PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION. November 5, 2001

Transcription

1 PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION November 5, 2001 The Plainfield Plan Commission met on Monday, November 5, In attendance were Mr. Thibo, Mr. Matrana, Mr. McPhail, Mr. Brandgard, Mr. Cavanaugh, Mr. Ward and Mr. Haase. ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM Mr. Carlucci administered the roll call. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Thibo made a motion to approve the minutes of the Plainfield Plan Commission Meeting of October 1, 2001 as printed. Second by Matrana. Motion carried. Mr. Haase abstained from voting on the approval of the October minutes because he was not in attendance. OATH OF TESTIMONY Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Testimony. PUBLIC HEARINGS Mr. Haase reviewed the Guidelines Governing the Conduct of Public Hearings. We have several public hearings for tonight. The first two petitions listed, I believe, are asking for continuances to the December 3 meeting. Mr. Higbee would you walk us through those two requests and do them individually? Mr. Higbee said the first one is actually a series of three rezoning petitions that you had continued at the last hearing as well. The petitioner=s attorney is here and he probably wants to come up and explain that a little bit more. There were substantial discussions with Staff about additional items that were suggested to be submitted to the Plan Commission to be able to get these cases heard. Some items have been provided to the file this past week in accordance with our last filing deadline for the December 3 meeting. So, they are asking for one more continuance. Mr. Haase asked, is this the second request? Mr. Higbee said yes. Mr. Brian Tuohy said I represent the petitioners, Precedent Development and C.P. Morgan Communities. Mr. Higbee=s explanation was fine. The only thing that I would add is in the items that were submitted last Friday we actually changed the original rezoning request. The original request was for R-3, R-4 and R-6. What was submitted last Friday was an R-3, R-4 and another R-4 so we deleted the R-6 request and substituted an R-4 after having several meetings with the neighboring property owners who expressed concern over R-6. Additionally, there has been concern over what kind of traffic movement improvements would be needed north of this at Raceway and Morris Street. There was submitted to Mr. Higbee on Friday a proposal to fund over $100, worth of improvements to that. For those reasons and a chance to have another TAC meeting this Thursday with Staff we would respectfully request a continuance to the December meeting. Mr. Haase asked, the only question that I have, and I=m sure this isn=t pertinent but since they are changing one of the rezoning requests, does that require it to be renotified? Mr. Tuohy said we would be glad to renotify. In fact, we planned on doing it anyway. We told the neighbors that we were going to notify them.!1

2 Mr. Haase said so really RZ is not getting a continuance, it is going to be renoticed. Mr. Higbee said I think you could still call it a continuance, however, they will do the renotice according to the notice deadline for the next hearing. Mr. Haase asked, would the renotification be on that particular one only or all of these? Mr. Tuohy said all three. Mr. Haase said I think that would be a good thing. You mentioned something about $100, worth of improvements. Will you be bringing a list of how that money is being spent? Mr. Tuohy said yes and a scheme of design. Mr. Haase said there is a request here for a continuance. Are there any questions from the board members? If not, the Chair will accept a motion to act on this request. Mr. Brandgard made a motion to grant the request to reschedule the zoning hearings to our December meeting as requested. Second by Mr. Ward. Roll call vote called. Mr. Thibo - yes Mr. Matrana - yes Mr. McPhail - no Mr. Brandgard - yes Mr. Cavanaugh - yes Mr. Ward - yes Mr. Haase - yes 6-ayes, 1-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried. Mr. Haase said we have a second public hearing, PP requesting a continuance. Mr. Higbee aid this item had also been requested for a continuance. Actually, I believe if this were to be granted tonight, it would be the third continuance. You might recall that the first one the petitioner simply wasn=t ready. The second time his engineer=s wife was in the hospital and he wasn=t able to prepare some things. Then this time we didn=t even hear from them at all. So, I think he is probably hoping that you will continue it but expecting you to dismiss the case. He is sort of at your mercy. Mr. Haase asked, is there a motion to act on this request. Mr. McPhail made a motion to deny the request to continue PP Second by Mr. Cavanaugh. Roll call vote called. Mr. Thibo - yes Mr. Matrana - yes Mr. McPhail - yes Mr. Brandgard - yes Mr. Cavanaugh - yes Mr. Ward - yes Mr. Haase - yes 7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried. Mr. Haase said we will now move onto the public hearings that can be heard, unless there is anyone in the audience who would care to request a continuance on their public hearing. Being none, we will continue with DP , Cole Energy Architectural Review. Mr. Higbee said this item was on your last agenda as well but was!2

3 continued because the notice had gone out a couple of days too late to meet our notice deadlines. However, the Staff had pretty much completely reviewed it by that time and was ready to go forward. Since that time there has been some minor adjustments because the petitioner was in receipt of the Staff Report from the last hearing and made some changes to make it something closer to 100%. Typically, as you know, a lot of times when they come before you, they are close to 100% but they are not quite there and some little adjustments have to be made. So, I will explain a couple of those items. This is a site that is over at Andico Park, adjacent to the residential subdivision, I believe that it is called Northfield Woods. At one time it had been proposed for a building expansion for two existing industrial buildings and then a new third industrial building. After a public hearing and substantial discussion they are now down to just wanting to add that third building. They have taken away the building expansions for the existing buildings, at least at this time. So, what is before you is Architectural Review for an industrial development within 600 feet of a Residential District, being the Northfield Woods, to the west. That would be this third industrial building, which would be located up toward the northeast corner of the site. The construction of the building is similar to what already exists there, which is a metal type of construction. This is in an area that is not on a Gateway Corridor so it doesn=t have to meet any of those standards that we require, such as the masonry materials and multiple materials, etc. that we would require on Perry Road or other Gateway Corridors. This type of construction is not required here and what they would be doing is essentially matching the type of construction that exists. They provided a lighting cut sheet and what they are proposing is a shielded down lighted wal-pac type of design, which is typical of what is being approved. We were concerned that it is the type of lighting that they would ask for because of the proximity to the residential so they modified their original plans for a down shielded wal-pac light on the building. There has also been quite a bit of discussion about landscaping, which because this site is industrial, that particular part of the site abuts industrial zoning to the northeast and south. And then, of course, this building is not particularly close to residential but the west part of this site does abut the R-2 zoning to the west. For an industrial site the planting level required is a minimum 1.0, which is a minimum level per each 100 foot of foundation. The petitioner has provided for that along the west and south sides of the proposed new building. And then on the north and east sides, because the building is close to the perimeter, they would have their perimeter and foundation plantings overlapping. The ordinance says that foundation landscaping has to occur within 10 feet of the building. Their yard is only 10 feet wide so you have the obvious need that you would have to have both your foundation plantings and perimeter in the same yard, in this case. Which means effectively they have to have a Level 2 there on those sides. As proposed, what they are offering would be sufficient, however, on the north property line you might notice on your landscape plans there are some trees there that appear to straddle the property line so it is not clear to Staff whether or not those trees are actually on the property or not. If they are on the property, they are meeting the requirement. I discussed briefly with the petitioner today and they said they were willing to do some work to determine exactly where those trees lie relative to the property line. I believe that they will probably be amenable to providing additional plantings to come up to the required planting level if it is determined that they are not on the property. But if they are on the property, then they would be okay. Another minor item that was noticed very late was on your landscaping planting there is another ground sign shown there. There is a proposed planting area for the base of the ground sign shown there. That is a requirement of the ordinance that the planting area is at least equal in size to the surface area of the sign, in this case 43.5 square feet. But those dimensions there did not appear to me to provide that. That may be just an oversight in the way they brought the dimensions down there or it may not. But the petitioner said today that they were willing to comply with that requirement as well. I would also point out that there has been history on this site from!3

4 several years back where commitments were made that paving would go in. I was told during the course of this that the paving would occur on this site. There was one item that the DRC added that I haven=t mentioned and that is simply that the ground sign would have white background with black letters and that is shown on your plans as well. I don=t have anything more unless you have questions. Mr. McPhail asked, is it proposed that they are going to blacktop the complete site or just this new building? Mr. Higbee said at the time that we last discussed this it was going to be a project where they were going to do expansion on the two existing buildings plus this third building. And at that time they said they would be providing paving for the whole site. I=m assuming that is still the case. You may want to clarify that when they come up. Mr. McPhail asked, what about landscaping the other buildings? Mr. Higbee said because the buildings exist and they are not going to be expanding them with this proposal, they are not required to do anything additional with those buildings. Mr. McPhail said the site is pretty rough right now. Mr. Higbee said that is true. If they had gone forward and gotten any kind of approval for those expansions, there probably would have been some kind of buffer yard landscaping and foundation landscaping requirement, at least for the rear part of the site. Mr. Bill Cole at 660 Andico Road said I=m one of two owners of Cole Energy and I will, as Mr. Higbee pointed out, give him a survey of that north line showing the precise location of those trees. I can do that in a few days and get it to him so he will know exactly what the requirements are of the north line. As far as the sign, there is an omission on a dimension but I will get that on there so I can show him that the two equal each other and take care of that. We will work the lighting plan out. I still have to get a building permit after we get this approved. So, I will get with the tenant and try to work out a lighting plan with the tenant and see if we are going to need to put some lights on the building to satisfy the tenant. But that will be worked out before we get the building permit. We are looking at getting a tenant right away and get started on this. If you have any questions, I will be glad to answer them and do the best I can. Mr. McPhail asked, what is your plan on blacktopping? Mr. Cole said we will blacktop everything throughout the whole project. My son and I have had to hold up on that because of this easement through there that Cinergy has and they kept tearing that up and putting in more pipe and more conduit and more wires. We just finally told them that they would have to put in some extra conduit and let us have the place so that we could pave it. We couldn=t see putting down paving and turn around and have it all tore up before we got turned around. They have done their job now. We have a little bit of work to do to hook up this building. There will be some underground work to do there and that will finish all of the underground work for the whole project. We have done it all and we can proceed then as soon as the weather will permit and will go with the asphalt because that is our agreement with our tenants that we will put down asphalt. Everything that is out there now is rented. People are occupying all of the buildings. Mr. Haase asked, is there a fence line running through those trees or is there no fence there? Mr. Cole said there is no fence there now at all. We had very good relations with Mr. Anderson so whatever we decide to do with the trees I=m sure will be alright with him but we will talk to him about that. There is a discussion about what trees are his and what trees are ours. It just hasn=t!4

5 come up yet. Mr. Haase asked, are there any further questions from the board? Being none, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this measure? Being none, we will close the public portion of this hearing the Chair will entertain a motion to act on this public hearing. Mr. Brandgard made a motion that the Plan Commission approve the Architectural Review request as filed by Cole Energy, DP subject to the following conditions: meet 1. Substantial compliance with the site, landscape and sign plan file dated October 26, The outlot ground sign shall have a white background with black letters. 3. All drive and parking areas shall be paved. 4. The north foundation area plant unit value shall be increased to the ordinance requirements, if it is determined that the existing trees shown are not on the property. Second by Mr. McPhail. Roll call vote called. Mr. Thibo - yes Mr. Matrana - yes Mr. McPhail - yes Mr. Brandgard - yes Mr. Cavanaugh - yes Mr. Ward - yes Mr. Haase - yes 7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried. Mr. Haase said the second public hearing to be heard tonight is DP , Plainfield Building 3 Architectural Review. Mr. Higbee said you might recall that this is a site that was recently approved for a Primary Plat. This is just the follow-up. Sometimes people submit plats and Architectural Reviews together but they did it separately in this case. This would be Architectural Review for industrial development on a Gateway Corridor, being SR267 and Stafford Road. I=m not sure if it is actually within 600 feet of SR267 but it is close. I guess about 1,500 feet, according to my Staff Report. It looks closer than that on my map but the building being proposed is 600,000 square feet. At this time there is the potential for that building to be expanded into a larger building. As you see, the site goes all the way from Stafford Road down to Stanley Road so it could develop as one larger building eventually or it could be two separate buildings, one on the north and one on the south. If the second building was to occur or the building expansion was to occur, they would need to come back because the development plan submitted only covered the north half of the site that would contain this first building. So, that is all that you would be approving is the north half. This is known as Lot 2. If anybody was confused at all, I will clarify that on page 1 of the map of the Staff Report Lot 2 is the part that we are talking about here. Lot 1 is the General Commercial portion that is not included in this petition and nothing has been submitted as far as Architectural Review for that yet. The building is typical industrial development with pre-cast panels. It does have some steel tube trusses on it, which would meet the second building material requirement of our ordinance. One thing that is different about this is this is the first one that has ever come through with the smoking enclosures included as an integral part of the building design. They have stressed through the meetings with TAC those would be optional so they will have to talk to their tenants in the future about whether those would actually get constructed. But if they got constructed, they would be the design that you have before you, which includes pre-cast wing walls and steel tubing similar to other features of the building. This is something that DRC and the Plan Commission have talked about a lot and I believe is in line with the kind of guidance that we have gotten for smoking enclosures.!5

6 They have provided a complying ground sign. There was a little bit of concern about the plantings at the base of the ground sign. It is actually a nice planting plan. Our landscape person took a look at it, however, a comment that was made by a few people was that the placement of the two lights, which would externally light the ground sign may not be completely screened by those plantings. So, perhaps the addition of some ground cover, evergreen type of ground cover, would be enough to screen those and be appropriate. You might recall, and it is not so much an issue at today=s hearing but just as a reminder, when this went through the primary plat, there was discussions about how the site would be accessed off of Stafford Road. There would be two entrances with, I believe Mr. McGillem told me, westbound left turn lanes at each drive on Stafford Road. I checked the parking counts and those are adequate. We don=t know what the amount of office space will be in the building at this time but allowing for what is typical for office space they had more than adequate parking for the site. The landscape plan had some minor discrepancies on it the last time that we reviewed it. The middle of last week they provided what you have in your packet and Staff has not had the opportunity to review it again to see if all of those discrepancies were addressed. We assume that they probably were but we have structured your proposed motion in such a way that we will have a chance to review that plan and make sure that any discrepancies could be taken care of through the Staff review process, if you choose to utilize the motion that we have provided. There were a couple of areas where it looked like some parking lot landscaping might have been double counted with some perimeter landscaping, those kinds of things. It was substantial but they needed to be corrected and the petitioner has said that they will do that if they haven=t done it already with the plan that you have. I would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Matrana asked, on the optional outdoor smoking enclosures is it possible that they would build the entire building and at a later date try to construct the smoking enclosures? They would then already be pre-approved. Mr. Higbee said we didn=t actually ask the question quite that way but I would say that anything is possible knowing the way development happens. So, yes I would say that they would be pre-approved as long as they look like and are built of those materials. I=m not sure we care when they construct them. This is Jay Higbee=s take on what he has been hearing out of different meetings. We don=t want to see them slap up something that doesn=t become an integral part of the building and match the building. Mr. Haase said so whether they go up or where along the building it is still that question. Mr. Higbee said right. That sort of reminded me of a point that the DRC made about those. In their proposal, and this carried forward to your motion in your Staff Report, their proposed recommendation was this is okay. The smoking enclosures are fine but they should not be enlarged or added to. If you approve it, DRC was saying stick with the design that we have and don=t come back with a change. Mr. Blair Carmosino with Duke Realty Corporation with offices at 600 E. 96th St., Indianapolis, Indiana said we have prepared all of our materials in your booklet here. Mr. Higbee=s report was thorough so I will buzz through these really quick and then leave it for questions and answers. First of all, speaking to the site plan, in explaining the flexibility we have, the northern building, which would be toward my direction, is the 600,000 square foot building that we are seeking approval on. The southern building, as Mr. Higbee mentioned, could either be an expansion of the first building or a separate building as we have shown here, which we view as the worst case scenario because we would have to deal with side yards and additional plantings. So, our construction, as it relates to hard surfaces and paving, would stop here. It is a spec building so we do not have a specific tenant at this point. We have made adjustments in the landscape plan since DRC. Some of the comments were some double counting, as it related to a lack of hedgerow here, and being double counted with a Level 3 planting. We believe that we have!6

7 corrected those problems. We are prepared to make any further adjustments to comply with Staff at this point. I don=t think Mr. Higbee has had a chance to review this thoroughly, however, we are committed to comply with the code. We have building foundation landscaping and we included the evergreens to best shield the truck courts up here and on the western face of the building and also on the eastern face. Detention requirements are being met by a large swale system that essentially surrounds the system to create a depression for the water to be stored. That added some difficulties in the placing of the landscaping. As you can see, you will see the big green belts that essentially will be inundated with water during the storm events. That is why our landscaping is not encroaching any farther. Building elevations are in your package and those are a little more legible with the scales that we provided. We did come in with a different elevation at the DRC level but we since modified it. I think we had the modification done for DRC based on the recommendations at TAC to break up the monotony of the long 1,300 foot long building. We reduced some vertical elements. Our architect is here to discuss it further if there are any questions. The renderings provided in your packets show some of the elevations at various corners. This is from the northwest corner of the building looking southwest. As you look down the length of the building, you can see the smokers hut. I think if I heard your question right, we are asking approval of this optional approach, which I will talk about in a minute. We have specific locations. Here is a rendering of the optional smokers location and then this is the treatment of a non-office corner of the building. The building has offices set up right now on two of the four corners. The question came up how are you going to address those other corners to keep up the integrity? What we have done is added some wing-walls. Again, the architect can talk on that if there are any further questions. Going back to the smokers hut we are asking approval of this. What is intended is, recognizing that there is a concern with what these look like and also recognizing that when we are asked to put them in, we have a Atime to market@ issue that we need to get them in quick. So, our approach would be similar to having the optional bath, I guess, when you are looking at a spec home, yes I want this optional bath and you build it. It also provides us an advantage with our clients of saying we know what the price is, here it is. So, our plan is not to build the building initially but if the tenant wants these optional smoker huts, they would be located in the green areas here and here, screened as shown. If they don=t go in, the screening goes back against the building. We think this is a fair treatment. In turn we are asking that if we decide to build them as the construction happens, if we line up a tenant as the construction is happening, we will come in and get a permit specifically for that. I=m not sure there is a specific permit for that but we would either alter our existing or notify Staff that we are educing our option and go ahead so that we are not back through the 30-day DRC approval process. That is the intent. These things will be built in this fashion either here or here if the tenants do chose to use them. One other quick thing before I turn it over to questions and answers is it relates to Staff=s comments on the monument signage. If you turn to subsection 8 of our books, there is our elevation of a sign. What we have done to sort of create a common theme is this is the exact same sign that was approved on our two prior buildings, Plainfield 1 and 2, on Perry Road. We picked up that theme and applied it here. Likewise, flipping to section 9, the landscaping treatment is exactly the same thing, as is the light fixtures. The cut sheet is exactly what is out in the field. We used the adjustable nonhooded light so if there was an issue of glare going on the signs, we could adjust it accordingly. In our experience it has worked well, so has the landscaping. We think adding low-growing shrubs around to hide the light fixtures is an overkill. At a recent site visit we stood at the curb side and it is hard to see the light fixture itself from the curb side. You have to go up. As a matter of fact, the question was do you have a hooded or non-hooded? You couldn=t tell from what we submitted so we went out in the field and you have to walk up into the landscaping to see if it is hooded or non-hooded. So, we disagree with Staff that additional low-growing shrub should be included in this. One other reason is we like to do annual change-outs on some of these!7

8 plantings beds and have the ability to come in and change some of the plantings to meet the seasons and keep color on the signs. We don=t want to inundate it with green out there. We want the ability to change that out but that would be our only objection to the Staff Report. At this time I will answer any questions that you may have. The building architect is here as well as another Duke representative. Mr. McPhail asked, could you give me a brief description of the traffic flow and your road cuts? A Duke representative said the traffic patterns right now is going to be different than what we think they are going to be 10 years now because of the Six Points interchange. The majority of the traffic will be coming off SR267, which would be up on this end of the site. Then we would be coming in on Stanley and Stafford. This spec building provides a little bit of difficulty in that if we align the building this way, it could cross traffic so we were very interested in getting two access points on Stanley and Stafford at both locations. Working with TAC at the platting stage and also through DRC we came up with a solution that allowed a full-movement right-in/right-out here by doing modifications to the turn lane that would go north to the residential subdivision. We had a rather large stacking distance for the left turn to go north off of Stafford. We have modified that slightly and have provided the ability for storage to make a left turn in by shortening the storage lane. This would be a full movement here and those would be full movements down here. On Stanley it is a little less difficult because you don=t have a boulevard down there. Stafford was a different animal because of a boulevard. I think we have worked that out with Staff=s input. We are at a point that I think is agreeable to everybody. Mr. Haase asked Mr. McGillem=s opinion. Mr. McGillem said it is fine. The Duke representative said 10 years from now traffic is going to be the other way I think. Most of the traffic is going to be coming from Six Points. Mr. Haase said I had a question on the smoking enclosures because I know that we have seen a lot of these sprout up and I=m really glad that you guys addressed it. I think you addressed it in a good way but my only concern or question is there really is no wall across the front. Mr. Carmosino said on the west face that is probably going to be a problem. We didn=t feel we could integrate a west face into the building and make it look as part of the building. If you have glass curtain walls and still get the visual effect, what does that do? So, at DRC they said essentially these are fine but don=t come back in and add glass walls or something to the front of that and we are agreeable to that. We are not sure how that west face will work. You are probably going to be standing in blowing rain and snow if you are out there. The east face will be protected a little bit better because of prevailing winds. Hopefully, it satisfies the customer=s needs quite honestly. It is our first stab at it. We may learn some lessons and come back with a different design on the southern part on the next building. This is our first stab at it and I guess we will learn by our mistakes. Mr. Thibo asked, on the truck storage on the west side, will that be screened so you can=t see it from the highway? Mr. Carmosino said initially no. We do have some landscaping going in that will screen it slightly. Some of the evergreens on the north and the plantings will provide some screening but keep in mind that there is about 1,300 feet between here and SR267. We don=t know for sure but that is zoned GC so we feel that will probably eventually go commercial for retail, which will probably use buildings 35 feet in height, which will be more than adequate with the screening. So, we don=t have what I would call 100% screening now. We have dressed it up as if it is a side yard adjacent to a GC but it doesn=t provide 100% screening. We feel that we shouldn=t have to put that in only to see money thrown into the ground when it wouldn=t even be visual from SR267 in the future.!8

9 Mr. Brandgard said I would like to make one comment to you though. I certainly appreciated getting the information in a binder formate. It is very easy to go through and as you went through it here, it was easy. Mr. Carmosino said we thought this was easier than messing with big sized plans. We will continue this method in the future if that is alright. Mr. Brandgard said if you go this way or you could put it in a plastic spiral type thing too, whatever works, but I do like this. Thank you. Mr. Haase asked, at this time is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this public hearing? Being none, we will close the public portion of this hearing and the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Cavanaugh made a motion that the Plan Commission approve the Development Plan/Architectural Review as filed by Duke Realty for industrial development along a Gateway Corridor subject to the following conditions: 1. Substantial compliance with the Architectural Review Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Lighting Plan and Building Elevations and Renderings and Sign Plan file dated October 30, Apparent minor discrepancies between the landscape plan and ordinance requirements shall be corrected for Staff review and approval. 3. Low-growing evergreens shall be added, as needed, based on Staff=s approval to accomplish screening of the sign base light fixtures. 4. The proposed smoking enclosures, if erected, shall not be altered or added to. Second by Mr. Thibo. Roll call vote called. Mr. Thibo - yes Mr. Matrana - yes Mr. McPhail - yes Mr. Brandgard - yes Mr. Cavanaugh - yes Mr. Ward - yes Mr. Haase - yes 7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried. Mr. Haase said we will now move onto public hearing DP , Plainfield Commons 2, Outlot 2. Mr. Higbee said this is Architectural Review for commercial development within 600 feet of a Gateway Corridor, being Perry Road and U.S. 40. This is the outlot immediately to the west of Chili=s. What is being proposed is approximately a 6,000 retail building that I=m told could have three tenants in it. I assigned an approximate address. It is not the actual address of 2677 East Main Street. Waivers that would be requested would be for less than 60% brick or dryvit material on three of the facades. The north or U.S. 40 facade would have the required building materials being more than 60% dryvit on the north. But the other three facades would not. They would be a combination of materials that, if you looked at the masonry all together would be 60% but they don=t fit the technical requirement of the 60% of one primary material on those three facades. You might recall some time ago this overall site, with the adjacent lots on two sides, went through a Development Incentive Approval with the Plan Commission because they wanted to be able to share parking on the sides, which would eliminate the five-foot side yard requirement for an outlot. That was approved so this plan came in compatible with that previous development incentive approval, which then causes the landscape requirement for the site to go up for both the perimeter and the founding plantings. That has been supplied on the landscape plans that you have in your package. The lighting would be pole lights that would be very similar to what exists in the area except that they wanted to use the shorter light, 25 feet in height, where nearby they have some 35 foot poles, I understand. But the photometric plan would meet the 2.0 foot candle requirement that we have for a commercial outlot surrounding by commercial property like this one is.!9

10 At the DRC there were several comments made. I need to highlight them because, unfortunately, I neglected to carry forward a couple of items out of the DRC recommendation into your motion like I typically do. So, you may want to consider doing that. All you have to do is go to page 3 of your Staff Report under DRC and you will see what they recommended. The first item is a typical part of their motion where they say Asubject to all of the plans, the site plan, the landscape plan, etc. Then the next item is, on the interior, there were two islands there that didn=t show any landscaping. The DRC felt that some landscaping, low-level, should be provided. The third item is that some of the plantings should be replaced with another type, it would be Japanese Maples replaced with Hawthorne or Serviceberries. And then the last item was the rooftop HVAC should have a rear screen. Keeping in mind that you have two Gateway Corridors here so you have the potential for the rear of the building to be seen from one of those corridors. So, there was discussion at DRC and also at the last Plan Commission about what kind of rooftop screening we are ultimately going to require on things. Their design would include screening on the other three sides but at this point and time they haven=t shown us what the screening on the rear would be. They are indicating there would probably be an additional panel that would actually go on the back of the rooftop units so it would be a parapet wall, for instance. But DRC did include a reference to the HVAC in their proposed motion for you to consider in your motion. Another item that I caught at the last minute that I don=t think DRC honed in on was that we did not have dumpster details shown. If you look at the color elevations in your packet, if you look at them really closely, you will see some lines there on the rear that do show an outline of what would be a dumpster enclosure. It appears it would be a complying brick enclosure. I don=t think there is any intent to not comply but we didn=t get details that tell us what it is actually going to look like. That is kind of a standard item and I hope that the petitioner would be willing to supply that. I would be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mr. Haase asked, what is the type of lighting? Mr. Higbee said the lighting would be metal halide. Mr. Haase asked, even on the building? Mr. Higbee said yes. They haven=t asked for any waivers on that. I don=t actually recall. If he showed me, I would probably remember it. I believe that they indicated that it was metal halide. Mr. Wade with Premier Properties located in Indianapolis said I will just try to touch on the main points, the questions that DRC had and I will leave it open for questions. We have a 6,000 square foot building. We are proposing up to three tenants in this building. We have a drive-thru located on the east side and when we went to DRC, one item that they brought up was with the landscape plan. We didn=t propose any landscaping on the islands here and here. We just had them as green areas. Here we have now filled in some bushes and shrubs and trees so we have taken care of that. As Mr. Higbee mentioned, a Development Incentive was approved so that we would have the shared drive lanes. We had to double the area and double the plantings. We have taken care of that. As far as the photometrics go, the poles, they are going to be 25 foot. They will be identical to poles at Chili=s just adjacent to them. The building elevations. We are asking for a waiver on some of the materials. We are open to suggestions. We feel like with the way that we have the building the materials that we are using best suits the building. If you have any suggestions, we would be willing to hear those. You have a dumpster detail and it complies. It will be a brick that matches the rest of the building all around. One thing that was mentioned at DRC that is not true is that the limestone that goes around the bottom of the building was about three blocks. It will not be repeated on the dumpster enclosure. The dumpster will just be solid brick all the way from the ground up to match the rest of the building.!10

11 Mr. Haase said unlike what we see. Mr. Ward said that is correct. It will be brick all the way to the ground. Another issue is with the HVAC units on the top of the roof. In the colored drawing you have this center feature right here is about 30 feet wide. It will recess straight back on the top of the building about 15 feet, which will make it equal to these piers on here. What our intention is to set all units inside this square. The roof line is approximately one and a half feet below this area of the facade right here and this feature extends approximately four feet above that facade. So, we have between five and a half feet and six feet from the roof line to the top of this facade so that the HVAC units will set in there and you will not be able to see them. The one issue that we talked about at DRC is the rear screening. I=m trying to get some information. I talked to Mr. McGillem a little bit about it and BP Amoco used some sort of metal screening that will take your opinion to see if it is acceptable with the Commission. What we would like to do is, instead of having to put up a parapet wall, we would like to use that metal screening for the rear wall. Which would connect these two recessed walls and just paint it the same color as the EIFS will be so it will blend in. It gets pretty expensive when you start putting dryvit just on top of the roof. So, we would be allowed to have the fourth wall screened with the same type of material as BP. I believe that it is just a painted metal. I=m having a real difficult time getting a sample of it. I talked to the engineer who worked on the BP project and he is going to get me in touch with the right people and try to get a sample that we could use to resubmit it to DRC to make sure that was an acceptable means of screening for the rear facade. I believe that I have touched on all of the points in question or DRC would like some explanation on and I will open it up to any questions or concerns that you have at this point and time. Mr. Thibo asked, do you have just one dumpster for three tenants? Mr. Ward said we are showing on the dumpster details currently two dumpsters. We are going to design it where it could have two dumpsters. It is going to depend on the tenants. If there would be three restaurants, obviously, we think we are probably going to need two dumpsters in there. One of the tenants to the east, we are talking to Star Bucks at this point and time. If it was Star Bucks and maybe another restaurant and then a clothing store or an electronic store, etc., we are just going to kind of be flexible on what we think the trash capacity would be at that point and time. Mr. Thibo asked, do you just have one tenant now? Mr. Ward said Star Bucks is the tenant we are talking to to the east. I know the leasing department is talking with Panda Express, which is a Chinese Restaurant that is a little bit on the higher end, above the buffet style. It is more of a sit down type of dinner restaurant that we are talking to at this point and time. Mr. Haase asked, what is the dimension of the building? Mr. Ward said 75 x 80. Mr. Haase asked, the wall that you are talking about where you are planning on hiding the air conditioners, the side or the wings will go back 15 feet? Mr. Ward said that is correct. Mr. Haase asked, how deep would the building be? Mr. Ward said 80 feet. Mr. Haase said 65 feet from the back is where you want to put that screening partition.!11

12 Mr. Ward said yes. Mr. Ward asked, on your east elevation did you say you have a drive-thru? Mr. Ward said yes. Mr. Ward said your elevations don=t show any kind of a window. Mr. Ward said that is correct. It is because the specs will come from Star Bucks but what we intend to do is the third window back is replacing that window. It will not be a decorative window. That is where the pick-up window would be, which is located approximately 30 feet from the rear of the building. Mr. Ward asked, will you have a menu board out there also? Mr. Ward said a menu board is indicated right here. rear of the building. It will be in the Mr. Ward said you will come around the building into the drive-thru and order here and pick up over there. Mr. Ward said yes. Mr. Cavanaugh said I had a question on the brick for the trash enclosure. On the elevation that we have here, the 11 x 17, it appears it shows some accent brick striping or some coin effect on the brick facade. Is that going to match on the trash enclosure as well? Mr. Ward said yes. We will continue the pattern and the two different bricks are indicated here. We will continue the brick pattern onto the trash enclosure. If it is permissible, we were going to keep the limestone accent and just do the actual building itself. The brick will be identical to what is used on the building. Mr. Haase asked, is there anyone in the audience who has any questions at this time? Mr. Higbee said I have one item. It is not really a comment on the hearing but it is relevant to this case. I just want to ask if you have with you the affidavit and green cards from your mailing? We know the mailing happened because we got our copy of the notice but do you have them with you? Mr. Ward said yes. Mr. Haase asked, does the petitioner have anything that he would like to add? Being none, we will close the public portion of this hearing and the Chair will entertain a motion to act on this public hearing. Mr. Cavanaugh asked, was there an evaluation made on the site plan for the drive-thru usage and adequate stacking distance, etc.? Mr. Ward said yes. Mr. Cavanaugh said I don=t believe that we have seen anything on signage so far that would include signage for the menu board. Mr. Higbee said that is correct. We have not received anything on a menu board location that I believe was shown on some of the plans. So, they would have to come back through for those approvals. Mr. Cavanaugh said typically on a drive-thru situation where you have a service window the petitioner might want to have some type of awning over there for sheltering the weather. I don=t see anything indicated on the plans for that. How can we handle that if they decide they want to do that? Mr. Higbee said we talked about the fact that, as Mr. Ward brought up, the east elevation really didn=t show the drive-thru although you see it on the site plan. I think the appropriate way if the Plan Commission finds it!12

13 acceptable, would be to just delegate that to the DRC and let them come back when they have made a facade change on that east facade for DRC approval, including awnings. Mr. Haase said as far as leaving that for the DRC, I think as far as myself, I think that would be acceptable. And we can find out if other board members think so, and we can include that in the motion. Mr. Cavanaugh made a motion to approve DP requesting Architectural Review for commercial development within 600 feet of a Gateway Corridor subject to the following conditions: Substantial compliance with the site plan, landscape plan, lighting plan, sign plans and building elevations file dated October 26, 2. Dumpster details shall be provided for Staff review and have been included with the presentation this evening. 3. To insure islands which don=t show any landscaping shall have lowlevel landscaping as shown at the meeting this evening. 4. The Japanese Maple shown on the landscape plan shall be replaced with Hawthorne or Serviceberry. 5. Rooftop HVAC units shall include an additional rear panel screen color and materials for the rooftop screen shall be provided to the DRC for review and approval. 6. Any building changes for the addition of a drive-thru window materials and elevation shall be submitted for review by the DRC. that: And regarding development within 600 feet of a Gateway Corridor finding 1. The Development Plan will comply with all applicable Development Standards of the district which the site is located; 2. The Development Plan will comply with all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Control Ordinance for which a waiver has not been granted; 3. The Development Plan will comply with all applicable provisions for Architectural Review for which a waiver has not been granted; 4. The proposed development is appropriate to the site and its surrounding; 5. The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance. And regarding the request for building materials waivers finding that: 1. The proposed development does represent an innovative use of building materials, site design features or landscaping which will enhance the use or value of area properties. 2. The proposed development is consistent with and compatible with other development located along the Gateway Corridor. 3. The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Gateway Corridor and the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance. Second by Mr. Matrana. Roll call vote called. Mr. Thibo - yes Mr. Matrana - yes Mr. McPhail - yes Mr. Brandgard - yes Mr. Cavanaugh - yes Mr. Ward - yes Mr. Haase - yes 7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried. Mr. Haase said we will now continue on with public hearing DP and PP Are we going to take those simultaneously? Mr. Higbee said yes the two items for Fairfield Woods were written as one Staff Report and I would like to present them that way. This is part of the!13

14 Saratoga PUD and actually I have a little graphic here. You can see on that graphic that I have a few different areas highlighted and that is because we have had several things come through on Saratoga recently and thought it would be interesting to kind of picture where they are all at. Two of them are on tonight=s agenda, one of them, this case, Fairfield Woods would be the area at the extreme northwest corner of Saratoga, CR350S. And later on tonight we will also be looking at the downzoning of two parcels adjacent to Kensington, which you see outlined there as well. And then there is a third parcel that was rezoned recently at a prior Plan Commission, which expanded Saratoga to the west. So, you will see all three of those outlined there in different colors. But the one in front of you now is the northwest corner area. That is being proposed for 141 single-family lots, acres and was part of what was approved back in around 1994 and 1995 I believe by the Plan Commission as a PUD. That whole area there north of the railroad right-of-way, the old railroad right-of-way was going to be residential 2-4 units per acre. So, what is being proposed here does comply with that old approval, as far as the density range. Also, I hope that I copied you the old PUD development standards. If I did not, I have them with me and I can actually read them. In fact, why don=t I go ahead and do that regardless and read some of the development standards for that area. The original PUD commitments said that the area shown on the preliminary plan and plat, as residential, 2-4 dwelling units per acre, would have a minimum ground floor area, excluding basement, garages and open porches, of 1,500 square feet for a one-story home. And 900 square feet for a residence greater than one-story provided that no residents greater than one-story shall have less than an aggregate of 700 square feet of finished floor area. So, that would be 1,500 for a ranch and 1,700 for a twostory. Mr. McPhail asked, could you repeat that? Mr. Higbee said I will repeat the last part because I think it is easier. It would be about 1,500 for a ranch and 1,700 for a two-story, total, and that is excluding basement. Then the minimum lot size would be 11,000 square feet but then they had a provision in there that up to 10% could be smaller than that by 10%. So, we did look at those standards and this plat does meet those standards. Also, the minimum lot width is measured at the building line and shall be 70 feet with a provision that 20% of the lots could be up to 20% less than that. That provision is also met. One thing that you do not have in this PUD from back in 1994 and 1995 is anything as far as a minimum design standard or a minimum materials standard. That does not exist in this PUD approval. The gross density would be about 2.22 units per acre. That is within the original approval and actually on the low end of the density range that had been put there. One of the issues that came up at the TAC meeting was if you look at part of the east perimeter adjacent to the Woodlands Subdivision, there was concern about compatibility from the standpoint of lot sizes and how they match with the adjacent lots in the Woodlands. Keep in mind that those standards that I just read you for the Fairfield Woods the Woodlands is actually part of the same general area under the original PUD. So, it has the same exact same standards. The Woodlands was built at a very high standard with a lot of brick, etc. But, again, there is no minimum requirement in the subdivision so they wouldn=t necessarily have to build that here. But we noticed, as you go along that east perimeter adjacent to the Woodlands, that there were a lot more lots on the Fairfield Woods side that is being proposed than there are on the Woodlands. The petitioner actually did make an adjustment when we pointed that out, and removed a couple of lots that they had originally proposed. There was discussion about different ways of providing some kind of buffer back there in those rear yards of those lots. It was specifically Lots number 29 to 35 on your plat. At one time an angulating berm was being considered but ultimately the petitioner decided that they didn=t think it was a great idea because they say that they are difficult to maintain I believe. So, what they came back with at the DRC was a change to that where they said we would just like to have a preservation area where they agree to put in some trees there. There!14