TOWN OF PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION. December 4, 2006

Transcription

1 TOWN OF PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION December 4, 2006 The Plainfield Plan Commission met on Monday, December 4, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. In attendance were Mr. Thibo, Mr. Matrana, Mr. McPhail, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Kirchoff and Ms. Whicker. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Gibbs made a motion to approve the November 6, 2006 Plainfield Plan Commission minutes as submitted. Second by Mr. Kirchoff. Motion carried. Mr. Thibo and Mr. Matrana abstained from voting on the minutes since they were not present at the above meeting. OATH OF TESTIMONY Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Testimony. PUBLIC HEARINGS Ms. Whicker reviewed the Guidelines Governing the Conduct of Public Hearings. I believe we have three continued petitions this evening. Mr. James said DP that is the Value Place petition. They have asked to go back to DRC next week. So, they have asked to be continued to the January meeting. DP is the Indiana Members Credit Union. They had some issues at DRC last month so they are going to go back to DRC next week and they will be back to the Plan Commission in January. And then DP is the Hartford Market Place. They also had some issues with DRC last month so they are going to go back to DRC again next week and then we will see them again in January. And then we have another petition to add to the continued list, DP and DP , Glen Creek Partners. They need to be continued. I believe we had a problem with the interested parties list and with the notifications. So, Staff is requesting that those petitions get continued to January. Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to continue DP ; DP ; DP ; DP and DP to the January 7, 2007 Plan Commission meeting. Second by Mr. Matrana. Motion carried. Ms. Whicker said the first and only petition this evening is RZ Ms. Sprague said this is in reference to the Gilley s Antique Mall. It is located on the very west end of Plainfield. It is basically the gateway almost not counting the Sugar Grove s entryway. Everything else out there is undeveloped at the moment. They are currently zoned AG and they are obviously running retail operations out there. We noticed that they had some outdoor displays of mini barns. They can do that in General Commercial but they would need a Special Exception and obviously they are not General Commercial at the moment. So, they decided to try and get the General Commercial zoning instead of having to go before the Board of Zoning Appeals to get a Variance of Use to allow the outdoor display of the mini barns. The Comprehensive Plan recommends Community Commercial. This would fit in with the Comprehensive Plan. Several other properties in the area have been rezoned to General Commercial or Mr. Prock rezoned to the Commercial Industrial just a couple of months ago just in that general area. As I mentioned, the rezoning will allow them to continue doing different retail uses and such without having to go through the Board of Zoning Appeals to get a Variance of Use. Also, it would bring the property into conformity where they were a legally established nonconforming use. This way they would be just a conforming use. That is just the area where the mini barns are being displayed right now just for your information. Again, several other structures in the area have already been rezoned to General Commercial or Commercial Industrial. The site is already being used for Commercial purposes and the Comprehensive Plan! 1

2 supports that. Our main concern for the property is that the outside display is really a BZA matter. And then the only other thing I have to say is that this would insure that this property would have to conform to gateway standards if they ever wanted to do any redevelopment out there. Being on the west end of Town I think they are in kind of a gateway to the Town so it would be a benefit for Plainfield. I have a couple of pictures of the mini barns out there. I would be happy to answer any questions and Mr. Comer is here to represent the petitioner. Ms. Whicker said the red outlined area on the map is where the mini barns are now. Ms. Sprague said that is right. Ms. Whicker said the aerial didn t show the barns but that s where they are. Ms. Sprague said that is right. for a few months now. They have only been out there Mr. Carlucci said I might add one thing. We annexed this area. Part of it was taking in the property where Sugar Grove residential property is located. It was basically operating as a legal nonconforming use. It hasn t changed out there too much since but when the mini barns went out, that brought the whole issue back so that is why it is here to be rezoned and it should be rezoned Commercial because that is what it is. Mr. Lee Comer said I m representing Dan Gilley out of Danville. I want to take you back a little further in what Mr. Carlucci was talking about. Actually, I think since 1957 this property had been zoned in a Commercial or an Industrial fashion under the original Zoning Ordinance of the County. In 1992 the County came along and changed some of the various classifications and changed it to Residential. Then they went in and rezoned it back to General Business. Plainfield came along and annexed it and changed it back to AG. So, he is back one more time trying to gain back what he keeps losing from time to time. But I wanted to let you know these mini barns, what you see in this picture and what he has out there, are not really for sale. These are a model that people come in and look at. If they like this, Mr. Gilley uses it on a display basis. They make arrangements for the manufacturer down in Tennessee that actually manufactures and brings up whatever they have purchased and installed on site. So, what you see here they are not coming and going but they stay there merely for display purposes. As Ms. Sprague was saying we could have gone through and requested a variance from the BZA to have this non-conforming use expanded but we got to thinking about it and I think Ms. Sprague and Mr. James came up with the idea it would be a little bit better if we just rezoned it even though it still has to go to the BZA for a Special Exception having to do with mini barns but let s get this into conformity. We will deal with the mini barns and that s why we are here. With that we are merely asking for your favorable recommendation onto the Town Council. Mr. McPhail said it may or may not be affected by rezoning but I hope it does and it s the billboards, the billboards on the property. Will the rezoning have any affect on the non-forming standing of those billboards? Mr. Carlucci said I don t think it will. Mr. McPhail said well that s a shame. Mr. Carlucci said I don t even know under the rezoning to General Commercial if they would still be legal non-conforming uses. Mr. McPhail said well that was my question. I suspected that was the truth but obviously that is an issue that we are dealing with throughout Town. I would like for Mr. Gilley to get rid of those. I think they are a distraction to his business and a distraction to the Town but if it is not affected with this issue, I will let it die but I have had my say. Mr. James said the billboards are allowed under the General Commercial but not within 600 feet of a Gateway Corridor.! 2

3 Mr. McPhail said I thought the rezoning would bring the issue back in. I looked at this and the display of the mini barns kind of blends in with the mini barns that are used for the business. I guess they still have to get a variance but certainly I don t see anything offensive about it. In fact, I m glad to see some diversification in the business there. Mr. Comer said I m sure that Mr. Gilley is glad to hear that. Ms. Whicker asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this matter? Being no one coming forward the public portion of the matter is now closed. Mr. Kirchoff made a motion that the Plan Commission certify the zone map amendment request, RZ as filed by Gilley Real Estate Development, Inc. requesting rezoning of approximately acres at 5789 E. U.S. Highway 40 from AG, Agricultural to GC, General Commercial with a favorable recommendation. Second by Mr. McPhail. Roll call vote called. Mr. Thibo yes Mr. Matrana yes Mr. McPhail yes Mr. Gibbs yes Mr. Kirchoff yes Mr. Brandgard absent Ms. Whicker yes 6-ayes, 0-opposed, 1-absent. Motion carried. Mr. Comer asked, when will this go to the Town Council? Mr. Carlucci said Monday night. OLD BUSINESS/NEW BUSINESS Mr. James said under old business Cory Meyer with Schmidt and Associates is here. They would like to change the freestanding signs to the high school and add another changeable copy sign along the entrance at Hadley Road. So, Ms. Meyer is here to provide you some information on what they would like to do. Ms. Cory Meyer with Schmidt and Associates at 320 E. Vermont Street, Indianapolis said thank you for having me. It is an honor to be back before you again. I m here representing the Plainfield High School for a signage amendment to the school master plan/school district. They just recently became aware that we will not be seeking any approvals this evening so I m just here to tell you a story because you have all of this nice time tonight. Basically, what you see on the board and before you is a representation of what was previously approved and what we are asking to be approved in the near future. The bottom sign is the approved sign on Hadley. This would be on the school s property on the northwest corner of Hadley and Red Pride Drive. This sign does not have a marquee on it or an LED sign. The top sign does have an LED and that is what we are requesting. Currently what the school master plan says is one sign on the school property shall have an LED and this would equal two signs to have an LED. I think that is what we will bring before you. The other one is at the corner of Red Pride Drive and Reeves Road. It is on the northwest corner again. I have a couple of pictures of the other signs that were approved on the site. What you will see is the original LED approved sign and the other types of signs throughout the site and then the second page is a map showing where all of the signs are located on the site. There are two stars locating where the LED signs will go. Basically, what the proposal will be is just to extend the height of the Plainfield High School sign and add a one foot five inch LED banner. With that I would like to entertain any questions that you might have. Otherwise, I will be back in the near future. Ms. Whicker asked, are they something that runs continuous or something that just stays on or does it flash? I know how you can program them differently and some of them flash and change or some of them just display a message.! 3

4 Ms. Meyer said LED technology is mind blowing. I was just told that there are 19 billion different colors in the LED option. Yes, I could be scrolling; yes it could be stationary; yes it could be blue and red or it could just be red. There are a lot of different options and that is something that I will let Mr. Wolfe answer. Mr. Wolfe at 741 Willow Lane, Plainfield said it is my understanding and our desire that the message will be a scrolling message. A very similar one in front of the building at Reeves Road/ Red Pride. Mr. McPhail said this is the sign at Hadley and Red Pride and you want to add this banner. Mr. Wolfe said yes. Mr. McPhail asked, are you making an official request tonight? Mr. Wolfe said we are coming before you to show you what we have in mind to get an idea of what you think. Mr. McPhail said one thing that I would consider sometime in the late evening is to turn it off. It is right across the street from residential. We have similar restrictions on businesses that are adjacent to residential where at a certain time in the evening, I don t remember what time, is where the lit part of the sign has to be turned off. I don t know if this is going to be something that the neighbors will see or not. I would have to drive by there and look at it. You do have a residential neighborhood across the street. Mr. Wolfe said I would think, with technology what it is, we could accomplish that with just a timer. Mr. McPhail said I would think so. Mr. Thibo asked, will there be any landscaping around the signs? Mr. Wolfe said there would be some landscaping but it would probably be minimal. We want to make sure the sign is visible. Ms. Meyer said in this particular location there are some evergreens that will be located behind it and then on either side of the pillars I believe, if I remember correctly, there are some ornamental grasses and then some smaller shrubs in the front. That was approved in the earlier master plan. Mr. Gibbs asked, what is the reasoning why you feel you would like to have a sign being there verses the first sign that was approved? Mr. Wolfe said we made the original decision for the site signage probably a year or a year and a half ago. A lot of that was dictated by budget at that time before we got out our base bid package. We progressed further through this process and it finally came to the point where we think we can now afford this sign and we realized that we are going to have a lot of traffic; parents; community members; students along Hadley Road just like we will coming down Reeves Road to Red Pride Drive. So, it is nothing more than getting the information out about the high school events as well as other school corporation other events and activities. It is purely informational messages. Mr. Carlucci said when we install the wayfinding signs this time next year the first thing you will see is a sign on Hadley Road pointing you toward the new high school. So, you are going to get as much traffic on that road and maybe more than you will get coming out of Reeves. I don t see a problem because you are going to have to hit both places and you are going to miss a lot of people if you don t have the two signs. Mr. Wolfe said that is the one thing that we debated over and over because the main entrance comes down Reeves Road but yet there is also a lot of traffic, as you say, on Hadley Road. Mr. Kirchoff said especially during your sporting events people are going to learn why go all the way out the back and back around. They will learn Hadley and Red Pride.! 4

5 Mr. Carlucci said you will see the high school. from the road and will make a left turn. You will see Mr. McPhail said we really want to keep them off Reeves Road west. We want to use those two roads for 99.9%. Ms. Whicker said if you are correctly directing, then they are not ending up turning around in the adjacent residential and making U turns or up in somebody s driveway and turning around and coming back. Mr. Kirchoff asked, what is the process of this? Mr. James said not knowing the history of how the school master plan was approved Ms. Meyer was thinking it was a PUD but it s a zoning district and I think the ordinance was amended to include this School District zoning district. Ms. Meyer said you are right; Tim reminded me too that we started off with a PUD and then as we got moving, Mr. Valanzano recommended that we actually develop a School District. So, we did start off as a PUD and three-quarters the way through we decided to develop a School District. Mr. James said looking at the School District Ordinance it says all signs must comply with the sign standards in the ordinance. So, we need to take another look at it tomorrow. I don t know if we can approve anything tonight. I m not sure this requires something that has to go back to BZA or maybe come back to the Plan Commission next month. Mr. Carlucci said you can let us know because I think it will just be amending the plan. Ms. Meyer said we would just like to amend the master plan. Mr. Wolfe said if there are any members that would like to tour the building, give myself and Dr. Hollifield a call, and we would be glad to take you out there and show you around. It has come a long way. We thank you for your time. Mr. James said as far as being illuminated next to a Residential District the ordinance says it can t be illuminated located within 600 feet of a Residential District between midnight and 6:00 a.m. Ms. Whicker said next under old business/new business we have minor amendments to development plans. Mr. James said I wanted to update you on the minor amendments that have been done to development plans throughout the year. With an approval of an ILP the ordinance allows the director to approve minor amendments based on the findings that don t adversely impact the intent of the overall development. There is not a substantial increase in the intensity of the land use and that it complies with the development requirements for the articles. Back of the memo are the ILPs that were approved amending development plans. I just wanted to provide this information to you as required by the ordinance and answer any questions that you might have about any of these. Then the two tables included a list and the types of things I can approve as a director to amend development plans. Ms. Whicker said the ground signs and pole signs do not come to the Plan Commission. Who currently makes those approvals? Mr. James said if they comply with the ordinance, they are not required to come back to the Plan Commission. Ms. Whicker asked, so they only come here if they are noncomplying or if they are requesting something other than what is in the ordinance? Mr. James said you usually see them with the development plan with a sign package. At that time they should comply with the standards so since you have seen them with the development plan you don t have to come back and see them again. If they comply, we approve them with an ILP. Ms. Whicker asked, is this for new development and not changing of a current sign?! 5

6 Mr. James said with current signage they still have to comply with the standards but they don t have to come back before the Plan Commission. That is just for new development when you initially see them with the development plan. Mr. Carlucci said normally after they have been approved by the Plan Commission for Development Plan Approval, if they are coming back for anything, they are probably headed to the BZA because they are either too close to the road, too large or something else came up and they can t make it work. But usually then they end up back at the BZA, which is pretty rare. The ILP process means they have to go through a process on the signs to make sure they are in compliance before they are issued a permit to go forward. Mr. James said that is our next topic under new business to explain why you have seen some new signs that have been approved lately and if you think there is a problem with approving some of these signs, maybe we need to take another look at the ordinance and maybe look at amending the ordnance. Ms. Sprague put together this memo to explain some of the signs that have been approved lately. Target, the bull eyes was a mistake on our part. We just didn t notice that it was slightly above the roofline. Mr. Carlucci said the reason that we brought it back was I didn t think it looked bad but I just noticed that it was a little bit above the roofline. We issued a permit so unless they voluntarily decided to move it back down it is likely it s going to stay that way until something else happens. I asked Mr. James to put this together because if you go down to the Ramada, we have made some changes in the ordinance that these types of signs are now permitted. Mr. McPhail said I don t know how we changed our ordinance to allow this. Ms. Whicker said I thought this is what we were trying to avoid with the Value Place. Mr. McPhail said yes. I don t want to put Mr. James or Ms. Sprague on the spot because I don t think they have been around and had the history of every time we have had one of these before us. Especially with projects that start trying to do some pricing, we have turned that thing down. So, I don t know if there is any action that we can take to rescind this but if there is, I want to do it. I think this really creates a problem for us in setting a precedent and if the Plan Commission can render a decision that the ordinance was misinterpreted when this was allowed and have them take it down, I want to take that action. I m looking at the experts to tell us if we can do that. Mr. Carlucci said we will have to get with Mr. Daniel. I think this was amended in the ordnance, is that correct? Mr. James said yes based on the sign hierarchy, even in the Gateway Corridors, they can have what has been previously approved for existing buildings. Mr. McPhail said I don t think anything with a price has ever been approved. Mr. Carlucci said we are going to go back and look at that. If it is your desire not to have signage like that, especially with the pricing on it, we will go back because this came up with Value Place too. Mr. McPhail said absolutely and they are going to ride this one. That is a cheap looking sign and if our ordinance allows it, we need to get it changed immediately. Mr. Carlucci said we will look at that and if that is the case, we need your permission to conduct a public hearing to amend the ordinance. Mr. McPhail made a motion that at a future meeting to include in the agenda a public hearing to amend the Zoning Ordinance. Second by Mr. Kirchoff. Motion carried.! 6

7 Is there any way that we can override Staff s approval of this as being a misinterpretation of the ordnance? Mr. Daniel said I will take a look at it. Mr. James said it was a non-conforming sign and the ordinance says that the only way you can prevent a legal non-conforming sign from going back up is if that sign is destroyed by 50% of its replacement value or if they are doing repairs to the sign that are over 50% of replacement value. So, we had them give me an estimate of the repairs that had to be done to that sign and it was under the 50% so based on the ordinance they could put a similar sign up that was up previously. Mr. Carlucci said I have a question about that sign, the furniture warehouse, that sign out in front of the former Galyan s/ Dick s sign hadn t been used for over a year for any reason. Mr. Kirchoff said it has had some lettering on it. Mr. Carlucci said the lettering was basically we moved. So, basically I thought there was a rule about a legal non-conforming use that if you let that go for six months to a year, that the sign would come down because it doesn t meet the requirement of the ordinance anyway. I don t know but I thought there was a provision in the ordinance. Mr. McPhail said I don t think it is but I hope you are right. Mr. Daniel said I know there is on a use but whether or not there is on a sign I would have to look at the ordinance. Mr. James said it is for a use if the use is discontinued for six months or more but not on a sign. The only way we can get rid of a sign is if it is destroyed by over 50% of its replacement value. Maybe we want to look at amending the ordinance for that too. Mr. McPhail said I have brought that up on more than one occasion and I think we ought to have a life of a non-conforming sign and after so many years it has to go. I haven t had support at this point but here is one case that if we had something that says after so many years regardless you have to take it down. That is the only way you are going to get rid of these non-conforming signs. If the business doesn t change, it will be there forever. Mr. Carlucci said because of the use because no matter what happens and no matter how long that building stays up and they put something that is General Commercial in there, we are dealing with the use again. The question is what can you do about the signs if they just sit there abandoned and the use is not going on? That means that these signs keep getting recycled and recycled. Mr. James said if we can say signs are discontinued for six months or more, we could have gotten rid of it. Mr. McPhail said I m certainly opened to that. That is an asset to that building or any building is that sign but I believe there has to be at some point or time if you ever want to get this thing cleaned up and get on a level of Plainfield, that you have to somehow eliminate that. Whether you can do that or not I don t know. Mr. Carlucci said I think the legislature made that a little difficult too. Mr. McPhail said it s no different than any other asset, it gets depreciated and at some time the book value is zero. I can t get an accountant tell me what the life cycle of a sign is. I suppose some of them depreciate them differently but that is the only way I know that you could get rid of them. Mr. Kirchoff asked, (inaudible). Mr. James said I think if we thought it looked okay, I don t think it would be an issue. But that sign has other issues; it s the size, the setback. Mr. Carlucci said the sign was just like Gilley s out there that has been a long time part of Plainfield but Gilley s is still there and Galyan s, Dick s is not even on that property. The only thing that can! 7

8 change this is if somebody goes in and redevelops that whole site, then that sign can come down because they have to follow the Gateway Corridor standards. That has happened a couple of times. Mr. McPhail said I think there is at least one good thing about this one. I know this is a short-term lease that can be canceled in a pretty short period of time with these folks unless it has changed and that is what I was told when they were looking at it. He would really like to redevelop that whole site. If he does, then we can get rid of the sign. Ms. Whicker asked, if they move out, do they leave their sign there? Do they have to take their sign down? Mr. Carlucci said if you have a sign on a business that is no longer there, you have to take it down. We don t push that too hard because a lot of things change over pretty quick. Mr. McPhail said they just change the face of it and put something different in there. Ms. Whicker asked, do we have our activity report? Mr. James said because of our new employee, the Zoning Compliance Inspector, we have been able to catch up on a lot of our zoning compliance inspections. Emily has listed the inspections in her report and we are working on getting these taken care of and resolving some old outstanding issues. We have also been able to start doing our residential zoning compliance inspections. So, we are in the process of getting caught up and taking care of our zoning compliance issues and also taking care of some old zoning violations too. Emily has been doing a good job of going after these issues. Mr. Kirchoff asked, where are we on 1442 Aubert? That s the one with the trailers. They have moved some of that stuff. There are still two pieces on the property. Mr. James said I believe the one trailer is still in the driveway. He s doing remodeling on the garage and he is a contractor and I think he is doing the work himself. So, he has his tools in that trailer. I guess we need to check on that again, if they moved it back. We will take another look at it. Mr. McPhail said I would like to have a little discussion on item one over the downtown signage. I had three phone calls in one day I think but we do not legally permit any sidewalk signs. These downtown businesses, particularly, have those out and I think they have given them a reprieve for a short period of time but as we go into this streetscape and do some things, I think it is probably appropriate that we allow them to have some sidewalk signs. That is another part of the ordinance, at least in the downtown and maybe some of the other areas. Of course, I don t want a shabby looking piece of junk setting out there but if we are going to promote the use of the sidewalks and want people to be down there, maybe we need to look at menu signs or sale signs or whatever small signs. I don t know if Mr. James has any comments. Mr. James said I assigned Ms. Sprague the task of doing a little research and see what some of the other communities have done to allow those A frame signs especially in the downtown district like that. So, I don t know how far she has gotten with that but we are looking into it and maybe we can come up with some standards for these A frames to help out the downtown businesses. Mr. Carlucci said the other issue is we have Timothy s Pub bringing one out in front of the bookstore, which then moves it off his premises onto someone else s. So, we might have to come up with some kind of regulations for that. Mr. McPhail said I don t think we need an open book. I think it really needs to be regulated but I do think for what we are trying to promote it is something we should allow in some way and I certainly don t have any suggestions at this point. Mr. Carlucci said in some areas, especially on the south side of the downtown center, you have a little more room between the buildings and the curb than on the north side. When you put that railing up, no one is going to see those signs anyway, I don t think. They would be! 8

9 harder to see. shorter. The distance between the wall and the curb is a lot Mr. McPhail said I m thinking long-term when we widen the sidewalks too. That s when we are really going to have more of a justification for it than we have today. We are trying to encourage activity there. We do have some newer businesses in the downtown area and I hope that they survive. It is going to be a struggle to get the downtown to be what we would like for it to be. Whether we have the right kind of businesses I don t know. Mr. Thibo asked, are directional signs allowed without a variance? Mr. James said no our ordinance doesn t allow the A frame signs right now. So, we have given them a little break by allowing them. When there are one or two, I see where they are not hurting anybody but then we had three or four and I said well we better put a stop to it and then Mr. McPhail got the phone calls. We need to amend the ordinance and do something to allow these and help them out. Ms. Whicker said at the stoplight the pedestrian lights are working well to allow for people to cross. Don t they have a don t walk symbol for them at that intersection? Mr. James said yes. Mr. Carlucci said the Town Council is in the process of eliminating the parking on U.S. 40 from Carr Road to Vestal. Before we do that there has to be a left turn signal so this will kind of change the way that the downtown operates once you get the left turn signal in and the parking off of there. And we try to get the people to move to the backs of the buildings and come into the front, which I think is a more friendly environment as far as walking. When we put the railings up, I think you will see more encouragement of people taking advantage of that. Right now you have cars parking up on the curb and taking up part of the sidewalk, which I don t blame them and then you have a couple of A frame signs. So, when I think some of these changes are made with some types of controls so that people aren t falling over them and make them sign agreements with the Town, sidewalk encroachment agreements, I think it will all be positive. But the Town Center has a long way to go yet because we still have some big issues to deal with with the State on stormwater and U.S. 40. Mr. Belcher is working with Mr. McGillem in terms of getting that left turn signal in and getting that up and operating because that is one of the keys. There is no point in taking the parking off unless we have the left turn signal in. Mr. McPhail said you mentioned about them parking up on the sidewalk and it is real challenging when you have a business owner that is the biggest offender. Why would he park there anyway? If he thinks I ought to be for parking, why wouldn t he leave it for his customers? The biggest offender is one of the business operators and when we get the rail up, he can t do it so I can t wait to get the rail up. I have even asked the police department to see if there is a violation. Mr. Carlucci said we can put no parking on that road and enforce it when the time comes. Mr. McGillem said (inaudible). Mr. Carlucci said we are still on the State bid for the new bridge to the Town Center. Mr. Belcher said (inaudible). Mr. James said the last item tonight is I wanted to get a little guidance on how we should approach the 911-communication building that Chief Brinker needs for a water tower and a co-location down off SR267. This is the site plan. I can approve this as an accessory building so it doesn t have to come back before the Plan Commission. It is a development plan. It would save Chief Brinker some headaches there. This is the building. Here is the fire station right here and the water tower and SR267 is over here. The building will be located here and then one option is just doing a vinyl mesh black chain link fence and just screen it with landscaping with some evergreens or whatever. There is already some landscaping here so this is one option and this is probably the most economic option to do. This is a photograph of the building. I don t think this panel would be here but it is one of! 9

10 these pre-fab buildings. So, you probably want something at least that height to help screen the building. I just wanted to show this to you and maybe get some direction tonight and Chief Brinker is here to answer any questions that you might have. Mr. Kirchoff asked, what size is that building? Mr. McPhail asked, that is not a eleven by eleven is it? Chief Brinker said it is actually a little deceiving. This is the actual size that we would be putting up. This is currently located in Danville off of SR236, the tower that is up there the State uses. What we are looking at here this is the back of the building that would actually face Clarks Creek Road. We have told them the design method that the door would have to face Clarks Creek Road. The other side of it would just be the aggregate exterior and it s a flat panel on that side of the wall. As you see in the picture here, we have a fence that surrounds it and that is for the security purposes. The difference is that the fence we are proposing would be the black vinyl coat. This is just the plain old galvanized post here. The purpose of this is we had anticipated putting the antennas on the towers and the CSX rail yard in Avon. The problem that we ran into was that it being federal/private entity that we ran into all kinds of problems in getting the permits and the permission to go ahead with that. And the project is moving a lot faster than what that was going to allow for. The water tower at 160 foot with the 20-foot antenna on top would put us at the 180 foot, which is below the FAA regulations and yet the water tower itself actually works as an antenna as well. So, not only are we going to get the coverage from Brownsburg to Heartland Crossing but we are being told now that the water tower itself will help penetrate the warehouses here in Plainfield because of the power that it is going to be able to help provide as well. The issue that we have is that the company, Motorola that wants to put this in, would like to be able to do so to start work on this yet in late December or early January, if at all possible. That is why we are asking for guidance. Mr. Carlucci asked, do they just want to work on this part of it? Chief Brinker said yes and they would come in and put in a concrete slab at the location next to the existing building at the firehouse between it and the water tower and then the generator would go in next to that. Then everything else would go inside the water tower and then up. Mr. Carlucci said that is one issue that we have to work out yet. Chief Brinker said that is correct. Mr. Carlucci said it is my understanding that in the interim the Hendricks County Commissioners are still the legal entity. Is there some transitional thing you did with that? Chief Brinker said as far as paying for the equipment itself the County Commissioners are making payment on it but then ownership goes to the governing board of the communications project. Mr. Carlucci asked, is there one step before that? What I m concerned about is anybody being in that tower that we have someone that we have an agreement to use that tower. That is an issue that you and I still need to talk about. Chief Brinker said right and that would be the governing board, correct. Mr. Carlucci asked, the new governing board? Chief Brinker said correct. Mr. Carlucci asked, are they fully formed yet? Chief Brinker said yes. Mr. Carlucci said so we would get the agreement to them. Chief Brinker said correct.! 10

11 Mr. Carlucci said in using our facilities. The heading that we had on this co-location, what does co-location mean? Is only one entity going to be up there? Mr. James said (inaudible). Mr. McPhail said I think I may have miss heard you. that building was seven by eleven or eleven by eleven? Did you say Chief Brinker said it is eleven by eleven. Mr. McPhail said that building is not eleven by eleven. Chief Brinker said I know it doesn t look like that to me. I don t know if some of it is the way the picture was; whether it is pushed in or what but as I m sitting there looking at it too it doesn t look much bigger. Mr. McPhail said it might be seven but it s not eleven. a pretty small door really. That is Chief Brinker said it looks eight at best to me. Mr. Kirchoff asked, what needs to happen tonight? Mr. James said we just wanted some direction on how to best screen this because it would be facing a Gateway Corridor. Landscaping and fence will be the most economic option. Mr. Carlucci said if you want, you could leave the discretion with Mr. James and Staff to make sure that it is appropriately screened especially with the black vinyl slats so that you can t see into it. Mr. James asked, is the landscaping okay or do you want a brick wall, what would you prefer? Mr. McPhail said I personally prefer the landscaping. I don t know what anybody else prefers. Not too far we have Republic going in with the big building back there and hopefully we have enough trees to screen that. It certainly would be easier to screen than truck docks. Ms. Whicker said the fence would only come up approximately three feet, is that right? Is that security barbed wire around the top? Chief Brinker said it is a 6 tall chain link with the coating and then there would be the barbed wire across the top edge of it. Ms. Whicker said I know they have mentioned the black vinyl. So, is there consent for Mr. James to use his discretion? Consent given. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to adjourn. Motion carried. Second by Mr. Matrana. Meeting adjourned. Ms. Renea Whicker, Madam Chairperson! 11