as it stands.
I would like to bring Jerry Kittle up as well. The key issue with us is the setbacks because in order for us to accomplish parking and in order for this project to work precisely the language that was proposed at the DRC reflected an edge of pavement to edge of pavement dimension. The problem with that is it brings about too many potential conflicts in the future if additional roadway is done on the pavement edge. Obviously, the buildings will be up at that point. I think it is more beneficial for Mr. Kittle to explain what the actual setback is so that we can really see how limited it really is and where it encroaches. The language that we put in the original PUD was language that we were taking from TAC. We don’t encroach anywhere near what we had envisioned the worse case because we didn’t have the drawings. But now that we have the drawings we know.
Mr. Haase said on the setbacks my understanding from Mr. Higbee was that the landscaping levels that you provided around the exterior of this development pretty matched the requirement that they would have been required to have if they had used the incentives to get the reduced setbacks, is that correct?
Mr. Higbee said for the most part. They were a little bit deficient in a couple of areas. I think on one perimeter they should have had a Level six and they had a Level four. And on their foundation plantings they should have had a Level two and they had a Level one. But other than those two issues I think they were there on all of the other plantings. And then they had left out the reference to the interior parking lot and hedgerow plantings.
Mr. Haase said show me what you just said on the map, what they left out.
Mr. Higbee said I think because of the placement of the parking here within what would have otherwise been considered a setback as well as the reduced yard as well as the elimination of the yard here to allow the interior loading that would have been deficient by a Level two over here. They are offering a Level four and it would have been a Level six, if I’m not mistaken. Where generally everywhere else they were okay on the perimeters.
On the interior they are required to have a parking lot hedgerow on the streets and they are required to have interior plantings. You can see these little green offsets here, which seems to allow for those but the text doesn’t mention them. The PUD ordinance is what should control those development standards and that should be in there.
Mr. Haase said I’m not sure the setbacks are as big of a concern to us as what you may think they are. I don’t know. I know one of our largest concerns is once we approve this it goes for anybody who owns
this land. So, if you folks do not continue to do this development, you don’t put up any buildings, you just put up a half of a building and then you sell the project off, they may come in here and not have quite the same ideas that you do, therefore, we also have concerns with that.
Mr. Baumgard said with respect to the landscaping when we went through originally, one of the issues is we want the buildings visible. We have looked at the different levels and it is something that we discussed at DRC. My understanding, and that is all that it is because I’m not an expert with various levels, but my understanding is once you really get past a Level four there is quite a bit of die off from the trees from being planted too closely together and it will block sods of the building. The tenants that are coming to this park or at least we envision or hope they want to have their prospective customers be able to see the entrances to their buildings. A Level four is a very upgraded level of landscaping. It is not a skimpy level by anybody’s standards but if we go too dense we literally block what we want the people to see as they are coming off of the expressway.
With respect to the hedgerows and berms that we didn’t talk about that is something that we fully intend to put in there. We don’t want lights shining out onto the roadway but we still want people to be able to see cars and activity within the center. That is what is going to generate the leasing activity and the life of the park.
The walkways, which Mr. Higbee referred to we have them all around the park for people to sit down and congregate around the ponds, etc. We will really dress up the environment in which people office out of. That is where our success has been and that is what we have been able to lease. I understand the concern about what happens if we leave. We would be more than happy to put specific language in there but I honestly think if we go too far with the level of landscaping, it won’t live and it will defeat what we are trying to accomplish and that is have people see the beautiful facades to these buildings that we are creating.
Mr. Haase said it would be hard to hide those buildings but okay.
Mr. Baumgard said I don’t know what a Level six is. I’ve been educated on a Level four.
Mr. Haase asked, how tall are these buildings?
Mr. Baumgard said these buildings have a twenty-eight foot clear.
Mr. Carlucci said we haven’t hid any of those buildings out there yet.
Mr. Jerry Kittle with Schneider Corporation at 6825 E. U.S. 36 in Avon. When we appeared in front of the DRC committee, a couple of questions that we were not able to answer maybe quite to the expectation that they would want was they wanted the exact dimension from the edge of pavement. So, what I’m showing you here is the Ronald Reagan Parkway, two dark lines in this particular area here. That is the proposed parkway. These are from the digital files that the State has provided our office. These are accurate and the best that we have at this point. I don’t expect any changes.
This is the proposed east side. The area that is encroaching that Mr. Baumgard discussed is the distance between the edge of parking and the edge of the proposed edge of pavement for the Ronald Reagan Parkway. So, it would be the west most driving lane, southbound lane, if you will, of the Ronald Reagan Parkway. The closest point that it becomes to our edge of pavement of the parking lot is 104 feet in this particular location. As you can see, we are making the transition, this bend, if you will, for Ronald Reagan driveway. This is the actual property line. As soon as we get through the transition, you notice that we are back up to 122 feet, give or take a foot or so. So, that is basically where we are.
The part that we are talking about, as far as encroachment, is by ordinance. In a typical situation our parking would not be allowed to be in this area along there that I have highlighted. That is the 60 foot building line. So, this is the area right here that really is being discussed. We are about 41 feet at the closest point, actually 40 feet at the closest point from our property line to the edge of
pavement at this location. Keep in mind though that from this edge of pavement out to this edge of pavement from Ronald Reagan Parkway is all green. Again, it is like 104 feet, that is the closest location. So, what the developer is going to do, in this line that follows through there by the sidewalk that has been mentioned several times tonight, is to work with the landscaping and some mounding. I can’t tell you exactly what the details are. Obviously, each one of these buildings will be back in front of you for site plan approval and through the DRC process. We didn’t get as technical and itemized as some of this. We were trying to give you an overall view of the park and what the intentions were. That is the area of concern. Those are the correct dimensions as presented.
I also might want to point out, because this was another question that came up at the DRC, is what is the elevation difference between this location and our site? If you allow me to put up another board, as you can see these are the one-foot contours along the side. This is about 10 feet lower at this point than our proposed building elevation here. So, there is a 10-foot difference plus or minus from the proposed road grades to this. By the time that we get to the north side of this site we are just about zero. It is just going to be about the same elevation so this road as it travels north, is elevating and so is our site. There is a 30-35 feet difference, I believe roughly, between the north side of the site and the very south side of the site. That too works with our design and we have to take those things into consideration.
So, there are some other things in here besides landscaping and setbacks to be able to place the buildings for proper traffic control and allowing the grades to work properly to get the drainage that we need and make the transitions. I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Mr. McPhail asked, on the south end are you saying that your building pad is approximately 10 feet below the road level?
Mr. Kittle said that is correct.
Mr. McPhail said so your site is higher.
Mr. Kittle said that is correct, at the south location. As we get north, they start to go equal, they transition all the way through there. That’s where the drains are coming down through and transition into this proposed pond. So, we think it is going to be aesthetically pleasing too. Are there any other questions?
Mr. McPhail said I want to go back to Mr. McNaught’s comment. If this was designed as an interstate, the set back would only be 60 feet in our ordinance, is that correct? Is that what he said?
Mr. Haase said that is what he said. We will look to Mr. Higbee for the answer to that.
Mr. Higbee said that is actually true for whatever reason. I wasn’t here when this ordinance was written but the primary arterial has a larger setback requirement than an interstate.
Mr. McPhail asked, what about the landscaping requirement?
Mr. Higbee said that doesn’t change according to the type of roadway. That is just based on what you do with the development. Since you mentioned landscaping you opened the door. As far as Staff is aware, a Level four landscaping is not a level that would cause die off. We did mention that we had a site in the past where a Level two was offered on a perimeter and that also had a reduced yard, which packed the plantings enough to threaten the plantings and there could be some die off.
Mr. Haase asked, a Level six would not incur that either would it?
Mr. Higbee said not to our knowledge.
Mr. Haase said if the right items were planted.
Mr. Higbee said right.
Mr. Haase said I don’t know what the other Plan Commission members are thinking but maybe we need to go through the rest of Staff’s concerns, item by item. I would ask the other Plan Commission members about item one. If this whole subdivision went into I-3, do we have a problem with it and if so, do we need to put a limit on it here? I was looking through the I-3 items and you marked off a lot of those items but yet you still have bottled gas; storage and distribution.
Mr. Baumgard said if I could take that out, that is fine. We were looking for a generic light manufacturing use so that if we had a mechanic shop that was doing some metal work sometimes they store some of that outside and it falls within that use. We are more than willing to limit specific I-3 uses that you may find offensive. It is not the tenant that we are going after. We are just looking for flexibility should our plan not work and we have options to fall back on and we are not limited. That is the sole purpose of it right there and nothing more than that.
Mr. Cavanaugh said in the I-3 light manufacturing classification there are several allowances that I would question. One would be the bottled gas storage distribution. Second, would be the petroleum tank farm, which I believe they deleted in their PUD comments.
Mr. Baumgard said yes we don’t want it.
Mr. Cavanaugh said but also there is the prefabricated wood building and structural members allowance, which I think we have discussed with different industrial requests and have had some concerns with. If we move forward with this, I would like to see that removed too.
Mr. Haase said I would echo that and there is a truck terminal.
Mr. McPhail said I have that one marked also.
Mr. Baumgard asked, it is something that you don’t want?
Mr. Haase said yes I would not want that nor would I want the brewing installation of liquor and spirits.
Mr. Baumgard said that is no problem. If we have an office user, we are not going to put any of those uses in because as soon as that office lease would expire, they would want to be out of that park. This was the worse case scenario such as the way that you are looking at it if we, as the developers, left what would you be left with? I’m more than happy to go through that list with you and say yes take it out. It is not a problem. It isn’t something that is going to make or break this development. We are planning on our original plan working just fine.
Mr. McPhail asked, Mr. Chairman would you like to go through the list?
Mr. Haase asked, are you on 214-I?
Mr. McPhail said yes. I’ve got bottled gas storage and distribution. ?
Mr. Baumgard said strike it.
Mr. McPhail said alcohol beverages and not that you might bring one in but I think if we are going to have somebody dealing with alcohol beverages, the community needs to be able to know that up front before it is approved. The same way with distilling of liquor and spirits. That’s all I had marked on that page.
[Tape one concluded at this point and time and resumed with Mr. McPhail speaking as follows:]
Mr. McPhail said I think we are protected on the amount of outside storage that they can have. I think that would eliminate any offenses there. On page 2 I had prefabricated wood building structures and members and starch. Starch is a pretty potent product in terms of odor when you are processing that.
Mr. Haase said that was a thing that came to mind too. I didn’t know how much odor was associated with a lot of these. Production facilities I think we need to limit.
Mr. McPhail said starch is pretty potent. Petroleum tank farm and truck terminal those are ones that I thought we should eliminate. And then on I-1 and I-2 I think we ought to remove communication relay towers. That is a regulated thing anyway. If anybody brings a tower in, I think they need to be coming in as a separate issue.
Mr. Kirchoff said based on some comments that we had at the north/south corridor meetings the airport is going to be pretty stringent on what they allow out there anyway.
Mr. Brandgard said there are some height restrictions out there.
Mr. McPhail said I think we should get them out of there and you don’t have to worry about it.
Mr. Baumgard said there is a 100-foot height restriction there.
Mr. McPhail said they are in I-1 and I-2.
Mr. Haase asked, so are we in agreement that we are taking those out?
Mr. Cavanaugh said I would support those comments.
Mr. Baumgard said that is fine.
Mr. Haase asked, is there anything else from the members? What about limiting the amount of the I-3 space in this entire development? What was your anticipated percentage of I-3 that you would anticipate coming into that?
Mr. Baumgard said zero. That’s what we anticipate. We were told by Staff that we could limit the user to 50,000 feet so a single user couldn’t be greater than 50,000.
Mr. Haase asked, do you want I-3 out there?
Mr. Baumgard said we don’t want a project with I-3 uses unless we are forced to go that route. That would be the last choice is what I’m saying. We want the flexibility and that is the only reason that it is in there. Everything you see there has nothing to do with I-3 use. That’s why we went through the list and crossed out anything that could be offensive.
Mr. Kirchoff said it says the four buildings could be one 50,000 tenant in each building.
Mr. Baumgard said that is correct.
Mr. Haase said it says here the petitioner has limited the I-3 uses to 50,000 square foot per tenant.
Mr. Baumgard said or user, the same difference.
Mr. Carlucci said so the whole building would be I-3.
Mr. Haase said that is the way that I read it.
Mr. Baumgard said theoretically that is correct. And if you want, we can put a limit on the amount within the park and pull a number but that is basically what we are doing at this point. We have not done any studies in terms of what we would utilize nor would we at this point.
Mr. McPhail said there is an engineering laboratory. That may not be bad.
Mr. Brandgard said one way to look at this is one of our complaints with PUDs is when people keep coming back and changing them and changing them and this has some flexibility built into it. We have kind of limited the amount of flexibility by what we would allow in the I-3 area.
Mr. Carlucci said in two buildings you are eliminating them altogether because they are too small.
Mr. Baumgard said correct.
Mr. Carlucci said the other four buildings they could all be I-3 with those restrictions.
Mr. Baumgard said that is correct.
Mr. Higbee said I just handed a document to the president. It never came up at TAC but it is something that I was just catching in the ordinance that I think probably should be considered also.
Mr. Haase said it says I-3 uses permit 25% of the building area as outside storage. I-2 permits 10% and office permits zero. The PUD does not specify how much outside storage would be in any of the districts. Is that what you are indicating?
Mr. Higbee said right so since you are considering the uses and that goes along with the use I thought you should be aware of that.
Mr. Brandgard said really the way that it is designed outside storage would be minimal, if at all.
Mr. Haase said under I-3 it says number 7 on page 2.12-3 “outside storage and operations – all storage servicing and operations except for parking and loading shall be conducted within completely enclosed buildings.”
Mr. Higbee asked, is that in their ordinance?
Mr. Haase said yes. That is in the I-3. I guess you would say under their development standards.
Mr. Baumgard said correct.
Mr. Haase said, which goes for all of the I-1; I-2 and I-3 list.
Mr. Baumgard said it would just hamper our ability to go after the tenants that we want.
Mr. Haase said I think you have covered it. There’s no outside storage.
Mr. Baumgard said yes. It sounds pretty clear.
Mr. Haase asked, are we going to move onto Section 2? We are as a Plan Commission comfortable with the ability to make the entire development, less the two office buildings, I-3 with the types of uses that are placed in there.
Mr. McPhail said with the uses with the outside storage restriction I don’t have a problem.
Mr. Haase said the site design. As I think I heard Mr. Higbee indicate, all of the outside landscaping is maybe not to the level that the ordinance would require under normal but it is at a level much higher than would regularly be used.
Mr. Higbee said if you had a complying industrial development that did not utilize development incentives, it is higher than that. But it is not as high as a complying industrial development that does use all of those incentives and have all of those encroachments on that one side, on the north/south corridor.
Mr. Haase said if we go back to the DRC’s recommendations they would recommend that the south perimeter have a Level four landscaping. The north perimeter a Level two and the west perimeter a Level four.
Mr. Higbee said that kind of muddies the water a little bit because they did match DRC’s recommendation on the north/south corridor but that is still below what the ordinance would have required for what they are asking. However, on the south perimeter they didn’t quite match DRC’s recommendation. So, there is a discrepancy both on the
south with DRC’s recommendation and on the east with the ordinance, if you compare it to that.
Mr. Haase asked, would the petitioner be willing to accept the DRC’s recommendations?
Mr. Baumgard said yes.
Mr. Haase asked, would that be acceptable to the board members?
Mr. Brandgard said yes.
Mr. Cavanaugh said I would like a quick question from Mr. Higbee. The northern part of the proposed development where it is truly paralleled to Ronald Reagan where they don’t have the setback encroachment as I recall, wouldn’t that normally be a Level two requirement there?
Mr. Higbee said they have two things. They have a reduced yard. That’s still there. They have the elimination of an interior yard in each of those doubles. So, that does take it to a Level four.
Mr. Cavanaugh said so I think what we were trying to get to with the DRC’s recommendation was a Level four throughout.
Mr. Higbee said they offered that. What I’m saying is with all of that plus the parking encroachment a higher level could have been warranted on that side if it were desired.
Mr. Haase said the petitioner is willing to go to a Level four landscaping, what I would ascertain here being, all sides except the north side. Which would then be a Level two because there would be an adjoining business to the north of it. Is that agreeable?
Mr. Baumgard said that is agreeable.
Mr. Haase said now we get to the signs. I would like to hear comments from board members about signage. The signage seems quite excessive compared to what we allow. I think we need to whittle down to this.
Mr. Baumgard said there is in the package a proposed rendering or diagram of what the sign is that we propose, the large one. We don’t envision signs all around the perimeter of the project in the manner that it is being represented. Realistically we would like one large sign in this area so that when you come up, the park has been identified and it is a single sign. As you come around and you come back down Columbia to enter the park we would like some type of directional sign just showing you which way the buildings are with tenant signage on the building and that was it.
Mr. Carlucci said the Staff tries to represent what you put in there and those square footages are there. They are excessive compared to what we allow buildings that exceed your total square footage.
Mr. Haase asked, what is the square footage? Is this the main sign that you are talking about?
Mr. Baumgard said yes, the single main sign.
Mr. Haase asked, by the park?
Mr. Baumgard said correct.
Mr. Carlucci asked, do you know what the square footage of that is?
Mr. Carlucci said the Staff tries to represent what you put in there and those square footages are there. They are excessive compared to what we allow buildings that exceed your total square footage.
Mr. Haase asked, what is the square footage? Is this the main sign that you are talking about?
Mr. Baumgard said yes, the single main sign.
Mr. Haase asked, by the park?
Mr. Baumgard said correct.
Mr. Carlucci asked, do you know what the square footage of that is?
Mr. Haase said I’m sure this sign would look very small from I-70 or Ronald Reagan Parkway.
Mr. Baumgard said absolutely and it’s also an entrance into the Town.
Mr. Haase said I have no problem with that sign appearing out by the pond myself. The interior signage it says under the sign regulations the six proposed outlots would each be eligible for a 48-square foot, six-foot tall ground sign. Is that what the DRC had in their recommendations or in mind?
Mr. Higbee said under our definitions the sign that was shown would be considered a pylon. That is why that I referred to it that way earlier, but that one pylon was accepted on the north/south corridor as an identifier for the whole development. Then any other sign should be the type of sign that you are talking about, if they are going to have other freestanding signs for each building up to a maximum of one per building. Which we would typically allow for an industrial outlot.
Mr. Cavanaugh asked, would that be one per outlot?
Mr. Higbee said yes.
Mr. Cavanaugh said that would be a six-foot tall maximum and 48 square feet maximum.
Mr. Higbee said that is correct.
Mr. Haase said so you would have six of those.
Mr. Higbee said maximum yes because each one of those would in effect be treated like an outlot.
Mr. Haase said so that is agreeable with you to allow this one Sierra Gateway Park signage along the pond and the Ronald Reagan Parkway and then to limit you to six 48 square foot interior signs no more than six foot tall.
Mr. Baumgard said that is fine.
Mr. McPhail asked, does their language on the building signs meet our ordinance?
Mr. Higbee said for the most part yes. There was one little comment. As you are aware of, in our ordinance, outside of a PUD ordinance, in our regular industrial or commercial, we limit how many facades you can place a wall sign. If you have a freestanding sign, you cannot have more than two facades that have a wall sign. And there is no such limitation in their PUD ordinance so we were questioning if they are going to have a freestanding sign like we just talked about for these buildings, should we carry that limitation forward for the wall signs?
Mr. McPhail said I think we should.
Mr. Cavanaugh said it would be my thought that we should, the stipulation on ground signs. That gives them the opportunity to identify buildings or services at each building as well as have one facade that also has similar identification.
Mr. McPhail said I don’t have a problem with that. I would just like to see it meet our current ordinance up on the building sign. So, what do we have to change in their building sign?
Mr. Higbee said if that language was added, what you just said, nothing. Everything else is fine.
Mr. Baumgard said that is fine.
Mr. Haase said the next thing are directional signs. Is there any cause for concern over the directional signs?
Mr. Cavanaugh said I have just a couple of general questions. Twenty-four feet is larger than what we would normally allow for directional signs. What have you done in that area in the past and how do you utilize those signs?
Mr. Baumgard said honestly 24 feet is much larger than what we normally put. I think when we drafted the document, not knowing which way it was going, we tried to incorporate as many of the ordinances, if not all of them, that we were given. We will follow all of the ordinances. Whatever the maximum size requirements are for directional signs are fine. Typically, they are small monument signs as you drive up and see the address done very nicely with an arrow to that building and that is it. We can make a general note right now with respect to all of the signage that we would follow the ordinances with the exception of the entrance signage that we have all agreed on. Everything else is fine. It is really not a big issue.
Mr. Haase said it sounds like the simplest way to do it.
Mr. Cavanaugh asked, does that encompass what we need to think about as far as the directional signs go?
Mr. Higbee said I was reading while he said that so maybe this will help answer your question. But the ordinance would permit a six square foot incidental directional sign.
Mr. Cavanaugh asked, is there a limitation on the number of signs?
Mr. Higbee said the ordinance indicates they should be at critical turning points only so they are not just placed anywhere.
Mr. Cavanaugh said so they have the opportunity within the six square feet to provide direction and building identification as suits the interior traffic pattern.
Mr. Haase said he has agreed to follow the ordinances in Town.
Mr. Baumgard said absolutely.
Mr. Haase said I think we will be in good shape. I don’t think we have to worry about number four.
Mr. Cavanaugh said I think Mr. Chairman we covered number five in part, five a. would be an agreement for Level four on the west, east and south sides and a Level two on the north. But I think it would be worthwhile to have some discussion about the hedge shrubs that is included.
Mr. Haase asked, do you have a thought on that?
Mr. Cavanaugh said I think through the DRC and tonight we have heard comments about berms and what we might consider shielding elements as part of the plan. But they, of course, do not have the final plan. I was just wondering how we might be able to integrate those two things together? I don’t know that we want to limit the creativity to be able to do that but I think some type of additional shielding of the parking could be integrated into that.
Mr. Baumgard said we just want to make a general statement that the parking, at least the headlights, which I think is the concern, that are shielded either through beaming or some type of landscaping, i.e., hedge, that is fine. I believe that once we have done what we say we are going to do it will be far more than nothing.
Mr. Haase said it would seem like to me that this is a moving target on a particular part of the landscaping. Would the petitioner be willing to leave it to Staff approval without having to bring it back before us?
Mr. Baumgard said that would be fine.
Mr. Haase said it sounds like you are going to come up with something.
Mr. Baumgard said that will be fine.
Mr. Cavanaugh said the concern in the Staff Report, correct me if I’m misinterpreting, was that the north/south corridor would be higher than the site. We heard Mr. Kittle instruct us that actually the north/south corridor will be mostly lower than the site up to perhaps a level with the site at the northern boundary. I can understand certainly the concern if the corridor were to be higher because shrubs as a shield would have no effect. But, if indeed, the roadway is lower than the intended pad elevation to about even with, than shrubs or other types of visual barriers might be more acceptable.
Mr. Higbee said I will correct you slightly on that. We thought until we heard in the hearing tonight that it was the other way around as far as the elevation. So, that concern might not be an issue now but the comment about whether or not shrubs should be permitted as landscaping out there was really talking more about the perimeter landscaping. In other words, should that all be trees because of that elevation difference. Now that the elevation isn’t the way that we think it is that is probably not a concern anymore. We really haven’t thought about it in terms of the hedgerow. If it had been the case, yes that would have been relative to the hedgerow also but I don’t think it is a concern now.
Mr. Haase asked, does the hedgerow also refer to Columbia Road?
Mr. Higbee said yes. If this were zoned industrial or commercial, hedgerows are always required between a parking and a roadway.
Mr. Haase asked, is there a hedgerow on their landscaping?
Mr. Higbee said there is no hedgerow here. More importantly it is not in the text of the ordinance.
Mr. Cavanaugh said I think it might be fair to set the expectation that at a minimum there would be a hedgerow expectation for the perimeter or a submission and review of other plans that could be approved, i.e., a berm combination of hedgerows.
Mr. Baumgard said that would be fine.
Mr. Carlucci said however this gets to the Town Council this document is going to have to be revised before I can bring it to them for their consideration. I hope you are taking notes on both sides because we have to add and subtract from that document.
Mr. Haase asked, is there a discussion on foundation plantings? Being no comments we will let it stand where you have it. Next would be building materials.
Mr. Cavanaugh asked, do you want to talk about that parking lot screening, the last segment of landscaping, the parking lot screening, item d.?
Mr. Haase said actually I thought that parking lot screening was what you were referring to just prior.
Mr. Higbee said the parking lot comment had two issues. One of them was the hedgerow that you just discussed and additionally the ordinance requires interior parking lot landscaping. That is the one for every 15 parking spaces requirement, if you remember. One island or one tree in essence per every 15 parking spaces. If you look on their color rendering, you see the little offsets in the parking area for that but it is not reflected in the ordinance text at all that they would allow for those. So, since it is not there would be the potential for a plan to be developed that didn’t include that and then I would have to approve it.
Mr. Cavanaugh said I think it is the Staff’s suggestion that the petitioner add a statement to provide for the parking lot screening and interior plantings provided in Article 4.7 of the Zoning Ordinance. I would ask for their consideration on that.
Mr. Baumgard said that is acceptable.
Mr. Haase said next is building materials. Are there any comments on building materials?
Mr. Cavanaugh said I think the gentleman at DRC that made the motion was trying to be very specific that as we did the actual architectural plans for review, that this is the type of facility that we see that will reflect it in the plans that have been presented at DRC and this evening. I just want to describe that position where they have relatively limited specifications on building materials in their PUD ordinance. I think they could probably be crafted to give us the appearance that we need.
We also had discussions to the fact that they are not sure how many tenants that they might have. They might have one of these buildings with one or multiple tenants. So, as they develop their tenant base, they need to respond to that architecturally based on what their clients want. But this is just my expression what we experienced at DRC and not necessarily a recommendation. If we are being told that the type of development that we would get would match up with these building elevations and style and type, I think we should wait and see what they come back with for architectural review. Because we have the ability to review them at that time.
Mr. Carlucci said our tax abatement ordinance requires DRC approval for each abatement. So, even if you have development plan approval, you still have to get DRC approval because that is in the tax abatement ordinance.
Mr. Baumgard said building one will look like the elevations that you have been provided so I think we are all on the same page.
Mr. Cavanaugh said if anybody else has any comments about particular materials and style, I would certainly like to hear that.
Mr. Haase said I think we will move along. Number seven, loading. Are you familiar with what number seven says?
Mr. Baumgard said that was an oversight and we had agreed that should be back in there.
Mr. Haase said so you agree that the location of off-street loading should include the provisions of Article 4.11 Section D should be added to your PUD.
Mr. Baumgard said yes.
Mr. Haase said the pedestrian connectivity we will probably leave that alone. I thank you very much for your cooperation. At this time I need to open this hearing up on this public hearing to anyone in the audience who had any questions or comments about PP-04-001. We will be doing a recommendation to the Town Council for rezoning and also a primary plat at tonight’s hearing. Being no one coming forward we will close this public portion on this hearing and the Chair would accept any further discussion from any board members or would accept the first motion for a recommendation to the Town Council.
Mr. Daniel said Mr. Carlucci has already mentioned this but I’m going mention it again. I think if the commission is going to approve anything on this tonight, the approval should be made subject to the condition of revising the PUD ordinance to incorporate the agreements reached by the petitioner and the Plan Commission with the said revised ordinance to be therefore approved by the Staff.
Mr. Haase said I think it would be better to go ahead and do that in the matter to help expedite this and keep it moving rather than continuing it.
Mr. Brandgard said yes.
Mr. Haase asked, with that in mind is there a motion?
Mr. Cavanaugh said I would like to move to certify the zone map amendment request PUD-04-001 rezoning approximately 37.1 acres from I-2 to PUD to the Town Council with a favorable recommendation subject to the following commitments to be recorded on Exhibit A, Statement of Commitments form:
An approval subject to the petitioner revising the PUD ordinance and incorporating agreements reached by the petitioner and the Plan Commission. And said revised ordinance to be therefore approved by the Staff.
Second by Mr. Thibo. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Cavanaugh – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Cavanaugh made a motion that the Plan Commission approve the Primary Plat PP-04-001 requesting Primary Plat approval for a subdivision to be known as Airwest Section 6 subject to the following conditions:
Compliance with 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.
All lots created by an incremental secondary plat shall have either: (a) direct access to and from a public street or (b) gain access to and from a public street across a perpetual recorded access easement through portions of the real estate included in the primary plat.
All lots created by an incremental secondary plat shall either contain within the limits of the incremental secondary plat or have legal access to adequate infrastructure to accommodate the fully developed needs of the incremental plat (i.e. storm water management, sanitary sewer, water, electric, gas, telephone, etc.).
Substantial compliance with the Plainfield Subdivision Control Ordinance.
The Plan Commission finds that the Primary Plat is in full compliance with all terms and provisions of the Subdivision Control Ordinance, the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance and 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.
Second by Mr. Kirchoff. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Cavanaugh – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Haase said after a five minute recess I would like to reconvene tonight’s public hearings. The next public hearing is PP-04-002, Wal-Mart on a primary plat.
Mr. Higbee said it is also a Development Plan Approval, DP-04-003 combined with that in the Staff Report. I may or may not have listed that correctly on the agenda. What you have up before you is another aerial map. The Wal-Mart site would be approximately where I’m 20
highlighting right now. This area south is another mobile home park that would not be part of the site. So, this area here and up is two different mobile home parks, if I understand it. Those would be part of the site and the southern most area would not be part of the site. It is bounded by Main Street on the north, Clarks Creek Road and then what eventually will become Shady Lane. To the north up here is the Galyan’s retail store and that is where Shady Lane exists north of U.S. 40 today. And then there is a stub of Shady Lane by Crown Plaza Apartments and eventually a connection will be made all of the way down.
If you look at your primary plat, you will see some of those improvements on there. You will see a partial extension of Shady Lane down into an entrance on the east side of the proposed Wal-Mart site. It does not continue all the way down to make this connection. Part of the reason that it doesn’t continue all the way down is because over here on this side is what people call the old Wal-Mart. It is where Galyan’s corporate offices are now. There is a loading dock on the side of that building that actually creates problems with being able to extend Shady Lane all the way down at the current time. So, that problem needs to be resolved before the right-of-way for Shady Lane can be completely developed all the way down. As an interim Staff has been negotiating with the petitioner and owners to just get a partial extension of Shady Lane down to the entrance on the east side that you will see on your plat and your site plan.
Also shown on your plat are improvements to Clarks Creek Road and an entrance coming in, two entrances actually, off of Clarks Creek Road. There is an addendum attached to your Staff Report written by Mr. McGillem that is probably two or three pages talking about all of the traffic and infrastructure type issues. There is also a pretty substantial comment in here from the Town Engineer on water and sewer in the Staff Report. They are both here tonight if you have any questions on those issues. Those are probably the major issues for discussion tonight on the primary plat and the development plan.
That is the site plan. You have a color version of it on the phone board in front of you. You have it in your packets as well. The extension to Shady Lane that I was just referring to is right here. You can see an entry area into the site. Clarks Creek Road is over here. This site plan is not revised to have the latest change. There is another entrance now coming in here. That was per some negotiations with the Town. So, you have an entrance off of Clarks Creek on the south side of the site and another entrance between the Long John Silvers outlot and this outlot right here. While I’m speaking about outlots there is an outlot right there on Clarks Creek Road that is proposed and that would come in as a future development plan. That is not part of tonight’s development plan. It is part of tonight’s plat. And then there are two more outlots here on Main Street. This outlot, as I understand it, would be potentially the location of a gas station that would be associated with Wal-Mart in the future. But again any of those outlots would have to come back for a development plan before the Plan Commission.
You see a rather large Wal-Mart super center going down here. It was over 212,000 square feet and over 1,000 parking spaces. The site plan was actually something that we were pretty pleased with. The petitioner has made some extra efforts in providing some pedestrian connections to the site coming out from Clarks Creek Road into the building. What we have been trying to encourage in some of our recent development plans, such as J.C. Penney was one that you might recall, is developers making connections not just along the roadways in your sidewalk system but actually trying to make connections from those sidewalk systems into the building. They have done some of that here. They have also done some here but because they are not extending Shady Lane all the way down initially this connection is not going to be functional right now until such time they either extend the sidewalks down here or the right-of-way becomes completely improved with sidewalks. Then this connection will work.
I don’t have a building elevation as far as a slide here but I do have one on the phone board for you. As you know, the Design Review Committee reviews the development plans before you see them. They have seen both the site and landscape plans and these building elevations. You probably think it looks like a typical building elevation for Wal-Mart for a super center. It does but one of the differences perhaps is the building materials here. This site is located on a Gateway Corridor being Main Street. Our Zoning Ordinance has special provisions for building materials for any building facade that is visible from a Gateway Corridor. Most notably in this case would be the north facade, which I think is that. That is where all of the signs are, the north facade. But I think the east facade and part of the west facade will also be visible from Main Street. The south or rear facade would not be visible from the Gateway Corridor. What the ordinance says is if that facade is visible, the primary building material has to be brick or dryvit or what some people call EFIS and it has to consist of at least 60% of that facade that is visible from the corridor. So, that would say that this north facade would have to be at least 60% brick or dryvit and it would also have to be additional material. And then the east and west would have to be that as well. And then the south because it is not visible there is no materials requirement. What they have offered is a material called quick brick, which is not actually brick. It is a brick look product that I understand derives from some kind of concrete block. I don’t know construction materials but they can explain that to you and they have a sample to show you tonight. But it does look like brick at a distance and then as you get closer up you see the differences. But this quick brick material was discussed at DRC. DRC found it acceptable as a substitute for brick. It would require a waiver and you can give waivers under the ordinance for this particular requirement. But DRC said that those three facades, the north, east and west should have at least 60% quick brick, if that is going to be an alternative. When I looked at the revisions that came in a couple of days before the hearing here, it looked to me like some of the calculations for quick brick were questionable as to whether they reach the 60%. So, that is something that if you are going to consider approving that with a waiver to use that as an alternative material, I would want it to be subject to verifying with Staff that we do have the 60% quick brick on the facades that you think are applicable or some language like that. The rear would all be concrete block but again that is not required to meet the materials standard.
Landscaping pretty much showed up on the original. You have this in your packet. It’s a little hard to read on here but we have perimeter landscaping as required by the ordinance. We have interior parking lot islands. Remember I was talking on the last project about interior parking lot. That’s what I’m talking about, these islands on the interior so that you don’t just see nothing but asphalt. Then we have some foundation plantings close to the building.
One area of discussion was Wal-Mart did not want to put foundation plantings on this north building facade. The reason was because of the uniqueness of the traffic pattern at their sites. There are so many people coming in and out and moving around that part of the premises that there would be survival and maintenance problems with landscaping up there. So, as an alternative, what they have done is they have put in a row, which you will see more clearly on the plans in your packet, if you look at them, but there are several islands going right across here on the south end of the parking lot, probably 60-90 feet from the building. Those are additional. Those are not parking lot required plantings. They met those requirements by putting them elsewhere in the parking lot. These were put there with the intention of substituting for the foundation requirements but not putting them on the foundation. Staff felt like, and I felt like DRC in their recommendation, felt like it was a reasonable alternative. However, it will require a variance with the Board of Zoning Appeals. That variance has been filed and is pending. Other than that one issue they met all of the landscape requirements. As a matter of fact, I would like to commend them for this particular area right here that is marked on your site plan, the outside sales area where they put seasonal displays. If you look at it closely, it is actually ringed by landscape islands with trees and that is really going to help in addition just the placement on the west side of the building where outlots will be developed right here. It will be an area where you are not going to see it that much. But when you are on the site, you will see some trees around it as well so that is going to be a big improvement over what we have seen at the existing Wal-Mart.
For signage I don’t have any slides but in your packet there is a large pylon sign, what we call an integrated center sign, along Main Street. You will notice that they came up with sort of an unique name for the center. They are calling it 2300 Main Street Center. So, that is the name of the integrated center. Twenty-three hundred also
happens to be what they propose as an address for their location. That pylon sign was considered conceptually a good sign acceptable from the DRC’s standpoint, however, it wasn’t scaled. They didn’t give any information on materials so before that could be finalized Staff would need further information on that sign.
On Clarks Creek Road there was a smaller pylon that really looks more like a ground sign but you will notice that the name on that one is Wal-Mart Super Center instead of 2300 Main Street Center, which there is a problem there. They are permitted an integrated center sign on each road frontage but they need to put the name of the center on each of those integrated center signs. So, to make the one on Clarks Creek Road they would need to put 2300 Main Street Center on there as well.
The photometric plan was complying. It is a typical plan. I don’t have any comments on it. It is the usual metal halide parking lot fixtures that we see.
The Design Review Committee had a number of conditions, which are in your Staff Report. I carried them forward to your proposed motion. They had to do with many of the items that I have already talked about, the building materials, the landscaping, etc. A couple of items that were not included in the packet were information about fencing on the site. If you look at your site plan, there are a couple of places around the building where it noted fences but we don’t know what they look like. And then I was wondering if there could be some fencing around this outside sales area and what that would look like. What DRC recommended was that those come back to DRC before they are put in.
In addition, cart corrals are shown in the parking lot and we would like to know what those are going to look like before they are put in too. So, DRC recommended that they would have the opportunity to review those before they were approved.
Other than those items that I mentioned for landscaping, lighting, building materials and the pedestrian ways the big issues, as I mentioned in the beginning, were the traffic ones and perhaps the water/sewer issues. I’m not even going to attempt to talk you through those. They are shown on your plat and they are in the addendum that Mr. McGillem wrote. As I understand it, what he is suggesting in his addendum is that this plan is something that is acceptable but there would be a need for a future agreement with the Town to work out the placement and the payment for that infrastructure. Mr. Belcher and Mr. McGillem can answer any questions you have on those issues.
Mr. Haase said Mr. Belcher and Mr. McGillem might give us a brief overview of what you wrote.
Mr. Belcher said when we began to look at this site for drainage, we had some existing problems in that area. One, being the pipe that already goes into the Shrums II, the park that is still going to be there if this project gets approved. There’s water going over the road there and there are some existing conditions and also flooding that took place at the Health Care Center over Labor Day last year. We began to look at this area as a whole, which is the whole basin, which is about 200 acres if you look from the Health Care Center all the way up through the whole area that drains to it. This site is a small part of that but we saw this as an opportunity possibly to solve some of the drainage problems. So, we were looking at the solution of diverting some of that flow out of the area that is going south through the Shrums Park and then the Health Care Center and going west along U.S. 40 somehow to route it directly over to the creek. To give you the basic idea we want to take as much flow as we can through its current system with the restrictions and take what can’t fit through there somewhere else. That is really what we have attempted to do. We have been working with a local engineering company to do that. So, we think we have a concept that would do that. It would solve the problem at the Health Care Center. It would solve the problem of the overtopping of the roads and flowing under the trailers, etc. in the existing Shrums II that is occurring now with the proposal. It all again would be subject to, should you approve it, an agreement with the Town on how that might take place because there are certain off-site issues and details that would still have to be worked out and designs, etc. We know enough that we could solve that problem. Mr. McGillem and my goal is always to bring you a project that we think if this lands here, the traffic, the drainage and things could be handled in a proper fashion. And again what other issues that you have to consider, obviously, but from those standpoints I think we are in pretty good shape. I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have.
Mr. Haase said Mr. Higbee you are saying that we need to stipulate in our motion here tonight about drainage issues.
Mr. Belcher said mainly what we are trying to get to tonight is if you were to move forward as a Plan Commission and want to approve this, the infrastructure issues would have to be worked out in terms of an agreement between the Town Council and the developer as to how those would proceed forward. But we have not worked out the details of who would do what and how that would be scheduled, etc. because we don’t know enough yet to go that far and we didn’t know how you would act tonight.
Mr. McGillem said as Mr. Belcher indicated, we had a traffic study prepared through the applicant. The traffic study, of course, identifies the generated traffic, where it is going to go and what should be done. As a part of this site the two main corridors for feeding this new Wal-Mart will be Clarks Creek Road and Shady Lane on the west side. The U.S. 40 connector, as proposed there, is a direct access on U.S. 40 but they will be coming in through the signalized intersection at Shady Lane and the traffic study indicates that there is currently existing a warrant for a signal at Clarks Creek Road. So, with that we sat down and worked out with them what we felt needed to be done expanding Clarks Creek Road to a three lane section to provide for the left turn lane and also on Shady Lane. We have the details worked out that we feel needs to be done. Part of those details is going to be subject to the request to INDOT for the signal. They are going to have ideas of their own that could affect some of the access points even on U.S. 40 that exists now between Shady Lane and Clarks Creek Road. Until we submit those we really don’t know what we are going to get into. But as Mr. Belcher indicated, we are comfortable with what is being shown and what has been agreed to that needs to be done on off-site traffic improvements. Where we are at this time, and as Mr. Belcher indicated, if you move forward here tonight, we are asking that any of these traffic improvements should be subject to these off-site traffic improvements being further identified as who is going to do them, who is going to pay for them, what they are going to get done and how they are going to get done. That would be included in the memorandum of agreement that we could present to the Town Council for approval.
Mr. Haase said Clarks Creek Road to the south was that in the study and slated for improvements?
Mr. McGillem said yes. We are not looking right now at Clarks Creek Road all the way south to SR267. All we are looking at is three lanes at Clarks Creek Road at least for this time from the south drive of the Wal-Mart to U.S. 40 with a signal at U.S. 40.
Mr. Haase said just for the part that borders the new development. I would think that the south part down to the fire station and SR267 would be largely used.
Mr. McGillem said it will be used and the traffic study did identify and did take a look at the rest of Clarks Creek Road including the intersection of Clarks Creek Road and SR267 with a signalized intersection there. And felt comfortable with that intersection as it is right now. There are some other things down there that we would hesitate to do improvements all the way down through there right now due to some other things that are still being kicked around with the potential mall site.
Mr. Haase said I think throwing this development in there that 100% of Clarks Creek is going to be used quite a lot.
Mr. McGillem said we have an improvement program for the rest of Clarks Creek Road but we would hesitate to go forward until we get some of these other items that’s out there lingering right now further tied down.
Mr. Haase said I think there were some late arrivers who may not have had the Oath of Testimony administered to them. So, at this time could Attorney Daniel do that.
Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Testimony to those who arrived at the meeting later on in the agenda.
[Tape two concluded at this point and time and resumed as follows with Attorney Ben Comer speaking:]
…………submitted so between myself and these gentlemen we should be able to answer all of the questions that you have tonight. Mr. Higbee has done a good job of directing the general comments and where we are on this site. If I may begin just by going down some of the outstanding points that he mentioned beginning with the quick brick. Do you want a couple of minutes explanation as to what this product is and what it looks like?
Mr. Haase said yes I think that would be a good thing.
Mr. Michael Hicks with Taylor Scott Architects at 1437 S. Boulder in Tulsa, OK said I appreciate the opportunity to come here and visit with you. I would like to share just a few minutes about the quick brick product. I have a brochure that I would like to pass around. I would like to first start out to say that there are many reasons that we would like to go with a building that has brick on it. One of the obvious reasons is the quality of the building. It looks a little bit better. It looks a lot better than a painted CMU building but another reason that you try to go to a brick buildings is because you try to bring to the human scale factor the size of a building down to a human scale. This building, as Mr. Higbee mentioned, is about 212,000 square feet plus or minus. The front elevation the height of the wall is approximately 28 feet. That’s not at the peeks. That’s at the low part of the wall. Putting it into prospective to the J.C. Penney’s building I believe that the J.C. Penney’s is about 21 feet so our building is about eight feet higher. So, we try to incorporate brick into a building to bring it to a human scale. To bring it down to give it an appearance of a smaller looking building.
When you talk about brick itself, there are multiple sizes of brick. You have your standard residential brick. You have jumbo brick and king size brick. I think the material that is used at the Kohl’s center is a brick product. It is four inches high, which a standard CMU unit is eight inches high by 16 inches wide. The one at Kohl’s is four inches high and it is just shy of 16 inches I believe. I didn’t put a dimension to it but I believe that it is about 10 inches.
The quick brick product is used on homes as well as commercial buildings. It allows them to put a product on a building, a very big building, and downsize it to a human scale. One problem that we have run into in the past by using a residential style brick on a building of this size is that when you are in the parking lot or especially if you are driving across the front of the building, you cannot see the brick. You cannot see the mortar joints around the brick units. The brick units are about this big. They are kind of small and it’s not until you get close to the building actually within walking distance, probably 20-30 feet at the building that you actually come to realization that it is a brick building. It has something unique about it. It is a larger unit, it is four inches high and it is 16 inches wide. It is the same width as a regular CMU unit so from the roadway, or from 20 spaces out, you have the opportunity to notice those unique characteristics that brick brings to your building. You notice that it is not CMU. It is not smooth-faced. It is not split-faced. It is something different. I will be honest to my knowledge Quick Brick is the only one that does this. I know if Wal-Mart were here, they would testify with me that if there was another manufacturer, we would love it because with Quick Brick being the only manufacturer it kind of limits us to only going to them. But one thing that they provide is that they have technology that they can provide a random flashing to the face of the unit. They can make it give that appearance of brick and that is one thing that you notice when you look at a residential home or if you look at a business that has regular brick on it, it has a variation of colors. It is not just all one flat color. It has a variation color. What quick brick provides is that variation of color. One thing that was brought up during the TAC meeting, and I believe at the DRC meeting, is that there were conversations about the Wal-Mart Store in Avon. That project has quick brick on it. There were talks, if my memory serves me right, some liked it and some didn’t like it. I have a enlarged photograph here that I took the day of our last DRC meeting that I will pass around as well. I wanted to point out to you that there are variations of quick brick. What I mean by variations is that you can purchase quick brick products with a no flashing look. This is the Avon store. You can purchase it with a no flashing look and that is what they provided here. I will also point out to you that if you look at a small area like this, there is not a lot of variation. One problem that you run into the samples that Mr. Comer showed you is it is hard to get a true actual variation of color amongst three pieces of quick brick unit. So, I wanted to share this with you and I will pass it around and let you look at it. This is the type of product that we are proposing for the areas where we propose quick brick. We propose a blended color. We are not proposing the non-blended color. This is not the exact color that we are proposing. Quick Brick provides about four to six different styles. We have picked two different colors that compliment each other. The best of this picture is right here where you can see the slick. We provided a sandal wood color here and then an earth tone blend. So, the bottom line is it is a CMU unit. I can’t argue that. It is a CMU but it has something unique about it. It has something special about it that is different than a smooth-faced unit and different than a split-faced unit. It is different than a four-inch high smooth-faced unit and that is a flashing characteristic that it provides to the product.
Mr. Comer said the DRC approved this as an alternative building material and asked us to put 60% on the north, east and west. The north side in the current plan shows 60%. On the east side we are having 73%. On the west side we are running into a difficulty. This is the garden center and on this side that is our outdoor sales are. These are the bars of the gates and the typical outdoor plants and garden center is. You have some natural air flowing in through there. So, it is not something in their prototype that they use a solid material on. We think if we exclude that in our calculations, we will more than exceed the 60%. In fact, from this point over on the south half of the building they are willing to do all quick brick. Depending on how you calculate it, if you calculate it along the garden center, I don’t know that we can get to 60%. One thing that it does have going for us is if you look this way and add that part of the building, that is where the outdoor sales area is going to be. That is where they placed some additional screening around that that Mr. Higbee was complimenting us on. So, it is gong to help break that up. This plan does not show you 100% quick brick on this half of the building but I’m committing to you that is what will be done to make up for the area in the garden center.
Mr. Thibo asked, do we have any buildings in the area with quick brick?
Mr. Comer said other than the Avon Wal-Mart I don’t know.
Mr. Cavanaugh said I have a couple of questions regarding the plans supplied and the color elevations supplied. I might be missing something but I think there are discrepancies between what is described on the actual architectural plans as far as the different masonry and what is described on the rendering. I heard your commitment for the west facade to be all quick brick, is that correct?
Mr. Comer said from the south half of that building other than the garden center, which is the darker area right here.
Mr. Cavanaugh asked, so could you redefine that please?
Mr. Comer said the south half of the building would be 100% quick brick exclusive of the doors.
Mr. Cavanaugh asked, so that is what your commitment is then?
Mr. Comer said yes.
Mr. Cavanaugh said if I’m reading the color rendering correctly I believe the rest of the north facade other than the EFIS areas is also quick brick.
Mr. Comer asked, Mr. Hicks is that an accurate statement?
Mr. Hicks said yes. The front facade is either quick brick or EFIS.
Mr. Cavanaugh said similarly on the east facade is where I notice most of the discrepancy on the material descriptions on the architectural plans verses the rendering. I’m also, I believe, reading the quick brick throughout the extent, I will say the northern half of the building and then it changes to split-face and quick brick further back. But on the architectural plans I believe calling for some smooth split-face. It is different than what is on the rendering.
Mr. Hicks said that is noted incorrectly, the front elevation. This view here from here all the way back to here is 100% quick brick on the building and there is EFIS on the pharmacy that pulls out. You are correct I’m looking here and it is noted as smooth-face. This is all quick brick back here and this is quick brick all the way down here. The strip is quick brick and this light material is CMU and split-face here. This is CUM as well and this is around the corner. You are correct. I apologize for that.
Mr. Cavanaugh said for our consideration the rendering is more correct than the architectural detailed drawings with the additional commitment that Mr. Comer as made.
Mr. Haase asked, the material used around the west facade around what you call a black ornamental fence is that going to be the quick brick?
Mr. Comer asked, up in this area?
Mr. Haase said yes.
Mr. Comer said no I don’t believe that has been proposed.
Mr. Hicks asked, are you talking about this area?
Mr. Haase said yes.
Mr. Hicks said since we weren’t able to see the building what we have done is we have implemented a black ornamental fence but it will be quick brick.
Mr. Comer said to go onto landscaping we meet all of the landscaping and have greatly exceeded in many aspects but for one and that is the foundation plantings along the front of the building. Based on experience those plantings get beat up and don’t survive. Wal-Mart does not want to forego any of their obligations, therefore, the front row on the far south end of the parking lot we have made additional islands right through here to try to make up for the lack of foundation plantings. I believe there are seven islands with two trees per so there are 14 trees. None of the islands are counted toward the interior parking. Three of the trees are counted toward the interior parking so we have 11 additional trees. That is the only variance that we are asking for on this site. With all of the other landscaping it meets or exceeds your ordinance requirements. The DRC did give a recommendation for approval to that and do we have an application on file to be at the BZA in two weeks.
In reference to the signage we have a pylon sign along Main Street that we believe in basic design meets the ordinance. Before we pull the sign permit we will bring that through Mr. Higbee and DRC to get their blessing on the final design.
The sign along Clarks Creek Road we intended to be a monument sign and not an integrated center sign. That is why we don’t have 2300 Main Street as the integrated center name on that sign.
Mr. Higbee said the ordinance anticipates either integrated center signs, which denote the entire center or signs for the outlots within the center. It doesn’t anticipate sort of a monument sign that denotes something other than the integrated center unless it was before one of the outlots. The only way to comply with the ordinance with that sign would be to put the same integrated center name on the sign. That doesn’t mean that you can’t have Wal-Mart on that sign also as a tenant of the integrated center.
Mr. Haase asked, is there any square footage available based on the size that they have there?
Mr. Higbee asked, are you referring to this sign?
Mr. Haase said yes.
Mr. Higbee said that sign as I recall, is right about at the maximum permitted. It is based on street frontage so the size sign that they can have on Clarks Creek Road is a little different than what they can have on Main Street because of the difference in the amount of street frontage. So, I think they were at the maximum but you notice that they have a base on that sign too so they might be able to do something in terms of redesign to make it look different than it does.
Mr. McPhail asked, would it require a waiver or a variance if we wanted to approve that?
Mr. Higbee said a variance. That is not part of the Gateway Corridor’s provisions. It is part of the sign provisions so it would require a variance.
Mr. McPhail said if they had 2300 Main Street Center on there and then Wal-Mart, it would be fine.
Mr. Higbee said correct.
Mr. Comer said that is what we will do. Consequently, you probably don’t get this very often but they are foregoing the pylon sign for this monument sign. Even when it is allowed there, this is what they are proposing. Keep that in mind because my next point is regarding signage on the front of the building. DRC recommended that we settle for less slogans and, for example, meat/deli/bakery, some of the things that they didn’t believe was necessary. This is a new prototype for Wal-Mart. It is a super center and offers a lot of products that they don’t necessarily offer now at the Wal-Mart here. In a lot of other locations they would like to designate what they provide at this center. As an overall sign package, we were way under the ordinance maximum. That monument sign in lieu of a pylon sign is a good example but even on the wall signage in of itself we are significantly by several hundred feet under the maximum allowed. So, that is our justification in our mind of why you are hoping that you will allow that sign package to be approved as is.
Mr. Haase asked, do you have anything else?
Mr. Comer said I don’t believe so. These were the only issues that I earmarked from Mr. Higbee’s comments.
Mr. Haase asked, is there anyone else on your team that would care to speak?
Mr. Comer said I don’t believe so. We would be happy to answer your questions or that of the public.
Mr. Kirchoff said I have a question on the signs. The sign plan shows the sign out on U.S. 40 and the one out on Clarks Creek and it shows two other signs. Have they been withdrawn?
Mr. Higbee said I don’t recall the other two signs. There was a tire/lube express sign that has been taken out at one point and changed to a directional sign.
Mr. Kirchoff said it says a proposed monument sign out on Shady Lane.
Mr. Higbee said that is new. That might have snuck in on the last revision that came in a couple of days ago and nobody told me about it.
Mr. Comer said evidently it did. A pylon sign is actually allowed there also but they are going to do a monument sign evidently along Shady Lane.
Mr. Higbee asked, is it similar to the one on the other side?
Mr. Comer said yes identical.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, what about this sign?
Mr. Higbee said it is just a directional sign I believe.
Mr. Comer said we changed it to a directional.
Mr. Higbee said they had a pole sign at one point. We said that is going to be a problem so they changed it to a directional sign, a small one.
Mr. Comer said I would like to make one more comment on the wall signage. If you don’t deem it appropriate as is and we have to reduce some of those other items, they would like to be able to increase the allowed signs in size, which would still put them well under the ordinance.
Mr. Haase said we will take that into consideration although you are under the square footage you have a very large front facade. At this time we will open this meeting up to anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this petition.
Mr. Carmen Argenziano said I’m with BR Associates, Inc. They are the owner and operator of the Long Johns facility located on the southeast corner of Clarks Creek and U.S. 40. First I would like to state that we are not against the proposed development. We own many restaurants in the State of Indiana and many right here in the Indianapolis market. We are one that believes that developments of this nature are good for everybody. In this particular case, however, there is an issue of great concern. I’m going to ask you what I’m going to ask you first and then I’m going to explain why. What we are requesting is that before a decision is rendered or if a decision is rendered, it be contingent on some clarification of ingress/egress. We got this proposed recommendation actually on Thursday. The owner and myself were out of Town. I arrived Sunday night and we were able to read and tried to discern some of the issues this morning. As you know, when the median was put in on U.S. 40, the State required that it greatly inhibited our accessibility from that road by making right in/right out only. What is being proposed now in the traffic plan is a light on Clarks Creek Road and then a median be installed that runs north and south to facilitate two lanes heading north, one to go left and right out of the center. And then one lane coming in driving south into the far south entrance. And then a median be constructed, which would enable no one to come into our facility without going through the Wal-Mart center. We have had discussions with the City just this afternoon a little bit about some possible solutions but we won’t know anything until I guess it is INDOT that determines what action is best. What we are asking is that until that happens that we not approve any site plans as far as ingress/egress. We certainly realize that Wal-Mart is going to add steak to the plate but if we sew our mouth shut here, we are not going to be able to eat and die. So, we need to make sure that we have the ability to gain access to our facility before it is rendered all but useless.
A couple of solutions that we are going to pursue is that the proposed median have a break for the first entrance south on Clarks Creek and that we have access in and out left and right on Clarks Creek with a median break possibly. But we are just not in the position and we don’t have enough information and we are asking for your help.
Mr. Haase said I don’t know where that stands. I don’t know who had discussions with them today.
Mr. Belcher asked, do you want to deal with it now or wait for other comments?
Mr. Haase asked, were their some conversations with you?
Mr. Belcher said I can confirm that Mr. McGillem and I had a conference call with Mr. Argenziano and the owner, Mr. Ruckriegel. We spoke on the phone again today trying to get them up-to-speed as to where we were. This drive here was what we were trying to explain to them over the phone not knowing whether they even had it at the time. It was something that came relatively late. That is a depiction of that same drawing that he has but again they didn’t get it until late. So, we were going through why we thought that was important. What it comes down to is we don’t have full control because the State will have involvement in the signal at that intersection should this go forward. They will have something to say about a left turn with the volumes of traffic that will be generated to this new facility should it go in. I can imagine someone turning off of U.S. 40 and stopping to make a left and not being able to get across because so much traffic comes out at the same time. In effect you have a median created by cars as opposed to a concrete median. The initial plans had no access to that corner and we knew that would not be acceptable. And even now it sounds like it may not be acceptable to this owner but this is where we were when we had this conversation this afternoon.
Mr. McGillem said the concern, as Mr. Belcher indicated, with the drive where it is located right now and the traffic generated from Wal-Mart northbound is going to create a barrier to get into that drive to turn left as the drive currently exists. One car practically where that drive stands now if he turns south on Clark Creeks Road onto U.S. 40 and you want to make a turn left and he stops there because he can’t turn left, you are going to start stacking cars up out into U.S. 40. INDOT is not going to stand for that. So, consequently what we had asked and worked with Wal-Mart was to get the outlot that Wal-Mart is proposing and shift it farther south to where they could be the access as shown now from Clarks Creek Road into the Wal-Mart parking lot. Which then allows the access for the two outlots off of that access drive. We had indicated this afternoon when we were talking, that drive is at least a little bit farther south of U.S. 40. INDOT may be willing to take a look at making the break there. It is still relatively short. You have a relatively short distance.
Another alternative could be if you had more right-of-way at least through that intersection area, get two lanes southbound, which would make it a four-lane approach. So, that if you do have someone stopped there to make the left turn in, you are not backing traffic up. You could at least have traffic that will bypass and get through. So, that is another approach but you are looking at more right-of-way needed at that approach in order to get another lane in there.
So, these are some of the things that we really don’t know until we get with INDOT. But there are some things that can be done. My feeling is there is no way that the existing drive, as it is out there now, is going to be able to be left open for full access.
Mr. Kirchoff said we certainly don’t want to create backup at that location, which we see down at Cambridge and Shell and how that all gets backed up. As we talked about it, I think we have to be really careful that we don’t create another problem. So, that is why we are taking a look at this.
Mr. Haase said I agree we don’t want to create a problem but we also don’t want to create a hardship on an existing business that has been in Town for quite awhile.
Mr. Kirchoff said I understand.
Mr. Haase said it definitely deserves more research.
Mr. Argenziano said that is all that we are asking for because I’m sure we can come to an agreement of some kind.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, will you have access directly off of U.S. 40?
Mr. Argenziano said a right in/right out.
Mr. McGillem said he would still have the right in/right out off of U.S. 40. The idea would be to be able to get them to access off of Clarks Creek Road without having to go all the way to the south Wal-Mart drive.
Mr. Argenziano said exactly.
Mr. McGillem said I certainly understand. Like I say there are some alternatives that could be adopted out there. We may need to work a little further to get INDOT into the picture and take a look at the right-of-way with what can be done.
Mr. McPhail said I understand his position but it appears to me with the traffic signal there and the left turn lane that even if they had to go to the south entrance and come back into the Long John Silvers site, it would be a better condition than he has today. It is very difficult to make a left turn there now when you are going westbound without a signal. There are times in the day that it is almost impossible. So, I believe that the signal certainly improves the ability to get people into his site.
Mr. Kirchoff said remember too that we are aligning the intersection to the north so that is going to become a better traffic flow there. We are moving it to the east and aligning the north and south intersections.
Mr. Haase said his concerns is from the westbound traffic being able to turn into his facility.
Mr. Argenziano said exactly.
Mr. Haase said and you can wait there for the traffic to clear out without a stoplight and turn left and make another left turn into his facility. Even with the stoplight you are going to really throw people’s traffic patterns if you force them to go all the way down to the southern most entrance on this Clarks Creek Road. From a business standpoint it would not be as good of an entrance than he has today.
Mr. Bob Ruckriegel said I’m President of BR Associates said this is not a new situation in the 40 years that we have been in business. The comment on coming in farther down it takes a site like that about to a 70% site in our history on when this thing occurs where they take our entrance farther away from us. The light definitely would probably help but we have a situation where I can give an example in Evansville, Indiana on Green River Road in front of the Eastland Mall. It is a million two hundred thousand square foot mall. Without the direct access coming in that we would have it limits that site even if you come into the back of the site. It has some real limitations to the access in our type business to be a determent to us. The same thing with the town square mall in Owensboro, Kentucky. It really limits our ability and the value of our property.
Ms. Kim Lynch at 4820 Tempe Court, Indianapolis said a lot of people here are not businessmen. Their homes are here that Wal-Mart is wanting to take away. I understand that. What I think a lot of these people want to know is what is going to happen to them? We have been reading in the newspaper and we knew this was coming but like Mr. Fitzgerald, he owns some of the property and a lot of these people have no clue as to what is happening. They are just waiting for the other shoe to drop. I think we are just here to try to find out where we stand? What is going to happen? We know Wal-Mart is coming but I guess we need to know when?
Mr. Haase asked, like the sequence of events?
Ms. Lynch said yes. A lot of these people own their homes. They are not fancy homes but they are homes. They are not going to have compensation to just up and move on a dime. I guess we are just wanting to know where we stand? I know this lady here just like my parents have been here for almost 40 years. Mr. Fitzgerald knew it was coming. We all knew it was coming but I think we just need to know as soon as possible where we stand?
Mr. Haase said I think this is the beginning of it tonight. I think it is a good question. I think we can let the petitioner answer and we will see if we can bring at least some satisfaction and the knowledge that you are desiring.
Mr. Michael Courtney at 2315 E. Main said currently there is a super Wal-Mart in Avon. There is not a Wal-Mart in Mooresville. There is one in Martinsville. I don’t know if it is a super Wal-Mart or not. Why are we moving our current Wal-Mart to this location and putting everyone out of their house? It is pretty much the cheapest place to live. None of these people will probably be able to afford an apartment in Plainfield or any other kind of home in Plainfield. They are going to have to move out of Plainfield, out of Hendricks County because they cannot afford to live in Hendricks County anymore. Right now where I live it is $215.00 a month for lot rent. Show me an apartment that is $215.00. I don’t have a trailer payment. I own my trailer and a lot of these other people own theirs. Some are still making payments so there is nowhere to live for that kind of money. Why not propose to go to Mooresville? There is Meijer out there. There would really be good competition out there for them to go out to Mooresville and build a super Wal-Mart out there. There is Heartland Crossing out in Camby, Mooresville and the Tri County area. It is also part of Hendricks County as well. Why not build out there and not put hundreds and hundreds of people out of a home? That’s my main concern. I’m building a house so it’s not going to affect me very much. In four months I will be gone. I’m going to be out of Hendricks County but for a lot of these people they can’t do that. It’s not financially feasible. Some are on fixed incomes and they are not going to be able to do that. They are going to go to nursing homes or they are going to have to go to Section 8. Where is Section 8 living? There’s none in Hendricks County that I’m aware of currently so that is just my concern for my fellow neighbors. It’s not going to affect me personally but it will affect a lot of my friends and a lot of people that I have met and everyone else around us. For me I consider it a big bully coming in and forcing everybody out. I’ve got millions and millions of dollars and you don’t have anything, get out, I’m coming here. That is the way that I feel that they are doing. They are forcing us out of our homes and I don’t like that and even if it is not going to affect me it is going to affect hundreds of other people. I bet this isn’t even one percent of the people that it is going to affect because you are talking about all three mobile home parks along U.S. 40. I know ours has 16 trailers in it. The one next to that has over 50 trailers in it and the main office has way over hundreds of trailers in it. So, it is going to put pretty close 500 families or more out of homes. If we do let Wal-Mart build there, we need to try to figure out where can we let these people go? They can’t move their trailers because the ages of their trailers. There are already ordinances and things from the City and the County that you can’t move a trailer 10 years old. If it is not 1992 or newer you can’t move it so nobody can move their trailer anywhere so, they are not going to be able to move their home anywhere else. It’s $1,500.00 to move it even.
Mr. Haase said we will let the petitioner address that.
Mr. Arnold Furnett said I live in Shrums and have been here 29 years. I bought my trailer brand new and I’m 77 years old. You tell me what I’m going to do?
Mr. Haase said I don’t have a particular answer but I’m also not the landowner but I do have some compassion for the people who are being affected by this.
Mr. Furnett said when I came out here, there was nothing. Galyan’s downtown, there was nothing the other way, all farms. It was a nice place to live. Mabel had to move but she’s not in the best of health anyway.
Mr. Bill Dykus said I live at 2325 E. Main, Shrums. I moved here March of last year. If I had known this was going to happen, I would stayed in Indianapolis. But the main problem that I have is I’m on a fixed income and Larry said he didn’t sell his property. What am I going to do if he does and where am I going to move to?
Mr. Haase said I don’t have an answer for you. I know it is a difficult situation.
Mr. Dykus said I get paid the third of each month. I still have to pay this month if he didn’t sell the property but if he sold the property, I would just pack up and move to Indianapolis.
Mr. Comer said it is one of the hardest questions I’ve had to answer. It’s not an easy answer so I’m just going to try to take a stab at it and say Mr. Haase I mimic your thoughts that I have compassion for these people. Wal-Mart is not looking to move anyone out of their house. What Wal-Mart has done is they are overflowing their existing facility. They have outside storage that is not recommended and perhaps not even allowed and they have to go to another site. In their business plan they located at this site, which is zoned commercial and has been for approximately 10 years. There is commercial zoning all around it. The Comprehensive Plan calls for this site to be commercial. The Comprehensive Plan calls for all of the properties around it to be commercial. Their business plan and the Town ordinances have led my client to this particular site. If Wal-Mart doesn’t come in, another business is going to and this discussion was inevitable and is inevitable and unfortunately it is me standing here tonight bringing the bad news. This deal is far from done. This is only the first approval of several steps in the process to make this transaction happen. If it does happen, then it will be several months from now before anyone will be requested to move. It will be several months. What I suggest is, and I have confirmation from the landowner, that he will keep the owners of the mobiles on written posted notices the happenings and that he will work them if they contact his office to find an alternative location.
Mr. Haase asked, what about the turning lane, etc.?
Mr. Comer said I would ask if we could lump that into the off site infrastructure contingency that was discussed at the beginning of the meeting regarding drainage and road improvements. That it be hammered out prior to the permits.
Ms. Angelene Salsbury said I live at 2315 E. Main St., Trailer 5. I wasn’t sworn in. I don’t mean to take up anybody’s time but my main question that we want to know is Wal-Mart is saying several months. We would like to know how soon is this project going to be started? There is no communication between the people in the trailer park. There are very few people that are even aware of this meeting taking place. A paper smaller than this was posted on a little tiny sign in front of one trailer. It got blown off several times. It was put back up because of the winds and weather but I went from trailer to trailer to find out who knew about it in our cul-de-sac. Basically, no one is keeping the lines of communication open with us. We need to know. We don’t need to have 30 or 60 days to know. We need to know before that and from what I understand it cost anywhere from $1,500.00 to $4,000.00 to move a trailer and that is if we are lucky enough to find a place that will take a trailer as old as they are. A lot of these people cannot afford to do that.
Mr. Haase said as far as the acknowledgement and knowing what is going on here there is probably one person who gets notified and that is the landowner. The landowner or the people two deep or 600 foot away from the site are also noticed. And that would only be the property owner. It would not be the occupants. That would go for commercial sites as well. In other words, businesses in the shopping center just east of you they would not get noticed. The landowners would get noticed. That little sign that got blown down and put back up is a legal notice that is required by the Town and by the State’s ordinances also. I think there needs to be better communication between your landowner and yourselves on a monthly basis as to what is going on.
Ms. Salsbury said no one is communicating with us and they are telling us that they don’t know.
Mr. Haase said I think the landlord should be charged to keep their tenants informed as to what is going on. I don’t see anything wrong at this point. There may be somewhere between an 18-24 month period, if this would get approved, from the time of approval until Wal-Mart would actually open. I don’t know what the steps are within that 18-24 month time frame but I think Wal-Mart has a better idea and they can communicate with the landowners and they may even be able to get a list off the landowners of tenants and be able to communicate with them also. I will say that, as Mr. Comer said, the land has been zoned General Commercial for a long time. We have heard for probably five years whispers about things happening with that site. I think with this meeting here tonight you can be well assured probably something is going to happen with that site within three to nine months. If I was living there, I would be doing what it took to make plans to probably relocate. I would be a little proactive rather reactive. I know it always seems unfair that the people occupying do not get noticed but State statutes state that it just has to be the landowners. Out of each trailer court maybe one person living in each of the trailer courts also can take charge with making sure that everybody is notified of what is going on. And the leaders of each individual trailer court could get together and make sure that the landowners and communication with Wal-Mart is carried on.
Ms. Salsbury said from what you are telling me it is anywhere from three to nine months. Wal-Mart is saying like it could be almost a year.
Mr. Comer said it is going to be at least a year before it opens. The absolute quickest time line that they would have to be moving dirt, if every contingency was met, would be six months. What I would also recommend is that you contact the management company.
Mr. Haase said the management company would be the people that they rent off of.
Mr. Comer said yes.
Mr. McPhail said I believe in the conversations I have had with the developer that they would like to start construction yet this year.
Mr. Haase said if it gets approved tonight, things start in motion tonight. If it doesn’t get approval and gets continued, obviously it is put off 30 days. But I think the inevitable situation is something is going to happen there to unfortunately displace people from their home sites. So, as much as you can do to prepare for that now would be the time.
Mr. (inaudible) on Tempe Court said my only comment is you see the Wal-Mart commercials and you know that they are basically the biggest company in the world as far as making money and talking about all that they do for the community. You would think they could be a little more proactive as a company in being able to communicate with the people there and maybe even help them out. I think through the newspaper or through any kind of media that I would try to give it as much bad publicity as possible. I’m basically talking to the Wal-Mart people here. I would try to give it as much bad publicity as possible unless they could be proactive in trying to help out the community like they say they try to help in their commercials.
Ms. Pat Galker at 2383 E. Main, Lot 37 in Westwood said if they take over, are they going to let the managers in our parks help us or are they going to help us to move?
Mr. Haase asked, if this gets approval here tonight, when does Wal-Mart take control of the land?
Mr. Comer said there would be several contingences still to be met. The contracts are with the management company and the landowner and that is who you need to talk to.
Ms. Galker asked, do you let them help us or do you come in and help us?
Mr. Haase said the people that you lease the space off of that is the person that you need to be in contact with. They should be your communication.
Mr. Don Meadors at 2325 E. Main St. said to answer the lady’s question there will probably be no compensation. Indiana law says that any landowner has to only give you 30 days to exit the premises. There is nothing that they can do we can force them to compensate us for our moving. When the airport took over Trailer City, had a relocation fund set in for that. They didn’t have to do it. They could have bought it. In this scenario their holding company or whoever it is is buying the property up for Wal-Mart. They buy our trailer park and become our landlord. That makes Wal-Mart our landlord. Since they have already shown now what wonderful neighbors they are we will probably get jack. I think that answers her question.
Mr. Daniel said when the airport took over Trailer City that was a condemnation case and under eminent domain the State of Indiana through condemnation when you take property through condemnation, there are relocation benefits available to residential property.
Mr. Meadors said I stand corrected.
Mr. Daniel said that is the reason they were required to pay relocation amounts because of the results of eminent domain law in the State of Indiana.
Lady from audience asked, can you tell me when the next meeting is going to be on this? How do I go about finding out about it?
Mr. Haase asked, as far as future development?
Lady said yes sir.
Mr. Haase said we have a Plan Commission meeting here tonight. This will probably get voted on here tonight. What happens after that tonight Mr. Higbee?
Mr. Higbee said as Mr. McGillem was mentioning with the addendum in your Staff Report one of the suggested conditions if you are going to consider approval tonight, would be that there be a future agreement that had to do with the infrastructure, drainage, all of those issues that were talked about earlier. This project can’t go without those improvements so an agreement has to be made. That is the question as to the schedule. Is there going to be some time that you want to think about tonight or is that going to be determined later or when is the meeting going to happen? That will decide what the schedule is going to be. That will be a public meeting like this one. This is where the zoning approvals would happen but I would not issue an Improvement Location Permit for my department and the building department would not issue building permits until that condition that you might put on it tonight is met that we have an agreement on how all of the infrastructure is going to be handled. So, that is going to take some time but we don’t know how much yet.
Mr. McGillem said that would be presented to the Council, the memorandum of understanding that would have to be approved. I would not see that memorandum of understanding being able to be finalized until we submit to INDOT and we get INDOT into the game from the standpoint of the signal, which is a major item. And also when we get INDOT, there will be stipulations as what we will have to do with the Clarks Creek Road, etc. and the design of that. After this meeting here, depending on what happens here tonight, we would anticipate submitting the traffic study and the information requesting INDOT’s review and approval of the signal at Clarks Creek Road probably within the next few days. I would say it would probably take at least two or three weeks before we are going to get any meaningful response back from INDOT.
Mr. Haase said here is what I would like and what needs to happen. Mr. Higbee said the Plan Commission needs a monthly update report about the Town’s progress with this after the vote tonight. As I recommended, you are appointed finding somebody in your trailer park to be the leader for your trailer park. They can either call Mr. Higbee or come into this meeting. We meet the first Monday at 7:30 every month. You are more than welcome to call Mr. Higbee to see if there is any updates that he has at anytime but you can also come in the first Monday of every month at the Plan Commission meeting. Mr. Higbee will have a small update for us on what has transpired and we will reflect that to you. We will try to do what we can do to help ease the pain.
Mr. McPhail said I might add that the local newspapers are here tonight and will probably keep a heartbeat on this so you just might read the paper on a regular basis to see if they have any updates because they attend most of our public meetings.
Mr. Haase asked, does the petitioner have anything to close with? Being no one coming forward we will close the public portion of this hearing and the Chair would accept any discussion among board members. We have two different motions that need to be done tonight and we will take them separately. We have one for an Architectural Review and one for a Primary Plat.
Mr. McPhail asked, we had at least one commitment to put the quick brick on the west facade 100% of the southern edge of the building. Was there anything else that’s not covered in your report that they committed to?
Mr. Higbee said what I was questioning, and some of Mr. Cavanaugh’s comments were clarifying, that apparently the color rendering was more accurate than the black and white full size drawing that you had. I also was questioning how they calculated the 60%. I’m not saying that they are incorrect but it wasn’t clear to me how they did that. So, what my suggestion was that on all three of those facades that you state your motion in such a way that it would allow me to review how that 60% was calculated for each facade and if it met that requirement, then it could be approved.
Mr. Haase said as far as all of the off site questions about sewer, drainage, roads, water, etc. our legal counsel said that would be best to put with the primary plat.
Mr. Higbee said I agree. I was noticing that myself.
Mr. Cavanaugh made a motion to approve DP-04-003 requesting Architectural Review for commercial development within 600 feet of a Gateway Corridor and within 600 feet of a Residential District subject to the following conditions:
Substantial compliance with the site plan, landscape plan, building renderings, building calculations, photometric plan, sign plan and details and lighting details and building elevations file dated February 27, 2004.
Subject to Staff review for compliance of all plans and renderings, which were revised and not fully reviewed prior to the DRC and Plan Commission meetings.
Landscaping on U.S. 40 shall be a minimum Level 1 landscaping across the main lot and all outlot frontage and along the Shady Lane outlot frontage.
The landscaping on the interior of the lot near outlot 2 shall be continued along the east side of outlot 2.
All landscaping materials shall be in accordance with the written recommendation of the DRC landscape consultant.
The pylon sign is acceptable in concept. However, further detail for the sign shall be provided before it can be approved.
The blended type of quick brick shall be used and on the north, west and east facades shall comprise approximately 60% of each facade except as detailed in the renderings at tonight’s meeting. And with the commitment for all quick brick for the indicated masonry areas on the west facade. The calculations of 60% are to have final review and approval by Staff.
On the north facade only all the wall signs necessary to identify the business and main facilities but not advertising or product identifiers shall be permitted.
The flagpole on the north facade shall be used for a governmental flag only.
If any fencing is installed on the site as indicated currently on the plans or elsewhere, it shall be brought to the DRC before approval.
The detail for cart corrals shall be provided to DRC before approval.
Additional sign details showing the modification to add address to the signs other than the center sign shall be provided to Staff for approval.
And regarding development within 600 feet of a Gateway Corridor finding that:
The Development Plan will comply with all applicable Development Standards of the district, which the site is located.
The Development Plan will comply with all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Control Ordinance for which a waiver has not been granted.
The Development Plan will comply with all applicable provisions for Architectural Review for which a waiver has not been granted.
The proposed development is appropriate to the site and its surrounding.
The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
And regarding development within 600 feet of a Residential District that:
The proposed development represents a use of site design features, which will enhance the use or value of area properties.
The proposed development is consistent with and compatible with development located in the vicinity and with the use and development of residential districts located within six-hundred (600) feet.
The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
And regarding the waiver requests for building materials finding that:
The proposed development does represent an innovative use of building materials, site design features or landscaping which will enhance the use or value of area properties.
The proposed development is consistent with and compatible with other development located along the Gateway Corridor.
The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Gateway Corridor and the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
Second by Mr. McPhail. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Cavanaugh – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Cavanaugh made a motion that the Plan Commission approve the Primary Plat PP-04-002 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.
Approval by the petitioner and Town of a memorandum of understanding setting forth an agreement between drainage, road improvements and other necessary infrastructure for the development.
The Plan Commission finds that the Primary Plat is in full compliance with all terms and provisions of the Subdivision Control Ordinance, the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance and 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.
Second by Mr. McPhail. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Cavanaugh – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Comer said for clarification on two items on the architecture review, items 7 and 8, on the first one, on the quick brick would you
repeat that for me? I couldn’t write that down. Summarize for me what was approved there.
Mr. Cavanaugh said what you agreed to do tonight. Basically the definition of quick brick areas would be defined by the rendered elevations that we have and not by the architectural detail plans and in addition to your commitments.
Mr. Comer said the wall signage did your motion include exactly how it is written. In essence you didn’t approve our pitch?
Mr. Haase said he read it as written.
Mr. Comer said which denies product, i.e., baker/deli, etc.
Mr. Cavanaugh said yes.
Mr. Haase said I would ask Wal-Mart to get with Mr. Higbee and get his e-mail address. He knows what the Town’s address is. I expect Wal-Mart to keep us duly informed about their progress as well.
We need to suspend the rules since we have one more public hearing tonight on the park zoning ordinance amendments. We need to suspend the rules to allow a public hearing to begin after ten o’clock.
Mr. McPhail made a motion to suspend the rules in order to allow an additional public hearing. Second by Mr. Matrana. Motion carried.
Mr. Ruckriegel asked, where did our part fall?
Mr. Haase said it fell in with the water, drainage, etc. That all has to come through INDOT and everything else before anything can happen.
PARK ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
Mr. Higbee said I handed it out last week and I handed it out again this week. We have discussed it in the past so do I need to refresh you on anything?
Mr. Haase said no.
Mr. Higbee asked, do you want to go ahead and make a recommendation to the Town Council?
Mr. Haase asked, does anybody have any corrections or questions about the park zoning district?
Mr. Cavanaugh said no I do not.
Mr. Haase asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on the park district? Being no one coming forward the Chair will accept a motion for a recommendation.
Mr. McPhail made a motion to make a favorable recommendation to the Town Council for the park zoning ordinance amendment as presented. Second by Mr. Cavanaugh. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Cavanaugh – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
OLD BUSINESS/NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Higbee said I have one more item that did not appear on the agenda. If you recall last month, I approved a minor amendment for First National Bank for the drive-thru canopy. It was appealed here at the Plan Commission because of issues dealing with the north/south alley. It was showing pavement of a portion of that alley, which would have allowed it to be used possibly as an entry into that drive-thru canopy and cause a conflict with vehicles and pedestrians. So, per your instructions we had some meetings, myself, Mr. Belcher, Mr. McGillem and Banning Engineering. The solution that I recommended I think we are all happy with is instead of putting the paving there that they were showing before to not do that and then have some temporary bollards just south of where that driveway would be and then along that drive-through. So, that nobody would be able to get through there. We didn’t want to do anything permanent because we think the streetscape plan and the Town plans for that improvement of that alley is going to determine what needs to happen there in the long run. So, we thought the temporary bollards would take care of it. I have re-approved the plan with that in place. I would like to report that approval to you tonight.
Mr. Haase said if all of those people approved it, I’m satisfied.
Mr. Higbee said I satisfied Mr. McGillem, which were your instructions.
Mr. Haase said I’m going to pass this around for those who have not see it. This has been reprinted by permission from the Indianapolis Start. This is on foreclosures in the housing market. I don’t know if you have all read it but if not, reread it. It is what we are charged with by this Plan Commission more than ever. It is why we instituted the new development standards for houses, design guidelines and why we keep uping the standards. We don’t want Plainfield’s housing to be pulled down with the rest of the counties or the rest of the states. We want to maintain our level or increase our level for our residents. That is our first charge is to protect the residents of the Town of Plainfield.
Mr. Brandgard said as a comment relative to that this goes into your lower priced homes, your $90,000-$120,000.00 homes where the problems are. The problem is not the home. It is the lending practices. I don’t know how to deal with that. That is really where the problem is.
Mr. Haase said we want to try keeping it from happening on a large scale manner in the Town of Plainfield.
Mr. Cavanaugh said I think we all recognize whenever we did the residential guidelines, that one of the biggest issues we had to do with was not the home as Mr. Brandgard said but they are selling financing. That is the attractive package so I think by having the design guidelines and keeping stringent standards that if people are not able to comply with whatever they sign up for for financing wise, at least there is a home there that is more marketable than it might have been with lower standards. That is the best protection that we can get.
Mr. Brandgard said that is part of it but I’m going to use my oldest example. We had one of the CP Morgan homes out here that he kept up but he took a bath when he sold it because of foreclosures and the bank sales going on around it. You can’t compete with it.
Mr. Carlucci said Guilford Township even has more of a problem than Hendricks County in general. In Guilford Township we have the foreclosures going on in that price range and the airport have a lot of houses that they haven’t even put on the market yet. And Air Tower countywide was a mass of bankruptcy. Air Tower was Royal Haven so in this County they are really getting depressed.
Mr. Brandgard said in looking at that aspect where you have the CP Morgan homes and you have the Arbor homes who are the prime movers in this area with the financing package with no money down.
Mr. Carlucci said in the very beginning of that article this woman tells that they rolled their other debts into the financing.
Mr. Daniel said along with what Mr. Brandgard was saying the other issue, and we are seeing it in condemnation, we saw it on Dan Jones Road, when you turn on the radio on any day and you have these second and third mortgage companies that say we will loan you 120% value of your house, etc. Several years ago we never had any problem getting a partial release on 17 feet of right-of-way but we do now. A lot of those homes aren’t worth what the mortgage is on. The first thing you get into is they aren’t going to do it and the second thing is they are going to do it and we get the money. Of course, you have homeowners saying wait a minute. We just went through this with Mr. Cox on Dan Jones Road. Twelve thousand five hundred dollars and it took us five and a half to six months to get a partial release from the mortgage company. This isn’t a reflection on Mr. Cox but I just know what is going on here. The mortgage company got the money. They said the only way that we will give you a partial release is if we get the money.
Mr. Haase asked, how can we help the landowners in Plainfield still sell their property? It is a double edged sword as they say.
ZONING COMPLIANCE
Mr. Higbee said we had one item tonight but we had him to leave. Do you want to bring him back.
Mr. McPhail said I would like the record to show that I did tell him that he was free to leave because I knew the hour would be late. He had a written response. I told him to get a hold of you tomorrow and do that. If you need to bring him back, don’t penalize him for not being here because he was here.
OTHER COMMENTS
Mr. Higbee said for the remainder of the ordinance provisions, which are large, the ordinance committee has been working on a huge amount of stuff. You have the park recommendation tonight. That was just a little piece of it. You said at the last meeting that you would like to have a special Plan Commission meeting to go through this so that you can consider getting those approved for the Town Council. I have three dates here to throw out for you, March 25; March 30 or March 31. Would you like to consider picking one of those for an evening meeting to go through the ordinance changes.
Mr. Cavanaugh said none of those work for me.
Mr. Kirchoff said me too.
Mr. Higbee asked, would you like to do it in April? I can give you some dates later. I will send out by e-mail some dates in April and we will do something then.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. McPhail made a motion to adjourn. Second by Mr. Kirchoff. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned.
_____________________________________
Mitchell P. Haase, President
