The Plainfield Plan Commission met on Monday, May 2, 2005. In attendance were Mr. Thibo, Mr. Matrana, Mr. McPhail, Mr. Brandgard, Mr. Kirchoff and Mr. Haase.
ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM
Mr. Carlucci administered the roll call.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
MINUTES
Mr. Matrana made a motion to approve the April 5, 2005 Plan Commission minutes as submitted. Second by Mr. Thibo.
Mr. Kirchoff said on page 21 about two-thirds of the way down where it says Mr. Jim (inaudible) that is Jim Rodarmel. On page 33 about the same place in the page they credit that paragraph of remarks to me and it is actually Mr. McPhail speaking there. On page 44 it quotes Ms. Wilcox and the last name is Crowther in two places.
Mr. Matrana made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Second by Mr. McPhail. Motion carried.
OATH OF TESTIMONY
Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Testimony.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mr. Haase reviewed the Guidelines Governing the Conduct of Public Hearings. Since we are one board member short I’m going to ask Mr. Daniel if you would explain the rules of that to the petitioners at this time.
Mr. Daniel said this is a seven-member commission. To take action on a petition or a motion it requires a majority vote of the entire Council, which means four votes. Since we have one member short tonight that means four members out of six will have to vote to take action on any motion or petition.
Mr. Haase said I will ask the petitioners at this time if they would like to continue or if they would like to ask for a continuance, please step forward so that a continuance could be entertained. Everybody appears to be ready to move forward.
Mr. Valanzano said the first petition that you have in front of you is an amendment to Whitmore Place Subdivision. If you recall, a couple of months ago you rezoned a couple of additional pieces of property in connection with annexation. The amendment that is here tonight is to add this parcel and this parcel to the overall subdivision of Whitmore Place. That design concept had been shown to the Plan Commission in the past. They are just officially adding those in as these parcels are going through the annexation process. It changes the subdivision from 158 lots on 86 acres to 172 lots on 93.7 acres. All the covenants, conditions and restrictions, especially the ones related to architectural controls, carry forward.
As a reminder, there was a waiver with respect of the timing of the connection of the secondary access point. All of that information is indicated in the motion would carry forward and be part of this amendment as well. I would be happy to answer any questions at this time.
Mr. Haase asked, is there anyone in the audience who has any questions on this matter at this time? Being no one coming forward we will close the public hearing and move for a motion.
Mr. McPhail made a motion that the Plan Commission approve Primary Plat PP-05-003 as filed by J. Greg Allen Builders, requesting approval to amend the primary plat for Whitmore Place to add approximately 7.68 acres and a total of 14 additional lots upon finding that:
Adequate provisions have been made for regulation of minimum lot width, minimum lot depth and minimum lot area.
Adequate provisions have been made for the widths, grades, curves and coordination of subdivision public ways with current and planned public ways.
Adequate provisions have been made for the extension of water, sewer and other municipal services.
And that such approval shall be subject to the following conditions.
Compliance with the Town Standards, including but not limited to: Plainfield Ordinance No. 1-96 regarding Floodplain Management; Plainfield Ordinance Nos. 4-94 and 3-86 regarding Sewage Works; Plainfield Ordinance No. 17-97 regarding Drainage; Plainfield Ordinance No. 19-97 regarding Municipal Waterworks; and Plainfield Ordinance No. 18-97 regarding Access Permits.
Compliance with the standards and specifications of the Plainfield Subdivision Control Ordinance.
Compliance with the conditions of approval of PP-04-012 and the terms of approval of the waiver regarding the Secondary Means of Access, all as imposed by the Plan Commission February 7, 2005.
Second by Mr. Thibo. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – absent
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
6-ayes, 0-opposed, 1-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Haase said the next item will be under continued petitions, RZ-05-006 for South Construction Company, Inc.
Mr. Valanzano said at the last meeting of the Plan Commission on April 5 this petition was heard and it was determined to continue the petition for determination or to give Staff an opportunity to work with the petitioner to come up with some additional limitations or restrictions on the proposed style of development and the zoning that is being proposed. What I put here is the petitioner has an exhibit here so I decided to borrow it briefly. Here is a layout of the properties, 37 acres proposed for rezoning from OD to GC District.
The addendum to the Staff Report that I put out last week indicated the topics that we had under discussion. What I have handed to you this evening there were two documents. One was an Exhibit “A.” If you really want to get down to the nuts and bolts and see what it looks like in terms of ordinance language, I have asked the petitioner to put together what I call an administration document. It puts it in format of the Zoning Ordinance itself and whatever the final format comes out this will go in the zoning file for administrative purposes. The first document will be matched up to it and the first document is what would end up being recorded as commitments should it go in that direction.
In terms of the Staff Report I guess really all I want to do is highlight for you some points. You have had an opportunity to see the Staff Report and see the limitations that were talked about and suggested. When you compare what I put together in the Staff Report with what the petitioners have submitted this evening, and you have the administration document, it really boils down to really four points of difference.
The first one is under the prohibited primary uses. One of the items that I had listed in there was a gasoline service station without repair. After discussion the petitioner’s response came back that it is the only automobile service type use that they would like to keep on the property. I expressed some concern that leaving it on the property would kind of be wide opened. My particular concern was the possibility that any outlots that get developed along Dan Jones Road, especially north of Beechwood, I didn’t think a gas station would be appropriate there. I was also concerned about a gas station on U.S. 40 between Walgreen’s and the church whether that would be an appropriate location on the outlot there. The only place, in my opinion, where it might be appropriate would be this outlot north of Walgreen’s and south of Hawthorne. If there was going to be any type of gasoline or automobile related use, that would probably be the most appropriate location. If that is the case, we should suggest some amendments to the proposed documents that have been presented to the petitioner. Or we can go back to the original concept of taking them out altogether. Of course, that is your decision and your recommendation.
The second point that varied a little bit was the request that any use that includes the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption/carry-out be allowed to go back into the list on the site. In looking at that I went back to the “O” District, which is what the property is currently zoned. It would allow a restaurant with the sale of alcoholic beverages as a Special Exception Use now as it is currently zoned. So, just to let you know, my opinion was that it was not too much of a stretch to leave that one back in. Again, that was their proposal and one of the changes.
In terms of the commitments that we talked about there were probably about eight or nine commitments that we talked about. One was regardless of what limitations or restrictions that might be in the ordinance that the site would comply with the Gateway Corridor standards. We talked about limitations that there be no loading docks facing east north of Beechwood Drive extended unless there was some landscaping that was approved by the Plan Commission. We talked about providing a bufferyard along the north, a Level 4 landscaping. The reason that came up was what is being shown up here is substantially more than a 10-foot strip. What is north of this property line is an easement that is being retained by Cinergy. Then there is the old railroad right-of-way location for the trail and then Blackthorne. If those two properties were abutting to each other, the ordinance would require a 20-foot separation and a Level 4 landscaping. My concern was at least some landscaping be provided there and that it not be landscaped as if it was General Commercial to Office District, which would only require a Level 1. So, in giving consideration to the existing vegetation along both sides it would sure help. The petitioner came back and said how about a 10-foot strip with a Level 2? When you put it altogether, it probably makes sense. It’s not where we started but it probably makes sense in terms of the width of the yard that would be available, the 10-foot. How much landscaping can you put in there and have it survive? Plus when you add that to what is on the tree line on both sides of the trail of the old railroad right-of-way, at what point have we reached a sufficient level?
We have talked about pedestrian connectivity bringing in two points of access on the future trail one through the sidewalks on the Dan Jones Road in and one would be coming in this direction. That was in response to comments that Mr. McPhail made in wanting to make sure that trail connections were provided. That it would not be an area where there would be unloading or a staging area in the back of a big box building where it wouldn’t make sense for anybody. We put some language in here to address that concern.
We also have some language that we worked on where Cinergy or their affiliate would agree to provide the easements necessary to connect between the trail and this property.
The petitioner has also agreed to use the U.S. 40 plan landscape treatment as that gets developed as part of this project and incorporate it into the design to the extent that it is ready to go when the site is ready to go.
A 45-foot maximum building height on all buildings north of Beechwood Lane extended on the entire site. So, everything north of there within 150 feet of the east property line would be limited, instead of the 75 feet, the yards would be limited to 45 feet as the maximum.
Also any outlots that could be developed in this area would be limited to Neighborhood Retail uses as opposed to General Retail uses. That will reduce the scope and intensity of the uses. Also, the Neighborhood Retail District has limitations on the square footage of the individual uses. So, anything that would get within that area would have to be a smaller scaled building more appropriate to be across from the homes north of Beechwood. And also a limitation on hours of operations that on those outlots there could not be any businesses that start before 8:00 a.m. and/or after midnight. So, all of those lengthy documents that you have looked at really boils down to those issues. With that I would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Daniel said it was 6:00 a.m. instead of 8:00 a.m.
Mr. Jeff Banning at 698 Tower Road, Suite 100, Plainfield said Mr. Valanzano and I have been on the phone quite a bit the last couple of weeks and also have been on the phone with our team here sitting on the front row. I think Mr. Valanzano has gone through the items that have been continuous of concern or what have you. We feel like what we are presenting before you this evening is actually a pretty good document to utilize this particular piece of property. I know there have been some issues kind of come up here at the last minute that we have been trying to work through. Rather than trying to explain what we have done or why we are trying to do anything if it is what the commission would like to do, I think we would like to hear what you have to say since we came in last month as a blanket rezoning. We would like to get an opinion as to if you feel like what we presented is an acceptable use for this property, acceptable requirements for the different areas on the property. With that I think I will open it up to any questions or comments.
Mr. McPhail said I’m not sure I understand Mr. Valanzano properly when he talked about the sale of alcoholic beverages. I understand that restaurants serving alcoholic beverages is in here. How about liquor stores and carryout?
Mr. Banning said those have been restricted. You can look in our administrative document. I know it’s a little confusing.
Mr. McPhail said I know we restricted Walgreen’s from selling alcoholic beverages.
Mr. Banning said correct.
Mr. McPhail said I need to be assured that carryout alcoholic beverages are excluded.
Mr. Banning said the real intent for that particular item is to have a sit-down restaurant. We have an Applebee’s in Town. I will use Applebee’s since it is already in Town but a restaurant like that. That is where the issue really arose. I think the way we had it written previously and maybe what you received was probably acceptable. I think we wanted more of a clarification and that is why it has been written the way that it is.
Mr. Valanzano said Mr. McPhail if you would look in the administrative guide, it says, “any permitted use includes” that has been taken out of the permitted use. The only thing that you would have left is if you go back to food, sales, and services and where we have restaurants, they would still require a Special Exception. I think that is one of the important things that you still have to recognize. A Special Exception would still be there even if it is a sit-down family restaurant.
Mr. Haase said to clarify what you are talking about they can take out the carryout part and the Special Exception. Isn’t that what your concern is?
Mr. McPhail said yes.
Mr. Haase said “on-site consumption.”
Mr. McPhail said “on-site consumption” doesn’t belong there.
Mr. Haase said it’s a carryout, which would be the sale of packaged liquor.
Mr. Banning said we are acceptable with taking that out.
Mr. McPhail said we have a school and a church right next to it.
Mr. Haase said all of these Special Exceptions have to go before the Board of Zoning Appeals.
What about the gas station location?
Mr. Banning said that was kind of one that we had been bantering back and forth over the last couple of days. I guess the comment that I can state on this, and I don’t know if anybody from the team wants to step up here and talk, but we haven’t, since this has become an issue, been able to do enough research to know if that is an issue or not to be honest with you. A gas station, of course, will not work or operate on an entire site. Those gas stations wouldn’t work there but I think it is our general feeling, with Dan Jones Road being widened, that along Dan Jones there is the possibility of having gas stations. We have been trying to get with people that have shown interest in the property just to get an idea from them and really haven’t gotten the answers that we need to say one way or another at this point. I heard what Mr. Valanzano said. I know Mr. Valanzano and I had discussions about the outlot north of Walgreen’s. I guess it is our feeling that if it is a huge concern for the commission this evening, we might want to think about talking to some of the people that the developer has been talking with and see if they have concerns if it is just there or if it maybe goes up to Beechwood Drive. This is the outlot that Mr. Valanzano was talking about. We are thinking potentially, say if a big box user would come in here, there is a more likelihood that there would be outlots along here. So, we are trying to figure out what uses would be allowed between Beechwood and Hawthorne. So, if that is a huge issue, we don’t have our research done since that has just come up recently to be totally honest with you.
Mr. Haase said when they say gasoline service stations, like Kroger’s and other companies are selling gasoline now, is that inclusive in that?
Mr. Valanzano said at some point and time it’s a Village Pantry that maybe has one pump up out front. If they pump fuel to customers, they are gasoline service stations.
Mr. Banning said a lot of it gets down to definitions. Convenient stores are allowed. Most convenient stores tend to have gas. We have a restriction on gas in certain areas within the ordinance. We have been working through the convenient store issue and whether there would be gas or not.
Mr. Haase said convenient stores are listed under food, sales and service. So, gasoline, being an automobile service is really not part of that convenient store placement I don’t believe.
Mr. Valanzano said the way that we look at it from the Zoning Ordinance there are two uses of the same property. One is a convenient store. It used to be that Village Pantries were all over the place if they didn’t have gas stations or gas pumps. Then they thought that was a good thing to do and they started pumping gas. In some places gas stations started being like pillboxes and made into convenient stores. They have kind of melted together over time but there are really two distinct uses there. It is the same thing that happened to some of the Kroger’s and other uses where Kroger will put up a grocery store and they will put a gas station out front. It is still the Kroger name but it is operating pretty much completely separately as a gas station.
Mr. McPhail said I would have a real difficulty with anything north of Beechwood.
Mr. Brandgard said I agree with you there. The other part that I have some difficulty with is that lot along Main Street based on the comments that we had last month.
Mr. Banning said that is some of the things that we talked about. I think north of Beechwood, based on what we are hearing, I would say that is probably out. We have been looking at this down here. Like I said I don’t think we have done enough research since this is coming up so late in the week to really restrict at that at this point I guess.
Mr. Haase said so you are saying you don’t want to restrict it any further than what you already have.
Mr. Banning said I’m saying if we have to restrict it much further, we would probably request a continuance to research this particular issue.
Mr. Haase said I’m not one to want to continue things too many times.
Mr. Banning said I totally agree.
Mr. Haase said and I’m sure the developers don’t either.
Mr. Banning said but this is an important piece of property. Like I said this just came up late last week and we just haven’t had the opportunity.
Mr. Haase said so you are saying you don’t want to restrict it any further than what you already have.
Mr. Banning said I’m saying if we have to restrict it much further, we would probably request a continuance to research this particular issue.
Mr. Haase said I’m not one to want to continue things too many times.
Mr. Banning said I totally agree.
Mr. Haase said and I’m sure the developers don’t either.
Mr. Banning said but this is an important piece of property. Like I said this just came up late last week and we just haven’t had the opportunity.
Mr. Banning asked, can we listen to all of the other comments and then discuss that?
Mr. Haase said yes.
Mr. Carlucci asked, is it a Special Exception to begin with?
Mr. Valanzano said a gasoline service station without repair would be a Special Exception in the Neighborhood Retail District. They could either extend the Neighborhood Retail limitations or they could agree to a commitment that if there was any gas stations south of Beechwood along Dan Jones, that they would voluntarily agree to take that to the Board of Zoning Appeals as a Special Exception.
Mr. Banning said this is Beechwood, this is Hawthorne, this is Walgreen’s and Dan Jones so it would be from Beechwood, south to Walgreen’s. Is that what I’m hearing from everyone?
Mr. Haase said I think that would cover it but as Mr. Brandgard said, I think we still want to make sure that it doesn’t appear out on U.S. 40. If the retail area, the large red area there that is 90,000 square feet, if that was a grocery store and they put a gas facility where that second row or middle row of landscaping is in the parking lot, that is set way back.
Mr. Kirchoff said it is still south of there, it’s still the same area.
Mr. Haase said but effectively that would be almost west of where Mr. Banning just indicated we were talking about. That far away from Dan Jones is that a problem. Do you know what I’m saying?
Mr. Banning said I want to continue to preface that this is a drawing that is conceptual.
Mr. Haase said I guess what I was thinking a number of feet from Dan Jones west, that the gas station isn’t near as much of an issue, if it is internally shielded by other development along Dan Jones Road.
Mr. Valanzano said the other part of the commitments is the limitations that we were talking about on Dan Jones Road, at least the ones north of Beechwood, were a depth of 150 feet. So, if you took what Mr. Haase was saying and we extended that 150 foot limitation to the entire frontage of Dan Jones, in terms of what you are looking at, and if you had a gas station that came back here that was 200 feet back off of Dan Jones Road, that is what you are suggesting, and maintain that 150 feet or whatever it is and if it went back in here…………
Mr. Haase said that seems to be okay with me I think.
Mr. Banning asked, but nothing along Dan Jones would be gas related?
Mr. Haase said I did not say that.
Mr. Banning said that was what Mr. Valanzano was saying.
Mr. Valanzano said I was just going back to your commitments.
Mr. Haase said we kind of dissected this parcel into several parcels and I think when you get internal there, it is not as big of an issue.
Mr. Banning said I would agree internally.
Mr. McPhail said anything submitted is going to be subject to the traffic flow. Even if you go to the second lot off of U.S. 40, that lot probably wouldn’t be offensive but right on U.S. 40 from what we heard at the last meeting I think would be objectionable. How can we come up with some language to say what we are saying?
Mr. Haase asked, is there anyone in the audience who has any questions about this parcel?
Mr. Rodney Brown at 1505 E. Main St. said I basically live right across from Walgreen’s on U.S. 40. While it is still hot on my mind I think in talking about the gas station outlet I would definitely agree that anything on U.S. 40 would be pretty objectionable in my opinion. One of the reasons too that I think we have to take into consideration is St. Susanna. If a gas station went in west of Walgreen’s where the daycare presently sits and you have St. Susanna there, I don’t know if that would be a great idea just for basically safety purposes. I think a lot of us here tonight are just wanting to get some idea of how the residents are going to be affected by the future development along U.S. 40. We have not heard a lot of solid plans as far as what is taking place along U.S. 40 where the daycare currently sits. Everything seems to be north of the Walgreen’s center but we will definitely be affected by adding an extra exit lane, increased traffic flow, the lighting issue, which to this day I’m still affected by Walgreen’s. I never got anything taken care of with that situation there. I just deal with it unfortunately. I have to give them credit because they did turn their storefront lights off, which helps a lot. But that was for a couple of weeks and now they are back on again. I like it when the light projects toward Walgreen’s and doesn’t project from Walgreen’s toward my house. We just have big concerns. Like we said, the development is inevitable but I think we need to be smart about it. I think the Town needs to take into consideration the residents that live along U.S. 40 plus the folks on Dan Jones Road. That is what we are asking for.
Mr. Haase said this is a rezoning request so the reason that the plans are the way they are is there is nothing solid. That will have to be a whole different public hearing to actually layout everything that they are going to do on this property. That could be in stages or it could be all at once, we don’t know. But this is just an idea of one thing that could happen there. It is just a rezoning request so we are not approving any type of development there yet but we are approving types of developments by rezoning it. That is why you haven’t seen anymore concrete plans.
Mr. Brown said I understand that. Thank’s for clearing that up but we are just here to basically express our concerns as residents.
Mr. Haase said we appreciate that. This is what this is for.
Mr. Brown said we live along U.S. 40, which is a major traffic thoroughfare anymore especially when I-70 has an accident. All we are asking is to keep in mind the residents that live along U.S. 40 because we are affected by it now and we have worked with Walgreen’s but haven’t had any resolution on how we could help my situation or a neighbor of mine. I think we just need to be smart and keep in mind our comments.
Ms. Brenda Elrod at 1509 E. Main Street said I realize this is just a rezoning but once again I have kids and I live on U.S. 40 and with the big Mitch Daniels time change, which I’m real thrilled about, everything is going to be earlier and that type thing. I really don’t want to see a restaurant. I don’t want to see a gas station. I want something eight to five. Maybe a dentist office or something like that. My kids are out there playing. Traffic backs up. On Sundays you have the St. Susanna church and traffic is at a standstill from Dan Jones to the church so that they can get in. I just want you to take into consideration that my kids are out there playing. I don’t need a lot of traffic going on and around. What you do on Dan Jones that is up to those people to fight about. This is just what I want. I don’t want anything there. Put it all back. There is enough traffic.
Mr. Haase said we will try to get a happy medium.
Ms. Elrod said I don’t want anything. I understand something is going to happen but I just want it to be in the interest of my children. I’m going to be there for awhile and I want them to be able to go out front and play and not have to worry about people turning around in my driveway, which happens now because of the Walgreen’s exit. They turn around and that type thing. So, that’s all I’m asking.
Mr. (Unintelligible) at 1493 E. Main St. said I came from England about four years ago to Plainfield. I love the place. I think it has some fantastic preservation and it really does look like a village to me. It is beautiful. In case I miss the next hearing I would just like to see it be a nice village atmosphere. If this could be some construction happening there, try to integrate with what is already there. Keep it beautiful because Plainfield is very nice.
Mr. Banning said what we had talked about that might at least suffice at this point is that I think we heard loud and clear that along U.S. 40 and from Beechwood Drive north that those were the areas of concern. I guess what we would like to do or what we are proposing at this point is in those particular areas voluntarily go through a Special Exception with BZA if there was a gas related use in those areas. That still gives the option for that to be approved in another format or denied but that still leaves our options opened at this point. One of the items that we talked about is just do gas pumping only from a gas station standpoint rather than repair, which was already eliminated. I guess that is what we would like to come back and suggest back to the board for the site. Then we would leave gasoline sales in in case we have a situation where there is something interior on the site that would be allowable but it would be restricted 150 feet north of Beechwood and then 150 feet along U.S. 40. From here Beechwood up 150 feet deep and on U.S. 40 150 feet deep we would restrict voluntarily and say we would go through a Special Exception at the BZA if there was a gas related use I guess.
Mr. Valanzano said that means it would be permitted everywhere else on the site including Dan Jones from Beechwood down to Walgreen’s.
Mr. Banning said that is correct.
Mr. Daniel asked, would the permitted area be for only pumping gas or otherwise? You talked about restricting it to just pumping gas. Would that also include that section that is unrestricted? Would that also be restricted to just pumping gas?
Mr. Banning said we have already restricted gas with repair that is right.
Mr. Kirchoff said so you are taking that from primary uses to Special Exceptions.
Mr. Banning said correct. With our other restrictions with the Town doing their Gateway Corridor plan/U.S. 40 plan we have chosen to allow that to occur from the landscaping, signage, what have you standpoint along U.S. 40 and Dan Jones. We have also committed to using Gateway Corridor architectural features on the site itself. So, we feel like we have gone above and beyond what maybe was required from that standpoint.
Mr. Haase said the only thing that I thought we talked about from Beechwood down to Hawthorne also 150 foot in restricting that to a Special Exception. And allowing what you show now as Hawthorne down to Walgreen’s being unrestricted. Is that not what we discussed?
Mr. Banning said we discussed several things.
Mr. Kirchoff said that’s not where I was at. There is no residential south.
Mr. Haase said at the corner of Beechwood and Dan Jones there is going to be an entrance and that gas station is going to be caddy-corner from that house. If you would just go 150 foot south of Beechwood, that will get me more in a comfort zone.
Mr. Banning said I don’t know if we can call it 150 feet.
Mr. Haase asked, what are you going to call it?
Mr. Banning said I’m just trying to think of an outlot. That’s why using a distance I don’t know. They are meeting over here.
Mr. Haase said I would just like to keep it away from that corner because we are right in the same situation as if it was across the street.
Mr. Banning said I guess the question that we are asking on that particular area is, is it the concern over buffering, is it the use, is it the traffic?
Mr. Haase said for me I would have to say it would be usage and concern for the citizens who live across the street. That would be my concern. Traffic I don’t view as a concern. I think you will work to control that and I know the Town will work to control that because the better traffic flows through there the better parcel you have. So, how far into the parcel you have to go before you get into it is the question. Whether you would get any type of entrance onto Dan Jones into a facility like that. I don’t know how often they are going to be placed on there. So, I think the usage and location or proximity to the residents is the concern and problem that I’m addressing.
Mr. Banning said what I’m hearing from my group over here is with us committing to the landscaping, the Town’s landscape plan that would be along U.S. 40 along Dan Jones Road, that we feel like that would be landscaped and buffered.
Mr. Haase said it doesn’t seem to work for Walgreen’s. I think we had those same landscaping controls in place when Walgreen’s went in.
Mr. Valanzano said there is a plan being worked on for the landscaping along U.S. 40 that might include some median type landscaping. I don’t know if that will be available here at all but we can talk about some right-of-way landscaping that would be along the street. That will give some supplementation to the required landscaping but again street tree type landscaping, while it does soften the feel of the area, that type of landscaping doesn’t knock down headlights or lights.
Mr. Banning said I think we would respectfully like to continue this and do a little research rather than try to resolve this issue this evening.
Mr. Haase said I don’t have any real problem with a continuance to nail this down.
Mr. Banning said it is an important issue.
Mr. Haase said I think we are at the last sticking point here before we make the decision to go ahead and send this on. So, if the petitioner is willing to do that, I will ask the board to grant this continuance.
Mr. McPhail said I would like to poll the board to see if there are any other issues outstanding beside that one.
Mr. Haase asked, do you have any?
Mr. McPhail said I don’t.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, does anyone have any trouble with drive-in restaurants?
Mr. Haase said the biggest thing I had site trouble with, but it’s under Special Exceptions, is a neighborhood recycling collection. That would be the only other thing that I would strike out there.
Mr. Banning said we will consider that. Is that like you are seeing at the Methodist Church and the Middle School?
Mr. Haase said that is part of it.
Mr. Banning said that is what I need for clarification.
Mr. Haase said I don’t know what they are and they change from decade to decade. Things like that. I’ve seen them where they have multiple bins, different types. If there are no further questions from any board members, the Chair will accept a motion to grant the continuance to the June 6th meeting.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to grant a continuance for RZ-05-006 to the June 6th Plan Commission meeting. Second by Mr. McPhail. Motion carried.
Mr. Haase said there will be no further notice on this but the rezoning motion to send a recommendation to the Town Council that will occur at the June 6th meeting. I appreciate you coming in tonight and appreciate the petitioner taking to heart the concerns of the Town.
We will now move to DP-05-006 for Premier Properties USA, Inc.
Mr. Valanzano said the request that you have before you is the last remaining part of the Metropolis sign package. What the Plan Commission suggested is they wanted to have a better eye feel of what the 10-foot sign letters would be. Premier went ahead and put up a sign where the first two letters were at 10 feet and they put a “S” out in the field eight feet in height. DRC members were sent an e-mail. I should also note at the Plan Commission meeting they said they were going to put it out approximately 65 feet back. After putting it up they moved it on their own to about 150 feet from the right-of-way but left the 10-foot letters and the eight-foot letters.
DRC members were unanimous, the ones that responded to me, in their recommendation to go with the smaller letter. They would be okay with that and had objections to the 10-foot. I think it really boils down to your determination on two questions, size (10-foot/eight-foot) or something else and the setback 65 is what was originally proposed or more likely the 150 that the sign was put back. That is what it boils down to and I know Mr. Cronk wants to speak.
Mr. Ryan Cronk with Premier Properties at 5252 E. 82nd St., Indianapolis, Indiana said I would like to say really quick that I went to the Plainfield Recreation Center and I give it an “A+”. I was really impressed. Obviously, we are bringing back tonight the continuance of the front sign and I will try to zip through here as fast as I can. When we last met, we agreed to put an on-site sample out for you as well as ourselves to make sure we had the right scale. I’m not quite sure when everybody drove out there but when we initially put it out, we notified Mr. Carlucci and Mr. Valanzano and we did have it 65 feet off right-of-way at the letter height that Mr. Valanzano discussed. When we drove out there and looked at it the first time, it was too close. In Mr. Valanzano’s notes for the Plan Commission we thought it was too big. I think we just thought it was too big too close. We still strongly feel that a 10-foot letter pushing it back to 165 feet we are comfortable with the scale.
Secondly, we talked the last time alternatives to this sign. I have heard people say that in various comments that we can’t see the sign and you can’t see it until you get right up to it. I just want to ask the question of the intent of the Sign Ordinance is sign clutter. Pushing this 150 feet back people still think the 10-foot letters are big but it is a sign that is not visible along the Perry Road corridor verses an alternative of a pylon sign at the corner and/or even an outlot for that matter. So, as we look at the alternatives to this type of sign, we have pushed it back substantially far off the right-of-way and it’s not a pylon sign that is visible from either U.S. 40 and/or the former Galyan’s headquarters.
I brought this site plan in today to show you. The site plan indicates the sign in its current location 150 feet off the right-of-way. Again, I just want to make a note that it could be a building, it could be an outlot, it could be a pylon and the fact that this sign is so far back off the right-of-way I think it needs to be strongly considered even at the 10-foot letter size.
The next thing to consider, when I heard the comments from Mr. Valanzano that the eight-foot letter seemed to be acceptable with DRC, if you looked at that on site today, the letters are actually three feet above grade. In the proposal they are actually going to be six foot above grade but if we drop the Metropolis 10-foot letters down today, down two and a half feet, it’s almost flush where the “S” sits today, which seemed to be a height that was comfortable with the DRC. It’s still a two-foot letter but the height and scale of the letter that we are proposing above grade substantially is the same as the “S” that we looked at in the field. So, it draws me to say there is a two-foot discrepancy but I still challenge to say that by the time we drop that down by two feet it is flushed with the “S” as it exists.
We talked about it in great detail and I met with Mr. McPhail on the site this morning to try to walk him through it. I talked to Mr. Valanzano briefly before the Plan Commission. We still feel strongly that the 10-foot letters is what we want. We feel the 10-foot letters is what fits with the shopping center. We have talked in great detail about it internally. We talked to our designers about it. We talked to the architects about it and we have gotten other opinions on it. I don’t think it is something that we are being stubborn about but it is something that we feel strongly about that with the scale of this shopping center we are dealing with building heights that are 30-40+ feet, 45+ feet in height that the scale of this sign also has to have some substance to it. I know it is long, it is 113 feet but there could be a building 30 foot of the right-of-way that is 113 feet. I don’t want to look at this like it is a sign. It is not promoting any retail in this project. It is not promoting Dick’s Sporting Goods. It’s not promoting J.C. Penney. It is promoting a shopping center that everybody in this room here wants to see. When our architects presented this to us and how strongly they feel about it and how strong Mr. White feels about the size of this thing, we want it to look good and everybody thinks this is the size that it needs to be to look good for the shopping center. So, we are still being hardheaded about wanting that 10-foot signature at this location.
One of the things that I haven’t really done, and we have been through so many hearings with this project and you have had so much stuff before you, but one of the things that we haven’t done is what is going on between all of this stuff? We brought a landscape plan, we brought a proposal and things have changed throughout the course of the 16 months that we have been going through these approvals. If you think you are not comfortable with the 10-foot letters, can we continue this one more time so that I can show what is going to happen between this sign now and the right-of-way? Since we have delivered the landscape plans to you the first time this whole concept has changed and hence the landscape needs to change accordingly. And how that surrounds the sign, how that incorporates the sign into the landscaping for the project because they are all one in the same. It’s a hardscape/landscape treatment. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Haase said he has this three-foot above grade and then he says it will be six inches above grade. He has to tell us where he has to place it on the grade and that is the only thing holding him to where he places that in relationship to off the ground.
Mr. Valanzano said one of the changes instead of being over a pond it was going to be over a reflecting pool where they would be able to control the level a lot more. So, being able to put it at that six inches above is a lot more feasible to do now than it was when the original design was sought.
Mr. Haase said and when you say six inches above grade, what grade are you talking about?
Mr. Cronk said the grade that is in the field today is almost substantially the grade that is also a finished grade. The grade is going to be consistent with the outlot that is developed maybe some day next to it. Mr. Belcher probably has some preliminary elevations or grade plans for that area based on when we had the pond there before. We took the pond away but everything is draining more toward Perry Road so it is not going to elevate anymore than it is today. It just has to level out a little bit. The pool that we are proposing is going to be an 18-inch pool, 12 inches is recessed and then six inches is above. We are going to be right at the water level.
Mr. Haase asked, what is the amount of the fall from the foundation or the floor level or the sidewalk level of that shopping complex, what is the amount of fall between that and where your sign is? How much sloping is there in there now? Or is that something that you have to come back with?
Mr. Cronk said maybe one and a half percent.
Mr. Belcher said I can’t tell without getting the plans.
Mr. Haase said I don’t know what one and a half percent is.
Mr. McPhail said I can tell you what I think from being there three times today. It looks like to me there are about five or six feet from that parking lot, the backside of the parking lot or the buildings that are constructed there to Perry Road.
Mr. Cronk said that is probably pretty close.
Mr. McPhail said I would say from that sign location to Perry Road is two and half to three feet. It seems to go up and kind of go off a little bit from what I noticed. I went back out twice after we met this morning to look at this. They are setting about three feet now. You drop those down six inches that makes it considerably shorter and then if you have some really nice landscaping in front of it, it slops down and you can have some nice landscaping and not hide the sign. But there is enough slope that you can landscape in front of it to some degree and not distract from the sign. It does appear to me that there is quite a bit of fall on Perry Road.
Mr. Haase asked, is there anyone else in the audience who has come here tonight and has a question about this public hearing? It looks like a continuation would only affect Mr. Cronk and the Town of Plainfield as you have no remonstrators. With that said I don’t mind granting the continuation if the board wants to go that direction. We can decide this later. I would like those elevations at what elevation, topography and everything that your building is at and then how much farther it is to the sign and where we are at the road I would appreciate that. I would appreciate that if you would come back with that.
Mr. Cronk said I can come back with that. I’ve spent so much time looking at this sign over again that I had forgotten about the landscaping component and how that fits with the signs.
Mr. Haase said I think that would be a good thing. I think the 10-foot letters are very large. The eight-foot seems plenty big enough to me but yet then when you drop them three feet, you change things that’s for sure. With that would there be a motion to grant the continuance?
Mr. Brandgard said I thought the 10-foot letters were awfully large and the eight-foot letters looked about right but when you move them back, the 10 foot letters look right and the eight-foot letters look extremely small especially when you have the mass of the buildings behind it now, which you didn’t have with the walls going on, which you didn’t have at first either. My initial thought is different than what I think today.
Mr. McPhail said I will say that the mock-up gave me a different prospective. I’ve been pretty vocal about the size of this thing from day one but when I drove in there today and driving by, I’m not so sure once it is done that I would know a lot of difference between eight and 10 feet to be honest with you. Maybe I would.
Mr. Haase asked, will the sign be illuminated?
Mr. Cronk said it is not internally illuminated. It’s illuminated from the base up.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, will another month hurt you from a delivery standpoint?
Mr. Cronk said one month won’t, three months would. Whether it’s eight or 10 or whatever obviously you need to be happy with it and we need to be happy with it and I want to show you how we are going to incorporate that stuff.
Mr. Valanzano said I would suggest that we go forward with the continuance and we ask Mr. Cronk to prepare basically four things for submittal the next time around. That would be a landscape plan and a plan view, which is looking down showing where everything fits. And an elevation view showing the sign in relationship to landscaping that is proposed, the front and the behind to see how it fits in and possibly superimposed on the sketch of the building outline behind it. And the contours so that we know exactly where things are. That could be a simple contour map from this portion out to Perry Road. Finally, it might be appropriate to do a cross-section through there so you can see how the line actually falls. It’s one thing to look at contour lines but it’s another thing to actually see that sloping of a cross-section that would go through there from the main building through the sign out to Perry Road.
Mr. Haase said the other thing that I would like to see while we are doing the landscaping look is to see what it would look like from Perry Road.
Mr. Valanzano said the elevation would be from Perry Road looking into it. It would basically be that elevation with the landscaping superimposed on it. Mr. Belcher just informed me that we are talking about that 150-foot setback and looking at the road design there may be a need for an additional 15 feet of right-of-way to fit the full construction of the road in there. So, that number may change instead of 150 it would be 135. I just wanted to let you know about that.
Mr. McPhail made a motion to grant a continuance of DP-05-006, Premier Properties USA, Inc. to the June 9th Plan Commission meeting. Second by Mr. Brandgard. Motion carried.
Mr. Haase said the next hearing will be RZ-05-007, BW Partners, LLC. Mr. Valanzano you said you also indicated you want to entertain DP-05-010 at the same time.
Mr. Valanzano said the next two cases that you have in front of you are both related to the proposed construction of a medical office building. First is to rezone 2.84 acres from the R-4 classification to the OD District. The property is just south of Beechwood Drive where we had some recent discussion on the east side of Dan Jones Road. It takes the entire property from Dan Jones back to Linden Lane south of Beechwood and down to the Coleman office building that is under construction at this point and time. The property to the west is obviously Cinergy property, which is currently zoned OD and has a pending petition for the GC District on it. South of the new office building, the north and east is the existing residential neighborhood along Beechwood Drive.
The Comprehensive Plan recommends the site for Medium-Density Residential development but does not seem to account for the existing commercial and industrial use that is on the property in terms of the redevelopment.
In terms of the Development Plan Approval petition the site is here for Architectural and Site Review for commercial development within 600 feet of a Residential District. The proposal is for a 22,000 square foot, one-story medical office building. The medical office building would be tucked into the northeast corner of the site, Dan Jones Road being here and Beechwood will blend in three points of access. One goes as far south as it can be pushed on Dan Jones Road and one off of Beechwood Drive and one at the southeast corner of the site off of Linden Lane.
The building elevation that is being proposed for the site is basically a one-story building. It has a somewhat residential feel to it in terms of the brick construction, the pitched roof that is being used and the asphalt shingles. The style of the building, the building materials, the site plan, the HVAC, lighting, trash, landscaping, all are in compliance with the regulations of the design guidelines of the ordinance.
In this particular case when you get to the peek of the roof there is a mechanical well where the roof comes up on the four sides and completely encloses the well on the inside. All of the mechanical units would be completely hid from all four sides. Lighting is very limited.
There are only going to be four lights in the parking light around the entire property. There will be recessed lights in the soffit and then two decorative lights on the front of the building off the main entrance. The wall signs are individual letters and will be pin-mounted and backlit with an LED hallo type light.
The ground sign is going to be developed. It basically follows the architecture of the building and the use of the building materials and are very compatible.
Pedestrian connectivity, we have worked with the developer to propose sidewalks to connect through the property from the front door out to Dan Jones Road. The petitioner also agreed to extend sidewalks along Beechwood to come back into the subdivision and connect that sidewalk into their site and also extend sidewalks along Linden on the east side of the property and again to connect pedestrian walkway out to that so there is a complete connection. Especially being a medical facility and CVS Pharmacy down Linden and Walgreen’s on this side connections all seem to work well.
Probably the biggest point of discussion was the drainage plan for this site. The original proposal had all the drainage outlets to a point up at the northeast corner. After discussions with Mr. Belcher the petitioner has revised the landscape plan and there are going to be three segments. A portion of the property from here as we go to the northeast there is an outlet to the existing outlet in Beechwood and Linden. A portion of the site is going to go to the southeast and go to an outlet south and Linden and the rest of this site is going to come to the west to an outlet to the new drainage facilities that are being installed by the Town along Dan Jones Road. It is a pretty good spread and most of the drainage is going to be accommodated by new facilities so there shouldn’t be any serious problems of any sort with that respect.
There is a complying landscape plan. All the plans that you see have had revisions made to them based on recommendations of the Design Review Committee. One of the features that came out of the Design Review Committee was the south side of the building, a redesign of this area to accommodate a loading zone, to accommodate a pick-up for the trash enclosure for its ease of coming in and out. And also to have a mobile imagining unit, which at this point and time is proposed to be for a mobile MIR to be able to come into the site once a week for a couple of hours a day. Things may change over time but one of the things with the design was to be able to tuck it in so when the vehicle was parked there, this area could be used for screening of that. So, we got some additional landscaping put in there plus the trash enclosure was located in this area so it also provides a visual barrier from Dan Jones Road to the area. And it also allows for vehicles to come in and pull straight into the site and minimize the backing up that large vehicles would have to do. Except for the trash truck would have to get right there and back up. The other loading vehicles or the MIR would come in and park here and then swing straight out without having to do any additional maneuverings on the site.
The petitioner has worked with us closely and made all of the revisions to the plans that DRC and TAC have suggested and I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have.
Mr. Thibo asked, how many parking places will there be?
Mr. Valanzano said I believe 110, a total count.
Mr. Ben Comer at 71 W. Marion St., Danville said I’m here on behalf of your petitioner, BW Partners, LLC. I have a host of gentlemen in the audience tonight to help answer any questions that you may have. We are here to collectively seek a development of this medical facility. We believe this site is a nice transition zone from your residential uses westward to either Office District or General Commercial. As it may develop out, Dan Jones Road is going to become a major thoroughfare with the nice improvements that the Town is putting in. This building has been designed to be a transitional building, not only in use, but you get the actual use of itself as having residential features. We have worked closely with the Town Staff and considered the development plan. The site itself has been engineered to be a transitional use and to accommodate both commercial and residential aspects in the neighborhood. Something that your petitioner is very proud of is they are asking for no waivers or variances. We meet all the standards of your ordinance.
DRC has given its approval in their recommendation to you tonight.
Last week we held an informal meeting with the neighborhood. Whoever received a certified letter of this hearing tonight also received an invitation to come and join us last week. We had some people show up and we discussed the project and what have you. We had a lot of positive feedback. I recognize a couple of faces in the audience that you may hear from but it went very well. I heard it said on more than one occasion that they liked this proposed use better than maybe what is there now so it can’t be all that bad.
We all know that this site is not always going to be used today and it is going to develop into something. This particular use I think fits every need and is characteristic of the neighborhood. It is a great transitional use with residential and commercial adjoining the site. It is the perfect transition. Again, we need no waivers or variances and we are asking for your support to do this project for your approval of our Development Plan petition as well as your support going forward to the Town Council with the rezoning request to the Office District. I have plenty of guys tonight to help answer questions and we will open it up to you.
Mr. Haase asked, is there anyone in the audience who has any questions on this public hearing?
Ms. Sandy Smith said I live at 1622 Beechwood Drive, which appears to be directly across one of the entrances into the new facility. I agree that it is going to be a huge improvement over what has been there in the past year. I have owned the house at Beechwood for about 25 years now and what was there before was a detriment. It wasn’t helpful at all and it appears this is going to be a big improvement. I’m just concerned about a couple of things. One is there has been a tremendous problem with drainage right there on the corner of Linden and Beechwood. I assume that the new facilities will take care of that problem but it appears that the main drainage is going to be in that particular area right there on the corner. So, I was a little concerned about that. And also the entrance I don’t know if that is the entrance where the trucks are going to be coming in to pick up trash or to make deliveries or whatever or if that is going to be an entrance for the public. Is there anticipated growth for the facility and if there is, is the growth going to be toward the north, which is toward my property?
Mr. Haase said the truck entrance is down off of Linden Lane and it is on the south side of the property. I know that for sure. The drainage issue, is that a dry detention?
Mr. Belcher said yes. What they have designed is to take a third of the site to the north and east is the dry detention area. So, it would only be during certain storm events that you would see any water in that at all. But it would outlet to an existing storm drain at that corner at Linden and Beechwood. What we attempted to do, and I will have to correct Mr. Valanzano on one thing and it’s not his fault because I didn’t tell him, but we were late in the game and were actually able to get two-thirds of the site to go to Dan Jones. So, one-third or less really is going to the area where we described as a potential problem. We really wanted to ratchet the flow in that direction and they cooperated in that effort to do that and put as much water to the brand new facilities on Dan Jones that are being built right now and that is what they have done. In addition they have also put containment of water on the site that is going to Beechwood and Linden, which has never been there before. So, there is not a control of the water now but there will be if this project is approved.
Mr. Haase said in the dry detention you said there would only be certain times that there would be any rainfall there at all. Would it be similar to what is at Village Pantry on SR267?
Mr. Belcher said it could be. This one has some other features as far as some under-drains and things to try to keep it in much better shape. They came in late with that concept to try and keep the property from the very get go very easy to maintain. So, I think that would be a plus for the neighborhood too.
Mr. Haase asked, Mr. Valanzano what about the potential expansion of the complex?
Mr. Valanzano said they couldn’t unless they put a parking garage in. They are pretty much maxed out on this site right now.
Mr. Haase said so if there is to be any growth, I don’t think there can be due to the ordinance and the parking restrictions, etc.
Mr. Philip Shawver said I live on Hickory Lane and this is in our traffic pattern. We are concerned if we will be able to get in and out of Beechwood with or without a light at Dan Jones. We have that access and also the use of Linden down to Main Street and I could see that there was no possibility of being a light at Linden. It doesn’t make sense to have one on every block but we do use the Beechwood exit and entrance both on foot and by automobile daily.
Mr. Haase asked, Mr. McGillem do you know the signalization on the Dan Jones roadway or is there any idea at this time?
Mr. McGillem said on the traffic study for the Cinergy property it has indicated, depending on what all goes in there and the final drive configuration, that there may be a need for a signal at one of those locations. We don’t know what the final configuration of the access points on the Cinergy property is going to be. There would not be signal warrants associated with it strictly from this building going in above what’s there with what we are doing with Dan Jones. But the key from the standpoint of whether or not there would be any additional signals on Dan Jones is going to be the final development as the Cinergy property develops out. As indicated, the Cinergy site, the access points on Cinergy, will have to line up with Hawthorne and Beechwood as far as the Dan Jones access. But until we get the next step on Cinergy and see what is going in and see what the actual traffic projections are, etc. we won’t know but there could possibly be.
Mr. Haase said but at this time there is no signalization required by this building based on your traffic study.
Mr. McGillem said no.
Mr. Haase said but potentially with the development going across the field at the Cinergy site there will be more than likely a signalization but it depends on the build-out.
Mr. McGillem said it’s possible but the fifth lane on Dan Jones should make access onto Dan Jones a lot easier than it is right now because you will have the fifth lane to turn into coming out of Beechwood or Hawthorne as you are coming out wanting to turn south. You are going to have a center lane to turn into.
Mr. Haase asked, did you understand that?
Mr. Shawver said yes.
Mr. Carlucci said before this project came up there was going to be an ingress/egress on the north side of that site right next to Beechwood.
Mr. McGillem said there were two drives associated with the Dan Jones with the existing site. The existing truck entrance was very close to the north end of the site just south of Beechwood, the one end of the truck facility. And then a second drive farther south. What this has done is eliminated those two drives that were originally set up with the Dan Jones project to accommodate the single drive off of Dan Jones, which is much farther south toward the south end of the parcel. So, you don’t have a conflict associated with the drive so close to Beechwood, which you would have to contend with.
Mr. Comer said these drawings, site plan elevations, drainage, are a final draft of mini drafts as the petitioner and Staff have worked together to create the ideal situation for this site. So, what you are seeing is a combination of a lot of work between the Town and the petitioner to come up with the design.
Mr. Haase said to let everybody know we are doing two items on this parcel. We are giving a recommendation to the Town Council for a rezoning request. We don’t do rezonings here. They are done at the Town Council level. Then we are also giving Development Plan Approval for the site plans that you see here, all of the building designs, landscaping, etc. subject to that approval. So, if there is no one coming forward, we will close the public portion of this hearing and I would ask for comments or questions from any board members. If none, we will move with two separate motions to act upon these measures.
Mr. McPhail said I have had the opportunity with working with the petitioner for way over a year on a site selection for this facility in Plainfield. They have done their due diligence and looked at all areas of Town. This site became available late in the process and when it became available, I think everything clicked and they made the decision rather quickly to move forward. I think it is one of those areas that the Town has grown into that needed to be redeveloped and I think they have done a tremendous job with the project that they brought in. I think it is great for the Town of Plainfield to have a facility like this in this location. To replace a business that was very successful for a number of years but the Town has grown around it and it was a site that needed to be redeveloped and I can’t think of anything any better to be there. Based on that I move that the Plan Commission certify the zone map amendment request RZ-05-007 as filed by BW Partners, LLC requesting rezoning of approximately 2.84 acres to the OD classification with a favorable recommendation. Second by Mr. Kirchoff. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – absent
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
6-ayes, 0-opposed, 1-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion that the Plan Commission approve DP-05-010 requesting Architectural and Site Design Review approval for commercial development of a 22,000 square foot medical office building within 600 feet of a Residential District finding that:
The Development Plan complies with all applicable Development Standards of the district in which the site is located.
The Development Plan complies with all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Control Ordinance for which a waiver has not been granted.
The Development Plan complies with all applicable provisions for Architectural and Site Design Review for which a waiver has not been granted.
The proposed development is appropriate to the site and its surroundings.
The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
And that such approval be subject to the following conditions:
Site layout shall be in substantial compliance with the site plan file dated April 19, 2005.
The building shall be in substantial compliance with the building elevations and colored renderings filed dated April 15, 2005.
Landscaping shall be in substantial compliance with the plan file dated April 19, 2005.
Wall signs and the ground signs shall be in substantial compliance with the Sign Plan Sheet file dated April 19, 2005.
The site lighting shall be in substantial compliance with the photometric plan and cut sheets file dated April 15, 2005.
Second by Mr. Brandgard. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – absent
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
6-ayes, 0-opposed, 1-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Haase said we have three more public hearings rolled into one, RZ-05-008; RZ-05-009 and VAC-05-001.
Mr. Valanzano said the three petitions that you have in front of you are all related to the development of about 70 acres of ground on the north side of Reeves Road just east of SR267. The area proposed indicated as I-1 is 7.781 acres. Part of the area is in Town and part of it is out of Town so all of the rezonings are subject to pending annexation with the Town.
The bulk of the property is 63.522 acres that is requesting rezoning to the I-2 classification. The reason that it is amended is the original filing was for I-3 and after talking with the petitioner they amended it down to an I-2, which is consistent with surrounding zoning.
The I-1 is requested as a transition area between the GC and Stafford Road and the I-2 portion of the site.
The overall development that we have here is really only the first step. The three cases represent the first step of what is coming before the Town for approval. Subsequent approvals will include street and easement vacations, which will be in front of the Town Council under a separate action. A variance of Development Standards with respect to landscaping, which as opposed to doing a Development Incentive, there are some unique aspects to it, which we can get into more next month when those petitions are actually in front of the Plan Commission for discussion but that is another element. And the architectural and site design review and the primary plat all of those will be in front of the Plan Commission next month as well. Tonight’s hearings are kind of getting the ground set for all of those things to come before you in detail next month. So, the bulk of the rezoning is the I-2 classification consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The third element of this request is the vacation of portions of the plat that the Plan Commission has jurisdiction over, which is the vacation of the lot lines and the vacation of the main elements of the plat and the vacation of the covenants that were recorded. Three sections of this plat have been recorded. It was all designed for residential. There are covenants that speak to residential use on there and really any redevelopment of the site, now that the airport has bought it out, is really not suited for residential use. Whatever use is made of this property is going to need these types of vacations to get rid of the old residential plat covenants and the layout for the property. With that the zonings are really, in essence, consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. The site vacation is necessary for any redevelopment of the site.
Mr. Blaine Paul with Duke Realty Corporation at 600 E. 96th St., Indianapolis, IN said as was stated, this is for the upfront work for the BD project, the Becton Dickinson project that has been proposed on the existing Brunswick Park Subdivision. What I would like to talk to you about right now is the plat vacation. Up here we have an aerial view. The property is located between SR267 and Perry Road on the north side of CR550S. Highlighted in red you can see the overall boundary that we are requesting plat vacation. Up next I will show you a copy of the zoning map highlighted in black for you. As you can see, a portion of the property that is in yellow is actually in the Town of Plainfield. The portion that is white on the screen is actually out of Town and in the Hendricks County jurisdiction. The annexation on this property is pending. The property is owned by the Indianapolis Airport Authority and we have their consent to go through the annexation and the rezoning and platting process that we are going over with you this evening. Duke Construction has an option on that property to purchase that ground. The property is an unoccupied residential subdivision and that is due to the airport expansion. The ground is no longer suitable for residential use. So, the vacating of the existing plat allows us to re-plat the real estate and it also allows us to hopefully have the use on the property that is permitted by the airport regulations.
Here is the site plan of the overall subdivision. The colors aren’t coming through real great but in the lower right land corner you can see section one. Section two is on the northwest side and section three is the northeast corner. It’s just three separate plats that comprise the overall development and we are requesting that all three of those plats be vacated this evening.
To go over with you the Findings of Fact the conditions have changed on this piece of property such that the platted area can no longer be used for residential purposes so, therefore, the existing plat is no longer applicable. As far as public interest is concerned, this will allow for the re-plat of the property and hopefully allow for the best and highest use of the real estate now, which is industrial development. None of the portions within the plat are diminished because the real estate within the plat is completely controlled by the petitioner. That is the plat vacation presentation. If you have any questions on this one, I would be more than happy to answer those or I can move onto the first rezoning petition.
Mr. McPhail said the one resident that is still there has that been resolved?
Mr. Paul said yes. The airport authority has a purchase agreement with that homeowner and I believe they are required to vacate the premises by May 31st. So, that issue has been resolved.
The next rezoning petition is for the portion of the property that we would like to have rezoned to the I-2 zoning classification. There was a primary plat on file at your office and we are calling this Plainfield Business Park West Lot 1. It is a 63½-acre parcel and it was formerly the Brunswick Park Subdivision. In the aerial you will kind of see that it doesn’t cover all of the area that we showed on the annexation slide. This is the portion of the property on the east side. There is an eight-acre portion on the west side of the property that is not part of the I-2 classification that we are requesting. You can see here on the zoning map there is the little piece that I’m referring to that is not part of the I-2 request.
As far as site information is concerned, a lot of this text is going to look relatively familiar. We have an annexation pending. Really the only change here is our desire to have the property rezoned to accommodate a use that is permitted by the airport regulation so that it’s not just an unoccupied piece of property out there. The site plan is outlined in red and is the area that we would like to have rezoned I-2 and here we have the current version of the site plan that we are going to be submitting later this week for Development Plan Approval that you will see at the June 6th Plan Commission hearing. This proposed site use is going to be a 638,000 square foot industrial facility. It has warehouse and distribution components to it. It is a 15,000 square foot office component. The front car parking lot is 150 spaces with 250 trailer-staging spaces on the north side of the property, which is away from the public right-of-way. There will be a three-acre detention pond associated with the project and all of this will be presented to you in detail at the June 6th Plan Commission hearing.
This rezoning petition is for the I-1 portion that we are requesting, which we are calling on the plat Block “A”. It is 7.781 acres. I think you have all seen this. This kind of outlines the portion of the property that we talked about here. The whole point of all of these things is to get the property rezoned such that we are able to use the ground as is permitted by the airport authority.
Mr. Carlucci asked, permitted by the airport authority?
Mr. Paul said permitted by the airport regulations. The airport regulations cannot use the property for residential purposes and our goal is to have it rezoned to something else that we can use the property. Here we outlined Block “A” and hopefully clearly identifies to you which area we are talking about. One point I do want to make is this area here we are intending to maintain the existing grade as much as possible in front of the building to preserve as many of those trees as we can. Those are indicated by the black dots. If you have been by the site, there are a lot of mature trees out there and it is not specifically addressed as part of the rezoning petition but I just wanted to throw that out there that we are intending to preserve as many trees on site as possible.
Mr. McPhail asked, how are you accessing the site?
Mr. Paul said that kind of touches upon really the next slide. What we are intending to do with the way the current plat is set out is it will set it up as a block, which it is my understanding that its soul purpose is to preserve the lot that is there. Therefore, in that scenario, access would be provided through lot 1. That is how access would be provided for that block. However, we are looking at several different options on how to utilize that particular acreage if, in fact, it does not go with the BD development. One of the options is to sell that piece of property to the owner of lot 1, which is the BD and then we would be utilizing that property potentially for storm water detention or potentially additional trailer staging.
Another option of what we can do with that property is to sell to an adjacent landowner. I believe at that time I that acreage would be pulled out of the current primary plat petition and it will be platted at a later time with the owner who could potentially purchase the property.
Then a third option would be for Duke to retain ownership and either obtain access through the BD property or through the adjacent owner’s site. We would potentially use that property for a small industrial development on a much smaller scale than you see on the BD site. Or to use it as an environmental mitigation or bufferyard. Given its proximity to Rogers Creek there were some other areas in the Plainfield area where we needed some kind of area for mitigation and this would be a potential site to do that on and have a high success rate.
Additionally we could potentially use this property for trailer staging. All of these things are kind of up in the air and we need to obviously have those resolved and incorporated into the primary plat by the revised deadline so that when we come to you on June 6th, we know precisely what our plans are for that piece of property. If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer those.
Mr. Haase asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this public hearing? Being no one coming forward we will close the public portion of this hearing and have any further discussions or the Chair would accept a motion. We will take this in three motions, first being RZ-05-008.
Mr. McPhail made a motion that the Plan Commission certify the zone map amendment request RZ-05-008 as filed by Duke Construction Limited Partners requesting rezoning of approximately 7.781 acres to the I-1 classification pending annexation with a favorable recommendation. Second by Mr. Matrana. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – absent
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
6-ayes, 0-opposed, 1-absent.
Mr. McPhail made a motion that the Plan Commission certify the zone map amendment request RZ-05-009 as filed by Duke Construction Limited Partners requesting rezoning of approximately 63.552 acres to the I-2 classification pending annexation with a favorable recommendation. Second by Mr. Thibo. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – absent
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
6-ayes, 0-opposed, 1-absent.
Mr. McPhail made a motion that the Plan Commission approve the vacation of the plats for Brunswick Park, Section 1, Brunswick Park, Section II and Brunswick Park Section III pending annexation finding that:
The conditions in the plat area have changed so as to defeat the original purpose of the plat.
It is in the public interest to vacate all of the plat.
The value of that part of the land in the plat not owned by the petitioner will not be diminished by the vacation.
Second by Mr. Matrana. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – absent
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
6-ayes, 0-opposed, 1-absent.
OLD BUSINESS/NEW BUSINESS
APPOINTMENTS TO THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
Mr. Carlucci said I contacted Greg Miller and he was thrilled to be considered subject to your approval tonight.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, did he feel like he would be available to serve?
Mr. Carlucci said he knew the time the meetings started and I e-mailed to him the whole Town meeting schedule for 2005. But he really did seem very excited about this.
Mr. Kirchoff said he will be a good candidate. I just saw that he resigned from another board because he didn’t have time.
Mr. Haase asked, is there a motion to appoint citizen Greg Miller to the Design Review Committee?
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to appoint Mr. Greg Miller as the citizen representation to sit on the Design Review Committee. Second by Mr. Thibo. None opposed. Motion carried.
SUGAR GROVE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES
Mr. Valanzano said the only thing that I’m asking for on this particular matter is clarification from the Plan Commission. The petitioner asserts that when they drafted the design guidelines for Sugar Grove when they went through and took out the ability to do a one-car garage and restricted it to all two-car garages, when they went to the next paragraph in the design guidelines, it says all one and two-car garages shall be designed as follows. Instead of changing it to all two-car garages they just changed it to all garages. That would, therefore, apply those standards to a three-car garage as well and there is a separate set of regulations for three-car garages. I just wanted to get a consensus, if I could, from the Plan Commission that your understanding was that the one and two-car standards would apply to two-car garages and the three-car standards would apply to three-car standards and there is no intention to double-dip on anything. If that is the case, we can shuffle some paperwork and get all of the documentation where it needs to be.
Mr. Brandgard said I think that is the right interpretation from my view.
Mr. Haase said Mr. Valanzano reviewed that and I think Mr. McPhail and I was there and agreed that this is exactly what they meant to do. It was one of those typo things.
Mr. McPhail said by them making that one minor mistake they eliminated three-car garages.
Mr. Haase said which we want to encourage.
Mr. McPhail made a motion that the Plan Commission authorize Staff to make the administrative corrections necessary to provide separate design requirements for two-car garages from three-car garages for the Sugar Grove Farms Subdivision. Second by Mr. Matrana. Motion carried.
ROCKINGHAM – ALTERNATE SIDEWALK PLAN APPROVAL
Mr. Valanzano said Mr. Lance Ferrell came in and made a special request. If you look at the map on your Staff Report, he wanted to eliminate sections of sidewalks that were in green. It’s basically on the north side of a cul-de-sac where there are no lots. To the north of that cul-de-sac there is a landscaped large berm separating two sections of Rockingham. And then on the north/south road that comes into Rockingham, the divided entry, there is a landscaped berm on the west side of the property. They want to eliminate that sidewalk and take those funds and do a better job on the sidewalk along CR350 and turn that into a trail. That would be consistent with what Nottinghill was going to do and then tie into the trail system through Saratoga. In essence, what this is doing is starting to set up a trend where an alternate sidewalk or pedestrian way trail approval is by the Plan Commission and we are kind of extending a trail on the north side of CR350 that could end up extending out and picking up the other properties on the north side of CR350 as they develop. I think we are kind of setting a trend here for picking that up. As an alternate plan approval, the ordinance does specify that it is within the preview of the Plan Commission and Staff cannot approve that type of change.
Mr. Haase said so the pink line on here is nothing that has to be done by Rockingham.
Mr. Valanzano said they would have to put a sidewalk in along there but they want to change that to a trail. That would be consistent to what we have coming out of Saratoga.
Mr. Haase said I don’t have any problem doing away with the east/west sidewalk behind those three lots. But I think another piece of sidewalk ought to stay in place myself
Mr. McPhail said they have one on the other side of the street.
Mr. Haase said I understand that but I just think it ought to be on both sides of the street. It’s just my opinion and then I think he ought to be able to upgrade that pathway to an asphalt pathway. I think he ought to have both sidewalks in there. Then you don’t have everybody crossing the street down in front there and everything. When that pathway continues to go west, people don’t have to cross all of Rockingham Boulevard to get back in the addition. I think it should stay. That is one vote.
Mr. Brandgard said I agree with half of what you said. I think the Rockingham Way ought to stay in there but the one on the court that can come out.
Mr. Haase said I just think that north/south one on the west side of Rockingham ought to stay.
Mr. Valanzano said unfortunately north is to the left of the page. It was the only way to fit it on one page.
Mr. Brandgard said that leaves that consistent with what we have in other residential areas.
Mr. McPhail said if you had a lot facing it but there is no lot on that west side.
Mr. Haase said let him make it an asphalt pathway. That doesn’t bother me either. I just think there needs to be access back in there on that side of the road.
Mr. Carlucci asked, didn’t we just eliminate some of this in Nottingham? Didn’t we just take some sidewalks out of there?
Mr. Valanzano said Nottingham had a waiver from way back when to allow sidewalks on one side where the common area was around the circle. I forget which side it was but it was one side of the loop.
Mr. Carlucci said for clarification they already had to build a sidewalk along CR350 anyway. They want to go to a path, which is fine but that would be to the Town’s standards.
Mr. Belcher said there is also additional width normally on a trail verses a sidewalk.
Mr. Brandgard said I was always told the path was less expensive.
Mr. Carlucci said we have a lot of gravel on that too and a lot of thickness on our standard. They were going to talk to Nottinghill because they have to extend something there anyway. I don’t know if anything has become of that yet. Mr. Lambert has a lot of equipment so they are trying to get him to do the whole thing at once and just do the work for the Nottinghill people and get it done.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, are the green sidewalks presently in?
Mr. Valanzano said no.
Mr. McPhail said they don’t have any of those in.
Mr. Valanzano said there are a few pieces of sidewalk in front of some of the homes that are out there. They are very scattered pieces right now.
Mr. McPhail said I suspect that the lot owners have put the sidewalks in front of their homes when they built.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, what is on the west side of the entry road today?
Mr. Haase said there is a house back off the road.
Mr. Carlucci said we have an agreement on two of the three. One seems to be to extend the asphalt path according to Town’s standards along CR350S. And then on the cul-de-sac that comes off of Rockingham eliminate the northern sidewalks. So, you have those two. If you wanted to, you could vote on those two and then come back and vote on the other one separately.
Mr. Haase made a motion that the Plan Commission approve the special request of Don Lambert as filed by Lance Ferrell requesting a pedestrian/bike path alternative for Rockingham subject to the asphalt trail matching the width of the asphalt trail along Saratoga Parkway but to deny the request to remove the sidewalk along the west edge of Rockingham Way. Second by Mr. Brandgard. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – no
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – absent
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
5-ayes, 1-opposed, 1-absent. Motion carried.
Zoning Compliance
Mr. Valanzano said there was a compliance report that was provided. Ms. Sprague put it together for you.
Mr. Kirchoff said I see that Mr. Lampe is still on here.
Mr. Haase said we need to take care of whatever we can do to get his reaction. Whatever we do we need to get done with Mr. Lampe. Let’s finalize some of these things I guess is what I’m really saying. LaFamiglia I notice that they removed the signs that were out front but they still have non-conforming signs that date back.
Mr. Carlucci said I was glad to get those done and now we have to go to the other ones.
Mr. Haase said I didn’t know where we were headed with that.
Mr. Valanzano asked, do we want to start talking to them about redoing their pole sign?
Mr. Haase said I would assume. That is what they came in here actually to begin with. The Abbey-Tibby people I would just start fining them yesterday for everyone that they have everywhere. Evidently they don’t take us too seriously. So, I don’t know what we have to do to do that.
Mr. Valanzano said I will start to make contact with them myself instead of doing it with Ms. Sprague. Do you want us to try to contact him and have him come into the Plan Commission? Where do you want us to start on this?
Mr. Carlucci asked, do we have a complete list of where they all are at?
Mr. Valanzano said probably not. My guess is it probably changes from day to day.
Mr. Haase said I would say that he is in violation and needs to be treated as such.
Mr. Valanzano said my only concern is the violation would actually be on the property owner so we would be giving a notice to the schools, etc.
Mr. Haase said they might call them and have them take them out of here.
Mr. Valanzano asked, might I suggest that we try to identify a few of the locations and then contact the property owners and let them know there is a situation with them being there and maybe they can either tell them to move them or do what you need to do to get it in place? As opposed to going to a church or a school and giving them a fine.
Mr. Haase said that is fine. I think we ought to be cordial about it. Send it to me and I will sign it.
Mr. Brandgard said the letter could include that although the Town supports recycling the Town has recycling stations in place and curbside recycling and what you have there does not abide by the Town’s requirements.
Mr. Haase said they can maintain those if they screen them properly.
Mr. Brandgard said the containers that you have don’t abide by the current requirements.
Mr. Valanzano said I would assume our requirements would be similar to the screening that we would require for a trash enclosure.
Mr. Haase said I think identical to. That’s how I view these things. Number one it’s a trash dumpster and it is also a business so there are kind of two issues there.
Mr. Carlucci said it’s not one of those locations that we would have allowed to begin with. They are all in the front yards.
Mr. Haase said we worked with the library and the library worked with us very diligently to get all of the screening done on all of those dumpsters and they worked very hard and now those things are setting out there obnoxiously.
Mr. McPhail said I think they encourage people not to recycle on the curbside.
Mr. Haase said on the Main Street Crossing you might just contact Mr. Cronk.
Mr. Valanzano said I did that this afternoon when he showed up and I gave him some pictures. I told him that you have to change this light fixtures out and you have to do something with these trash dumpsters. He is going to do a little bit of checking on the pylon sign for me. So, that is in process.
Mr. Haase asked, Mr. Cole?
Mr. Valanzano said apparently the landscape buffer at the rear of his property has not been installed and has been completely paved over and the dumpsters have not been located where they were shown on the plan or screened. Apparently that is being used as a vacation on a pending variance that is going to go before the Board of Zoning Appeals to reduce landscaping.
Mr. Haase asked, is that coming before the Board of Zoning Appeals?
Mr. Valanzano said not Mr. Cole’s property, an adjacent property is using this violation as justification.
Mr. Haase said I think we need to move forward with Mr. Cole and get him taken care of.
Mr. Valanzano asked, your suggestion of moving forward means?
Mr. Haase said a fine.
Mr. Carlucci said that is what I would do.
Mr. McPhail said he treated his tenant like he treats us so his tenant moved out so he has an empty building.
Mr. Haase said he came in and got approvals to do it correctly and then he didn’t do it correctly. What will we do if anybody else in Town does that in another location, this is what we would do. We need to go ahead and get that taken care of. The Marathon thing?
Mr. Valanzano said today I looked through that file today with Ms. Sprague as well. What they have done there I feel needs maintenance requirements. They replaced a lens with the same style lens. They replaced a bulb with the same style fixture. They replaced some internal shields but the cabinet that all of the lights work in remains the same. So, I don’t see a problem with that. From what they have shown in terms of the overall signage it looks like it complies with the ordinance and there really isn’t a problem there. The one question that I have for you in terms of how far you want to proceed with this, and it kind of comes up here and it also relates to what the Denny’s just did and relates back to what happened to Village Pantry at Stafford and SR267, where do you want to draw the line in terms of somebody painting over brick features or something like that? In my personal opinion on this site the brick columns that were the brick color to me looked better than having them painted white, which is what they have done on the six brick columns that supported it.
Mr. Brandgard said before you go any further to answer your question Village Pantry came in and started painting their building. We told them that did not meet with what we approved so they had to take the paint off. I think that is the same thing. You don’t do something other than what we approved.
Mr. Valanzano said a new Village Pantry had a specific approval that talked about a specific brick. Some of these other older buildings that were either built in the Country or like Denney’s, the old Perkins, now Denny’s was built in the County.
Mr. Brandgard said no it wasn’t.
Mr. Valanzano said DRC last month after the Plan Commission approved the Indiana Vocational Tech building they showed a warm brown brick. Then they came and said Mr. Valanzano what do you think? Can we use this lighter color brick? Kind of knowing some of that history I didn’t want to say one way or the other and brought it to DRC and DRC said, brick is brick, white brick, red brick, we don’t care. It was kind of that approach. The approach was so cavalier I just needed some guidance on how you want me to deal with situations when we have something like this where a building gets repainted.
Mr. Haase said there is the difference. When they pick their brick color, it is a brick and a mortar and two separate entities but when they come in and they are painting the brick, then that is a whole other venue. Dryvit I would almost say is slightly different because it is virtually a painted substance anyway. So, if it gets changed in painting a little bit, it’s a little different but brick is kind of brick or natural limestone would be natural limestone and then when you paint it, you really have changed have it. So, if they had brought in a brick that was white brick with red background to it, I think that is probably okay because you have the mortar joints, which are separate from the brick. So, I think the painting of it is what triggers that. Does that help you?
Mr. Valanzano said so in the Marathon case where they went and painted the whole thing, the brick and the mortar joints and everything, that would be a problem. Whereas, if they came in prior to construction and changed from one brick color to another but still maintained that appearance, it’s okay.
Mr. Haase said yes I think that is two different things.
Mr. Carlucci said in some way it looks better but especially the lighting was an issue especially with that neighborhood to the north. I don’t know if he has moved out of Town or passed away or something because I haven’t heard a word out of him.
Mr. Brandgard said he is still there.
Mr. Carlucci said but the lighting has changed a lot than what it used to be and with those drop downed lights it is a lot brighter. That is probably one issue and painting the brick. He came to the Plan Commission meeting.
Mr. Haase said after he had done it.
Mr. Carlucci said and he never came back in because we asked him to do that. He was out of the Chicago area.
Mr. Haase said if he had come in and wanted to tear the brick columns down and wanted to put up a different brick color, I think we would view that differently than painting it.
Mr. Brandgard said I think the other part is if you come in and change like that and we approve it, it would be okay but just going and doing it is not.
Mr. Haase said and that is a difficult thing to get them to understand.
Mr. Brandgard said it is when you change owners.
Mr. Haase said or district managers.
Mr. Carlucci said there are a lot of different communities and they all have zoning ordinances.
Mr. Haase said whoever got the roof painted green behind Dairy Land is a nice thing.
Mr. Valanzano said Mr. Hardin did that on his own. The original one that they put up was the wrong color and he told them to go get the right color. But then he painted the rest of the brick building that was underneath it. That is one of the reasons that I wanted to ask that question tonight because he painted the bottom half of that building underneath that new roof.
Mr. Haase asked, do we know where to go with that?
Mr. Valanzano said I guess we will contact him and have him come back because he also did some painting on the building, which was a brick wainscot on the building that got painted. So, we want him to come in?
Mr. Haase said Mr. Brandgard you have the strongest opinion on that Marathon Station. He indicated it was maintenance.
Mr. Brandgard asked, as far as lighting goes?
Mr. Haase said yes.
Mr. Brandgard said yes.
Mr. Haase asked, the painting of the bricks?
Mr. Brandgard said the issue, when I read this, was an upgrade relative to the lighting.
Mr. McPhail said one of the problems that I have is these people need to know that they can’t do that without getting a permit and getting approved.
Mr. Haase said so you think the brick painting needs to be addressed.
Mr. McPhail said I think so.
Mr. Haase said let’s address it then.
Mr. Brandgard said you don’t normally paint brick. So, that is a change.
Mr. Kirchoff said it’s a new trend. We have a friend who built a brand new nice red brick house and painted it all white. That’s the look.
Mr. McGillem said you have one at Providence Estates brand new that they put in brick and painted it bright yellow.
Mr. Belcher said if somebody comes in and wants to paint, if you throw a roadblock in their way sometimes and it is something that you would really like to see painted it discourages them. If they have a house that needs painted, I see the Village Pantry issue is different, but if you throw another permit out there and say you can’t paint anything without getting a permit.
Mr. Haase said we aren’t saying that.
Mr. McPhail said they came in from a Clark to a Marathon and a commercial guy came in and repainted it and didn’t get any permit. He just came in and started doing it.
Mr. Brandgard said when you go from a Clark to a Marathon, that is a remodel.
Mr. Haase said Phillips 66 went from Phillips 66 to Citgo. I don’t even know if their sign is in compliance on the canopy.
Mr. Valanzano said they got their permits.
Mr. Haase said when they did that, they didn’t do anything else. They didn’t even paint the under part of the carriage I don’t think. What we are saying is if they are going to paint brick or any kind of masonry materials, then we have an issue with that for approval. If it is wood siding, it is to be painted because that is what it had on it anyway.
Mr. Brandgard said is kind of a philosophical question. This is only during recent times when we did the design reviews and we approved certain architectural and paint configurations, in those areas I think we have some grounds to control when they change something. Or if somebody comes in with a colored rendering and that is what we are approving is a colored rendering. But I think to say painting is okay when you drive down West Washington Street and you see these newly painted buildings, they needed painted but they certainly are bright colors.
Mr. Valanzano said the biggest case in point in some of the industrial buildings we have where the paint scheme on the concrete tilt-up panels is what makes it work. If you change that paint scheme from one color to another, maybe it is okay but if they blanche it out to the point where there is no differentiation, you have nothing but a plain box anymore.
Mr. Brandgard said if they want to change the color configuration, they need to come back in and get an approval on it because that was approved at the design review.
Mr. McGillem said I think if you do something like this, like there’s grounds to do this on some of the buildings, I think there has to be some way information gets out to the people that this is an ordinance because 99% of the people out there do not look at painting a building as something that you need to come in and get a permit for. If we are going to do it, I think there has to be some means getting information out rather than bringing them in and saying that they are in violation.
Mr. Kirchoff said I’m not sure we want to process either one of those requests.
Mr. Brandgard said where I’m going is this question demands more than a 10-15 minute discussion. When you really get into it, I think there are some real issues in how you handle them. Some of it is pretty straightforward and some of it is not.
Mr. McGillem said we have a few of those big buildings out there that have been painted that needed to be painted. I don’t think it has hurt anything but it could get into a color combination that you might not want. But you have some others out there on these buildings that are starting to age that they really do need something.
Mr. Brandgard said that brings up another issue that I talked to Mr. Carlucci about. As you look downstream where we required the landscaping and we approved the colored configuration and we go in there when it was initially built and make sure all that happens, what happens 10 years down the road when the thing has changed hands two or three times and somebody comes in and wants to do something different? Or the stuff dies out when they are suppose to maintain it. We have done the right things but obviously we are coming to a point where we have to go to the next step and what are we going to do and not do?
Mr. McGillem said I think there are some colors out there that looked good initially that you can see that they are starting to fade out more than some of the other colors that are out there that are going to need repainted for them to continue to look good. If they maintain the color scheme they have, they are going to have to be more frequently painted.
Mr. Haase said we are not going to get into telling them when they are going to do it but it is just when they decide to do it, it might be nice to have some input.
Mr. Valanzano said if it is a painted building, paint it the same color because you are complying but if you paint it a different color, we want to look at it.
Mr. Haase said if they paint it every 10 years, the popular color schemes can change.
Mr. Brandgard said like you said we are not going to tell them that they have to paint it but on the other hand we approved something that we expect to be maintained. Paint will fade out to where it is non-existence. Then all you have is the concrete wall, which is not the intent.
Mr. Haase asked, do you want to discuss it later or where are we headed with it? Drop it until we see something that needs to be done? It’s better to be proactive than reactive.
Mr. Brandgard said proactive.
Mr. Valanzano said the discussion has been helpful and I have some guidance.
Mr. Haase asked, Glen Haven?
Mr. Valanzano said this report has a little bit of age on it considering it was done for landscaping purposes. I have asked Ms. Sprague to go out and update this report for you.
Mr. Haase said now is the time to plant and get this one phased out.
Mr. Carlucci said Mr. Stafford continues to get the paving scheduled for that final coat in Glen Haven.
Mr. Valanzano said I will let Mr. Carlucci comment on the billboards.
Mr. Carlucci said I think we are going to have, in the not too distant future a meeting, with one of the heads of the airport board. They will come out and have a meeting with the Town Council and we are going to discuss planning and zoning with them and billboards. There is another issue with the billboards that I don’t want to go into right now that may be changing hands. We know who the hands they are going to and we are also trying to get a hold of one of the leases to see how long these leases are. So, we are going to try to work through that.
The planning and zoning issue with the airport is really a larger issue, their interpretation of State law and planning and zoning. At some point the Council is going to have to consider going to court or seeking a change in the law, a clarification of the State law or both. But I certainly would like to hear what the head of the IAA board has to say. That’s not too far down the road.
Mr. Haase said I would like to know when that meeting is.
Mr. Brandgard said we do have a Hendricks County/Guilford Township advocate on the airport board at the moment that is acting as an advocate for us.
Mr. Haase said the vet clinic what does that place look like now?
Mr. Valanzano said I wasn’t sure so I asked Ms. Sprague to go out again and re-inspect it so that we can bring you an up-to-date report.
Mr. Haase said we just need to keep on him. He seemed to be working on it but we have let up and I doubt if he has done much.
Mr. Kirchoff said Perry Road is becoming a mess off that construction site. When I was driving down there, the pickup truck came out of there and threw dirt all over. I meant to say something to Mr. Cronk tonight but we really need to be cognoscente about that.
Mr. Brandgard said I brought that up a couple of times.
Mr. Haase said in contrast to that the Wal-Mart construction site they are out there with street sweepers in the parking lot and the brooms and watering it down and sweeping out so they are very proactive.
Mr. Brandgard said my point is with all of the criticism we made on that when they first started dumping dirt over U.S. 40, that we need to apply the same standards to the Premier work out there.
Mr. Belcher said the Wal-Mart site is being driven by the Wal-Mart Corporate office. That is coming from them in terms of what you see out there.
Mr. Carlucci said Dick Whicker is one of the people.
Mr. Kirchoff said he was in our meeting today and I should have said something to him because it is pretty messy out there.
Mr. Haase said I think they would address it.
Mr. Kirchoff said it is the contract employees pulling out and throwing mud everywhere.
Mr. Carlucci said I think the police department know how we feel about it and we will just keep reminding them if it is going to rain, head out there because they will get it out on the street.
Mr. McGillem said we met with Premier along the construction site and the parking layout and discussed the problems associated with it.
Mr. Carlucci said we can also ticket the owners, Premier under that ordinance. That’s not what I want to do. I would rather hit the truck driver.
Mr. Haase said the liquor store at the interstate at Cambridge and CR600 they have some signs that I just noticed on the back of the building. I don’t know if they are allowed or if they got a permit.
Mr. Valanzano asked, where are they?
Mr. Haase said on the east side of the liquor store.
Mr. Valanzano said I haven’t seen any permit applications. We do allow signs on all sides of the building.
Mr. Haase said it just hit me and they didn’t look very good. They look like old signs that he just put up there. It didn’t look too good to me.
Mr. Brandgard said I had something brought up to me and I said I would carry it on and I believe it was in the nine hundred block of Walton there’s a couple of homes, one I think the yard, especially the back yard, is pretty overgrown and it is a continuing problem according to the people down there. And then there is another home where there are some abandoned cars I believe around it. I shouldn’t say abandoned cars but they look like wrecks. You may want to take a look at that.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned.
_________________________________
Mitchell P. Haase, President
