PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION. April 7, 2003

Transcription

1 PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION April 7, 2003 The Plainfield Plan Commission met on Monday, April 7, 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. Matrana made a motion to approve the March 3, 2003 minutes of the Plainfield Plan Commission meeting as submitted. Second by Mr. McPhail. Motion carried. Mr. Thibo abstained from voting on the minutes since he was absent at that meeting. OATH OF TESTIMONY Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Testimony. PUBLIC HEARINGS Mr. Haase reviewed the Guidelines Governing the Conduct of Public Hearings. We begin tonight s public hearings with ILP , Vinyl Doctor. Mr. Higbee said the Staff Report explains that this is an Architectural Review request for two wall signs located on a building on Old National Road, which happens to also be visible and oriented toward Main Street on the north side and the west side. It is right near that intersection on Old National Road and Main Street. The Design Review Committee reviewed this sign and recommended denial of the request based on the type of wall sign that it was. The wall signs, as I explained in the Staff Report, were a panel type of a sign with vinyl letters laid flat on top of the panel. Then there was going to be a metal aluminum, I believe, structure that was going to be placed behind the panel. So, it would lie relatively flat on the building on those two sides. Again, both of those sides being visible from Main Street. Along with the two wall signs there was also a couple of, what I would refer to, as incidental signs that were included in your packet. I went ahead and administratively approved the incidental signs. One of them said please don t block the door. There was another incidental sign so those aren t really part of what is before you. They are just there in your packet as informational. In addition, I would inform you that there was a panel placed in a freestanding ground sign in front of the building on Old National Road. That is permitted because it was a panel swap and we permit that, as maintenance, under the ordinance. That does not require a sign permit. But that panel had a very similar color and style of graphics to the wall signs that are before you tonight. The signs are 56 square feet in size and there would be no illumination. In the Staff Comments, Questions and Concerns I gave you a run down of why I think the Design Review Committee recommended denial of the request. If any of the Design Review Committee members are here tonight and want to correct me and enlighten us on the reasons, I would be happy for them to chime in. Mr. Cavanaugh is here and Mr. McGillem is here. They both sit on the Design Review Committee. Essentially there has been a general principal on the Gateway Corridor that we prefer individual channel letter signs over panel signs or box signs or certain types of other signs. That is always true on new construction. If you think back to anything since 1998 when this Zoning Ordinance was passed on new construction, we require that on every single structure. There have been a couple of cases with pre-existing construction where they have been able to demonstrate a practical difficulty where we made exceptions. Or in a couple of cases where it is in the center where it! 1

2 is set back or not visible from the Gateway Corridor where we have made an exception. So, I tried to run down some of those exception situations in my comment under Staff Comments, Questions and Concerns. It was my opinion that what DRC was saying when they recommended denial was that this didn t fit any of those exceptions. Therefore, they were recommending denial. I would be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mr. Thibo asked, Mr. Higbee do they do any manufacturing in that building? Mr. Higbee said the petitioner s representative is here. I think they would do some things that I would maybe call more fabricating than manufacturing but they can probably describe to you what they do inside the building. Mr. Troy Hoffman at 417 S. Center Street said the people who lease the building do vinyl and leather repair on vehicles mainly across the street at the ADESA lot. They do some incidental work on the site inside the building on Saturday that they can do on site. At this point the owner of the building, Mr. Fasone, is at the point where he doesn t want to have any more holes put in the side of his building. He is wanting to limit it as much as he can. With the drawing that I have given you it will be through the existing holes that are on the building to hold the siding on the building to not add any holes to his building. The gentleman that is leasing the building has since put an offer in to buy the building from him but he will not sell the building. At this point the gentleman is on a three-year lease and to incur the cost of the letters he is just not sure exactly how long he is going to be there. With what he is looking at he is probably looking at somewhere in the neighborhood between $6, to $7, for aluminum signs for his building. So, at this point I think he is mainly thinking more of a cost factor. I have a few pictures of the other sign that Mr. Higbee had talked about and the panel that was out front of the existing sign. But just at this point he just doesn t want to incur any expense of aluminum letter. Mr. Haase asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak either for or in opposition on this matter? Being no one coming forward we will close the public portion of this hearing. I don t know if either DRC member has anything to add. Staff s comments I think pretty much tells us what DRC determined at their meeting. Is there any reason to elaborate on that? Mr. Cavanaugh said I think Mr. Higbee s comments are very accurate. We view this as more of a temporary sign I think than a permanent sign. It is similar to other temporary places that have been made and denied in the Town. I would like to see something more of a long lasting and professional nature I believe. Mr. Haase said at this time if there is no future discussion from any board members, the Chair would accept a motion to act on this public hearing. Mr. Cavanaugh made a motion that the Plan Commission deny the Development Plan/Architectural Review ILP And regarding development within 600 feet of a Residential District find that: 1. The proposed development represents a use of site design features, which will not enhance the use or value of area properties. 2. The proposed development is not consistent with and compatible with development located in the vicinity and with the use and development of Residential Districts located within six hundred (600) feet. 3. The proposed development is not consistent with the intent and purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance. And regarding development within 600 feet of a Gateway Corridor finding that: 1. The Development Plan will not comply with all applicable Development Standards of the district, which the site is located.! 2

3 2. The Development Plan will not comply with all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Control Ordinance for which a waiver has not been granted. 3. The Development Plan will not comply with all applicable provisions for Architectural Review for which a waiver has not been granted. 4. The proposed development is not appropriate to the site and its surrounding. 5. The proposed development is not consistent with the intent and purpose of 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 the next item on the agenda would be RZ , the Bishop property. Mr. Higbee said this is a rezoning request for acres from AG to I-2. It is a large parcel located east of Cambridge Square West and along I-70. As I noted in the Staff Report, there was a preliminary plan in the rezoning packet that showed a potential very large industrial building, over 900,000 square feet on the site. Mr. Haase said we talked a little bit prior that there may be a chance that this would get continued. Mr. Higbee said right. Mr. Haase said before you go into that let s ask the petitioner if that is his desire. Mr. Carmosino said that is our desire. We would like to continue this actually not to the May hearing but to the June hearing. Mr. Haase asked, of this year? Mr. Carmosino said yes. If you are willing to hear the technicalities now, we would be happy to go into it. Mr. Haase said in entertaining your request for a continuance to the June meeting I m going to ask if there is anyone in the audience who has come to this meeting tonight expecting to be heard on this Bishop property rezoning request. If there are, please step forward or raise your hand. If I could get you to step up, I m going to ask you a simple question. There is one individual. Is there any reason why you would not want that to happen? Gentleman from the audience said no. Mr. Haase said the remonstrators are always first in my mind when it comes to this many continuances. Since we have that out of the way we will ask our board members, before any motions are made, is there any board member who has a reason not to have this continued? This is about the third continuance on this, which is kind of uncustomary for the Plan Commission. However, since we only have one remonstrator and he has no objections, if the board has no objections, I also would be in favor of continuing this until the June meeting for whatever issues might be worked out for the betterment of everybody. Mr. Carmosino said one item that I would like clarification on is part of the technical issues surrounding the site deals with some traffic improvements at a major intersection. We have identified those and have a preliminary scope on those but we have not estimated them. You will see in the Staff Report one of the conditions is we share in that cost. So, I would ask the board, and if it is not the board and it is the Town Council, to assign the correct representatives to work with this either in a public environment or outside of public meetings to understand that sharing of the cost. Under your Rules of Procedures we cannot talk with Town Council members who would be the appropriate! 3

4 people to negotiate this with and come back in June with an understanding of what that commitment might be. Mr. Haase asked, where the share and percentage all is? Mr. Carmosino said yes. Mr. Haase said I would have to ask Attorney Daniel what the board can do about that at this meeting. Mr. Daniel said I m not sure appointing someone, as far as this Plan Commission is concerned, would be the normal way to do that. But I think it is fair to say that Councilman Kirchoff is in charge of roads and transportation on the Town Council. And Mr. McGillem, of course, is an consultant for the Town Council on roads. We have Town Council members on this board, if they have any other thoughts, as far as who might be the best person to start with to discuss that. Mr. Haase said but he would have the ability to talk to any and all of those to determine a number. Mr. Daniel said yes without violating rules and procedures. Mr. Carmosino said with that we will request a continuance. Mr. Daniel said Mr. Carlucci, the Town Manager coordinates that sort of thing so feel free to work with him. Mr. Haase said at this time the Chair would accept a motion to act upon the continuance request for RZ Mr. Thibo made a motion to grant a continuance until June 2003 for RZ Second by Mr. Matrana. Motion carried. Mr. Haase said the next item on the agenda tonight is PP , Saratoga Associates, LLC. Mr. Higbee said this was continued from the last Plan Commission so unless you want me to it is not my intention to represent the case to you. It was presented fully at that meeting. I will only mention that there were some modifications made to commitments that were presented as part of the package that you saw last month. You received an exhibit form that looks like this, Exhibit C. About halfway through the document you will see a list of commitments. Some of those commitments were just offered in response to comments that were made at the last hearing regarding an increased garage size, which was one item. And regarding adding some extra architectural features to certain lots and shutters on all of the windows and overhangs on all of the homes. I think that pretty much encompasses all of the changes but they are there in Exhibit C and if you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them. Mr. McNaught said I represent Saratoga Associates. We have several commitments as part of your forward and then to focus upon the design guidelines we added an Exhibit C that is before you. There are commitments in addition to this. But I think at the last meeting the Town s proposed design guidelines came up and there was some thought on the Plan Commission that we needed to go back and review those design guidelines more thoroughly and have some further discussions. That all took place so what is highlighted in yellow are the additional commitments. I think there are five additional elements to those guidelines and Mr. Higbee summarized some of them. But the import of those is to add architectural interest in detail to otherwise boxy looking houses in the $130, to $132, market as typically built by Ryland or Trinity or Davis. So, I offer those to you as part of our zoning commitments to respond more appropriately to the effort by the Town, which I applaud to provide more architectural interest. In the absence of some architectural interests there is also landscaping required as well throughout all of those lots that are named. So, that I would be glad to answer any questions. I did not provide a lead end. This area called Yorktown is north of the Stonebridge and the trail north of the old railroad right-of-way and east of Redbud Lake. Generally it is across the street from Saratoga Place and Homestead. Mr. Thibo asked, have you increased the size of the garages?! 4

5 Mr. McNaught said yes. minimum of 400 square feet. three-car garages. They went to a minimum of 20 x 20, a Some of these lots are large enough for Mr. Haase said I appreciate the fact of coming back with some additional items. I know Mr. McPhail had some issues and the board, as a whole, has been busy trying to address the issues of housing and guidelines. Mr. McPhail said I have a couple of comments. I would like to thank Mr. McNaught for sitting down with myself and a representative from Ryland to give me an opportunity to present the Town s position and our case. I was able to show them a very amateurish video of driving through the neighborhoods. I tried to explain to them the things that we are trying to correct with these new building standards. We went through those and they were willing to make a few concessions and changes that I think are positive. Based on that I m willing to support this project with a comment that we are going to be looking at some building standards this evening that are certainly more stringent than this. In all fairness to the developer and to the homebuilder they were working with standards that were established in 1993 and had been approved. I think this last section is going to be a step above what they have been doing in terms of some architectural features. It is, as far as I know, the last open ground that can be developed residential without rezoning. So, I don t think we have anybody out there in the same condition with the exception of the project like Glen Haven and on the Hobbs property. I think those are the only two that aren t built out that have much. I think this is a significant change. I think the overhang and the increase in the garage size and the shutters will have some effect on the phase that we are looking at. And do we have some landscaping there Mr. McNaught? Mr. McNaught said yes. is mandatory. It used to be an alternative but now it Mr. McPhail said I believe that they have taken another look and I guess when you get ready, I will be ready to make a motion. Mr. Haase asked, is there anyone from the audience who would care to speak on this matter? Being no one coming forward we will close the public portion of this hearing. Mr. Higbee said I would suggest one more item for discussion that I forgot to mention. Mr. McNaught said I should have mentioned it. As I was going over things this morning after being gone last week, I noticed that our engineer had requested that we have a divided or median entryway instead of a street entryway. That was added and I did not inspect that very carefully and discovered that this morning and communicated with Mr. Higbee some changes. Basically it narrows the island. We have a 26-foot island being proposed, which is rather unusual. So, we reduced that to 16 feet. The other changes involve the type and depth of materials that did not meet the standards of the Town s specifications. So, that change brings us in compliance. I don t know why he put the depth and type of materials on a primary plat but they were there and they were a little short in terms of the binder and lime stabilization under the stone base. Plus for the landscaping he had a six-inch standing curb, which our curbs are 18 inches and our lower curb is 24 inches. So, that was inadequate. I m not sure the primary plat needs to cover those but I wanted to get those corrections before you. Mr. Higbee said I would just add that really the part that is germane to the primary plat is the right-of-way width and the width of that island. After showing it to the Town Engineer today we felt like it popped up at the last minute. We didn t necessarily have any problems with it but we would like to have some review time and work that out between now and the time of secondary platting if that works. If you are considering approval of this plat tonight, you could do it subject to that but we didn t want to come back and surprise anybody later by not mentioning that item. Mr. Haase said we have two motions tonight. care of under the primary plat? Would that be taken Mr. Higbee said right.! 5

6 Mr. Haase asked, what is it that the Staff is looking for there? Mr. Higbee said the ability to evaluate the right-of-way and entry treatment on the primary plat for the main entry off of Saratoga Boulevard. And handle that administratively through the secondary plat process. Mr. Carlucci asked, does Exhibit C get recorded on the plat or is this a separate document? Mr. Higbee said that is part of the Secondary Detailed Plan and would get recorded. Mr. Carlucci asked, as a separate document or on the plat? Mr. Higbee said it would be a separate document. Mr. Carlucci asked, which would have to be signed? Mr. Higbee said yes. McNaught. We have the original on file from Mr. C? Mr. Haase said so this is nowhere in the motion tonight, Exhibit Mr. Higbee said if you look at page 5 of your Staff Report under the motion, it says such approval subject to the following conditions and references the petitioner s proposed development standards file dated March 19, That was updated to reflect these commitments that were submitted on March 19, Mr. Haase asked, it refers to that whole Exhibit C then? Mr. Higbee said yes. I called it the development standards actually. You may want to insert Exhibit C for clarification if you wish. I forgot the way that he structured this. He has Exhibit A, B and C. So, A is inclusive of the other exhibits so you may want to refer to it as Exhibit A. Mr. Haase said I would refer to Exhibits A, B and C instead of just A myself, if we could get that in the motion. Mr. McPhail said I think we need to make a correction in Exhibit A Statement of Commitments, number one. It says Development standards dated February 10, Doesn t that need to be changed to March 19, 2003? Mr. Higbee said they may be one in the same. I m not sure what Mr. McNaught s preparation date was. I know what I tend to do is use the date of receipt. That is what March 19 is. Mr. McNaught said I think Mr. McPhail is exactly right Mr. Daniel said Exhibit C says on the face of it March 19, Mr. Haase said we will now close the public portion of this hearing and the Chair would except any further discussion from board members or a motion to act upon this measure. There will need to be two motions. We will take them in order as they have been as they have been written. Referring to the exhibits I would like to see Exhibits A, B and C referred to individually. Mr. McPhail made a motion that the Plan Commission approve the request for Final Detailed Plan Secondary Approval, DP finding that: 1. The Final Detailed Plan satisfies the Development Standards specified in the PUD District establishing the Saratoga PUD. 2. The Final Detailed Plan accomplishes the intent set forth in Article 6 of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance. 3. The Final Detailed Plan provides for the protection or provisions of the site features and amenities outlined in Article 6.,C.,4.,a. of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance. And that such approval be subject to the following conditions:! 6

7 1. Compliance with the petitioner s proposed development standards file dated March 19, 2003 and front elevations marketing sketches, landscaping, sign and lighting details on file. 2. March 19, 2003 date include A, B and C. 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. Cavanaugh made a motion that the Plan Commission approve the primary plat PP as filed by Saratoga Associates requesting primary plat approval of 22.3 acres being subdivided into 58 singlefamily lots to be known as Yorktown subject to the final right-of-way review by the Town Staff upon finding that: 1. Adequate provisions have been made for regulation of minimum lot width, minimum lot depth and minimum lot area. 2. Adequate provisions have been made for the widths, grades, curves and coordination of subdivision public ways with current and planned public ways. 3. 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: 1. Compliance with the Town Standards, including but not limited to: Plainfield Ordinance No regarding Floodplain Management; Plainfield Ordinance Nos and 3-86 regarding Sewage Works; Plainfield Ordinance No regarding Drainage; Plainfield Ordinance No regarding Municipal Waterworks and Plainfield Ordinance No regarding Access Permits. 2. Compliance with the standards and specifications of the Plainfield Subdivision Control Ordinance. 3. An additional pathway connection shall be provided to Saratoga Boulevard. 4. All tree preservation plans shall be subject to approval by the Director of Planning. Tree clearing within the 25 tree preservation easement shall not occur, except as required for utility and drainage installation. A yellow tape marker shall be provided along the tree preservation area prior to the disturbance of any vegetation. Two typical 20 x 20 detailed tree vegetation surveys shall be provided from within the tree preservation area, specifying number, size and type of trees, for use in future restoration in the event there is any future destruction or damage within this area. 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 the next item on the public hearing agenda, Plainfield Marketplace, will those be taken separately or all at the same time? Mr. Higbee said I actually broke them up separately because there are some differences between the two petitions. If you would like, I will go ahead and start on the first one, which is the rezoning request. I have some boards outside if there is any need to bring them! 7

8 in and show them to you. One of the things that I was concerned about is you understood the actual location of these rezoning requests because there are three different parcels involved. If you don t mind, I will take a moment to pull at least one of those boards out. Part of this PUD would require that either a variance or a modification of commitments from that previous Gladden Farms approval would be given later. You may want to consider making the rezoning tonight for that two-acre piece subject to getting that approval. That is something Gladden Farms I believe wants. In fact, I want to hand you a letter that they sent to me late today to make sure you understand what their position is on that property. If you add all three of these parcels together, you have 19.1 acres comprising of this parcel and this parcel and then the 42 and some change for the other parcel. So, you are over 60 acres expanding the original 190 acres in the PUD that you approved before. The original PUD did not comply 100% with the Comprehensive Plan but the Comprehensive Plan did call for commercial and industrial in the area. But that is not what is before you tonight. This is consistent with the original PUD approval, however, and what I think our expectations were at that time that the PUD did go through. I also included in your packet Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 1 is an exact copy of the zoning commitments from your original PUD approval. I felt that since this is part of the PUD the same commitments that you used for this main portion should apply to the entire PUD. The only change that I would suggest to the proposed motion on the last page of your Staff Report is that maybe number two could be reworded to say all applicable requirements of Exhibit 1. Because there are a few items in there that really don t pertain to these parcels per se but pertain to the rest of the PUD. So, if you were to say subject to the commitments in Exhibit 1 that are applicable to these parcels, I think you would cover everything that was already covered in the original PUD commitments. I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have now. Mr. McPhail said this letter from Paragus says that if they sell that two acres, they will not comply with the density requirements. Mr. Higbee said right and again this came up so late that I haven t been able to determine what the density requirements were at the time of that approval, which must have been in the late 90 s maybe. It was before I came to work here but it would require some research to find out what it was. I have just been told that they were required to set that two acres aside and not develop on it so that the density wouldn t be over some number that was acceptable to the Town at the time. Mr. McPhail said but it has never been developed. Mr. Higbee said it has never been developed and I believe with the roadway and part of the PUD, obviously, you are not going to get any more apartments. So, from that prospective it would meet the intent if the intent was that no more apartments would be developed. But the remainder would be at a higher density since you are dealing with a smaller piece of land obviously. Mr. Haase asked, we don t know what that density is? Mr. Carlucci said eight units an acre. Mr. Belcher said that is all that we allowed. Mr. Haase asked, what would the density be without the two acres? Mr. Higbee said we can find that out but we haven t done that research at this point. Mr. Thibo said I thought there were two gravesites on that two acres. Mr. Higbee said I did not see them as I was walking nearby. Mr. Carlucci said to keep them under the eight units per acre was by buying two additional acres, which they can t develop into anything. It certainly won t be developed into apartments so if you took those two acres away, there is no room for them to develop anything. You! 8

9 increase the density but it will still be under what today s limit would be. Mr. Higbee said if you go there today, one of my concerns was that if you look at this roadway, which runs approximately up the east boundary of where Gladden Farms is today, what is it going to do as far as the existing building setbacks, etc.? We don t have precise plans to make measurements. But when I walked up the east line, based on the representation that this two acres lies entirely within the portion that is now a farm field and extends about 145 feet into that farm field, I think that is the only issue. I don t think there is going to be a setback issue with the buildings. I think there is a yard there that is planted in grass that is already the effective perimeter of Gladden Farms that already exists and that is not going to be changed by the proposed plan. But the other side of the coin is is this two acres absolutely needed to accommodate that road and the additional parking in the PUD? That is the question for you to consider tonight. Mr. Daniel asked, are we sure that without that two acres they could currently meet the density requirements? What you sometimes get into here is if the apartment burned down or something, can they rebuild under current zoning without having a problem with density? Mr. Higbee said again the research hasn t been done but if it only permitted eight units per acre at the time, under today s ordinance you can go up to 12 units per acre with Development Incentives. So, there would be the potential for them to be able to build but we would have to determine what density that they have to see what they could do. Mr. Daniel asked, but this wouldn t put them in violation of zoning by taking those two acres off there? Mr. Higbee said if the prior commitments required a certain density, and I m taking the word of the petitioner and the property owner that it did, then it will throw them out of compliance. That is why I suggested that you may want to make this subject to requiring that they either get a variance or modification of commitments whichever one applies to bring them into compliance. Allow them to have the higher density there keeping in mind if you chose to do that, basically what you are saying is Gladden Farms can stay the way that it is as far as how many units it has. Mr. Carlucci said if the Plan Commission agreed to do that, you are doing that anyway. You are relieving them of that commitment. You are relieving Gladden Farms of that commitment. Would you really need a separate variance to do that? This is a public hearing. The property owners have been notified. Mr. Higbee said I think, in my opinion, if you have a past zoning approval that has a certain condition for compliance, you have to go back and correct that if this project throws that out of compliance. Mr. Daniel said I m not sure the current property owners have been notified of that issue. In a realistic manner I can t imagine anybody caring but from the standpoint of notice requirements, etc. I doubt if the surrounding property owners have been notified. If the density requirements are going to be changed as a result of what the Plan Commission may do tonight. Mr. Carlucci said so that would be subject to rezoning. If you look at their letter, their letter says that they have some conditions there. There would actually have to be another one successfully getting a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals or relief from that commitment from the Plan Commission. Mr. Higbee said right. Mr. Haase said their density is not based on how their property is zoned. It is based on their ownership of that property would that be correct? Mr. Daniel said I believe it is based on commitments made. Mr. Higbee said it was R-6 at the time. This did pop up late so I haven t been able to verify this but it was R-6 at the time it sounds like based on a comment made by others but that eight units per acre was the maximum at the time. That would have been part of the R-6! 9

10 zoning requirements. Today you have R-6 with Development Incentives that will let you do a little bit more with certain conditions. That didn t exist presumably back then. They capture that in item number three in their letter. They actually refer to a variance or other appropriate action. So, they were apprised of this when they called me and said what can we do? I suggested that if the Town is acceptable to it, and I couldn t say one way or the other, but if the Town felt that it was okay to have this part of the PUD, then they could correct their problem by going back. And sort of eliminated that commitment or get a variance that would allow that. Mr. McPhail asked, would you get a variance or could you go back and base that on the current ordinance? Mr. Higbee said we would have to look at what the best alternative would be. Mr. McPhail said if we determine that is the right thing to do and we are not physically changing anything out there. All we are saying is we have to protect him in the future if something happens without violating the ordinance. Mr. Higbee said the problem with rezoning could be that if any other part of the R-6 standards have changed since then, then rezoning would technically force you to jump into the new standards. So, if it turned out that we could do it by variance, that might be simpler. If it requires a modification of a commitment, then it targets that one issue and you don t open up the can of worms or everything else. Mr. Daniel said it could be passed providing whatever process is required to put them into current compliance with our zoning. Mr. Higbee said because honestly I m not sure what you were doing four or five or six years ago but I can find out later and we can take care of it. goes. Mr. Daniel said leave it open as far as the simplest procedure Mr. Haase asked, does the petitioner have anything to add to what Mr. Higbee has said? Mr. Bryan Cronk with Premier Properties said I think we added this piece late in the game. At the TAC and DRC meetings we noticed some other pieces of the puzzle that weren t part of the initial plat. We tried to put those into this zoning approval as well as we counted this two-acre piece. We said we had better get this piece in there as well. Our intent was to acquire that property at some point, probably a dedicated right-of-way, if that ends up being a public street. I don t know if it is critical that we have to seek the proper variances or whatever we need to do at this time and delay this. We could carve that two-acre out of this approval tonight while we get the approvals that we need and add it to the plat at a later date. Mr. Haase said I think we can go ahead and do this and get all of this rezoned. It is a small acreage there. We can take care of Gladden Farm Apartments and make sure that they are in compliance at a future time. I think it makes sense to go ahead and do that at this time and utilize it and make use of it instead of it sitting there growing weeds. Mr. McPhail said we are going to have to have that two acres to get that road up through there. That road is more important than the two acres. Mr. Cronk said I don t know if this is possible or not but one of the other contingencies I think Mr. Higbee might have mentioned that we talked about with the owner is that we can make this contingent on our acquisition. I don t want to look at a worse case scenario if our project dies, which I m not saying that at all, but if it does, it is just a piece of property that he retains and keeps his density ratios and we never need. So, with respect to that two-acre piece from the standpoint of making the zoning contingent upon acquisition our closing on it was my next question if that was possible or not? Mr. Haase said I think I would rather clean this thing up now and make you buy that property. I think we ought to go ahead and get that two acres back into some usable space. And go ahead and get the! 10

11 apartment complex into current compliance and just go ahead and do it rather than waiting for this or that to happen. I think this and that ought to happen. Mr. Cronk said we intend to close. Mr. Haase said I understand. You bring up a good point. But I think if we rezone it here tonight or send it to the Town Council to rezone it, then I think the wheels are in motion for acquisition to occur. Mr. Daniel said in item two in the Paragus letter it talks about the rezoning of the two acres. That it ought to be subject and conditioned upon the sale of the land actually occurring. So, they have even asked in their letter that any action by the Plan Commission be subject to that. Mr. Cronk said it came from the sale. It didn t come from us and I agree with it. I can t really can t agree not to do it since we haven t bought it yet. Mr. Haase said I guess what I was kind of saying is it needs to go forth and acquisition needs to be made in a timely manner. I don t know what your plans are. Mr. Cronk said I think we have to have our contract done in 20 days. I gave Mr. Higbee a copy of it today. I think we are at 60 days maybe, days before we close. I didn t do the deal. We have a 90-day contingency period and 30 days to close so really 120 days. The reason that we did it that long was we are in no hurry to do it. It just isn t a priority right now. The piece of property is a priority but the timing is not. The road that is going to go in is part of our Phase II. Obviously, our focus right now is on the development and this piece of property doesn t really have an impact on Phase I. Mr. McPhail said I don t want to confuse the issue but we are talking about two acres to accommodate a proposed road that ties into U.S. 40. It seems to me that in some of our past actions we already have a road plan a little bit west of there between Gladden Farms and Crown Plaza Apartments that goes up to U.S. 40 and ties into the intersection that goes north by the old Galyan s. Do we want both of those roads coming out and intersecting with U.S. 40 in that short distance? Mr. Cronk said obviously nothing is set in stone until Mr. McGillem approves it. Mr. McGillem said that is what we are looking at now and also with INDOT. We will probably have to make a decision which one is the most desirable from the standpoint of the Town. I don t think we are going to get both of those intersections signalized, keeping the existing Shady Lane intersection and also have the new one. These are some of the things that we have been discussing with Premier. Mr. McPhail asked, is there alignment with anything else going on board? Mr. McGillem said you have a pretty good piece of property where Galyan s currently is and what is going to happen with that piece of property in the future. Plus you have both the old Wal-Mart and the Galyan s office headquarters that is also the same ownership as the mobile home park to the west. Which we have always looked at that once Galyan s develops, including the mobile home park, that we would want those developments to access off of that Shady Lane and the signal. So, those are very valid reasons for keeping that connection from Gladden Road and that intersection at Shady Lane. I would not want to disregard it certainly. Mr. McPhail said once we were looking at Shady Lane going north and tying into the Township also to give us another avenue north. Mr. Haase said the roadway that goes up there and ties in isn t that the old Burger King just east of that intersection? Mr. Cronk said yes it is. Mr. Haase said so that intersection actually already exists there.! 11

12 Mr. Cronk said there is a cut. King lot. It doesn t go into the Burger Mr. McGillem said as I recall, it goes between Burger King and Colonel Sanders. You are off of Premier s property. You are over to the west of Burger King. Mr. Haase said I see that now on the map. Mr. McGillem said that would be a totally new intersection at that location if that goes in at that point. over. Mr. Carlucci said right now the Burger King doesn t have a cross Mr. McGillem said no it does not. It is a right in/right out. Mr. Haase said this is east of Burger King and that intersection that is already there is west of Burger King. Mr. McGillem said that is right. Mr. Carlucci said looking at these two acres it might be the simplest thing is like anything else that we have done with some annexations where we have done rezoning. Rezoning is subject to the annexation being final and we have done that before. We haven t had a case where we have had to back out of the annexation and back out the zoning. In this case maybe the Paragus letter makes more sense if they don t make the sale, that part of it is not rezoned. You would cut that two acres back out of that. If it is bought, it is part of it. But we are looking at the road system, which is a whole different approval. It hasn t happened yet so we are looking at the rezoning issue here. So, if you leave it as Paragus wants it, if it is not rezoned, if it is not going to be sold, then it is not rezoned. You can make that as a condition that it will be pulled back out because right now they are talking a maximum of 120 days. I know you won t take all 120 days. You have 90 days for due diligence or contingencies and 30 days to close. Mr. Daniel said it can be conditioned upon revising or doing whatever needs to be done. Mr. Carlucci said and there can still be another commitment on making Gladden Farms being held harmless on the whole thing. Mr. Daniel said correct. Mr. Cavanaugh said I think Mr. Carlucci you have a good point in linking the rezone with the sale because if the sale doesn t happen, then there is no rezone. If the Gladden Farms property doesn t have a variance or get a rezone or have their commitments changed or anything, it stays just like it is. So, I think that is a good linkage to make and then linking the rezone with the sale and then revising the commitments or the rezone of the two-acre parcel or however it needs to be handled. I think those two things are the key to put those in there together. Mr. Haase asked, are you ready to make a motion? Mr. Higbee said can I add this one thing? This has nothing to do with the item just discussed, which sounds like you have resolved. I just wanted to mention that the general comment about the traffic study portion of this, as was mentioned earlier, we just got the traffic study for the overall development tonight. But Mr. McGillem, our Traffic Consultant, had suggested that these two parcels here, which comprise almost all of what is before you for rezoning tonight marked in orange and then that one two-acre piece that you just talked about, can be served by the existing road infrastructure there. So, it was felt okay at the time that we didn t have the traffic study for this rezoning. Now that we have it as the Phase II approvals come in we can evaluate that as part of that and that will include additional roadways that are shown on here for the future phases of the development. Mr. Cavanaugh said in your suggested motion on item two you refer to Exhibit 1. Are you suggesting all of the items in Exhibit 1?! 12

13 Mr. Higbee said that was a carry over. If you wish, you could simply say to all applicable requirements of Exhibit 1 without having to go down there and read which ones are which and try to figure that out. That is the exact same exhibit that is part of the original PUD so I think it is pretty solid and already in place. But we just wanted to carry it forward to this as applicable. Mr. Haase asked, is there anyone in the audience who has any questions about this rezoning request? Being no one coming forward we will close the public portion of this hearing and the Chair would accept a motion to act on this request for rezoning. We will let all parties participating in this know that we do not do any actual rezoning here. It is all done at the Town Council level. This is a recommendation to the Town Council. Mr. Cavanaugh made a motion to certify the zone map amendment request of PUD rezoning approximately 61.5 acres from GC and I-2 to PUD to the Town Council with a favorable recommendation subject to the following commitments to be recorded on the Exhibit A State of Commitments form: 1. Owner/petitioner acknowledges that the plans submitted in connection with PUD constitute a concept plan and do not meet the standards of a preliminary plan as specified in Article 6 of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the owner/petitioner agrees to provide all of the elements of a preliminary plan in the review process described in Exhibit The petitioner shall meet all applicable requirements specified in Exhibit All requirements of Exhibit 1 shall be determined to be satisfactory by the Plan Commission and Town Council prior to the Secondary Detailed Plan Approval for each phase. 4. Furthermore this recommendation is subject to the actual of the two-acre Gladden Farm parcel from the current owner to the petitioner or other entity that they may designate. 5. Any required rezoning, variance or change in approval of approved commitments for the two-acre Gladden Farm parcel. 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 next item would be DP , Premier Properties. Mr. Higbee said that same exhibit that I have up there can serve to illustrate some of this. This is a Secondary Detailed Plan request for the J.C. Penney or Phase 1 of the PUD. You will recall that this was brought before you at a previous Plan Commission meeting because we designed a special review process for this project that included a couple of extra front end steps beyond what is typical because of the size and complexity of this development. So, you have seen it on a preliminary basis before. This is the actual final approval for the details of that phase. They are going to come in for a primary plat for the overall PUD at the next Plan Commission I believe that it is. It would encompass this phase as well as future phases. I attached lots of exhibits to this one that tried to summarize what the process was of the special committee and the Design Review Committee. It was very involved and detailed. I don t necessarily want to try to recount all of that to you. That is why I included the extra exhibits in the report. I felt that because you had seen this at a pre-filing review you are pretty familiar with the project. My plan tonight was mainly to answer questions and not represent something to you that you have already seen. But please do ask any questions that you might have and we can try to answer them. The Phase 1 is this area north that happens to be included within part of the rezoning that you just went through. That is where the J.C. Penney and the parking area is adjacent to the J.C. Penney as well! 13

14 as some of the drives leading out to the entryways into Phase 1. That would be the Phase 1 portion of the project. This is where we look at things like what does the building look like and the building materials, landscaping, lighting and amenities of the project? As I mentioned earlier, the zoning line would have been split had we not just expanded the PUD to capture all of Phase 1. But you will see a piece of it where part of the building does drop down into the PUD that you had already approved. There were a lot of zoning commitments. Those are the commitments that you refer to as Exhibit 1 in the last case that we went through. So, when the special committee went through it and then DRC went through it, we were trying to determine that they have complied with those commitments from the rezoning as well as the typical aesthetic review that we go through when we look at a Secondary Detailed Plan. I noted in my Staff Report that a number of the commitments from the PUD rezoning weren t met. The perimeter landscaped areas, the lighting plans and some things that we often do to look for as part of the Secondary Detailed Plan were not complete. However, the building itself, the building materials and the foundation and landscaping immediately around the building were complete. The petitioner can explain it better when they come up but we believe it is because of the timeline that they put the J.C. Penney project on to have a building pad by May 1 and be opened by November 12. That made it difficult for them to get everything done and have all of their i s dotted and tees crossed. But they came in with the building and they came in with the areas immediately adjacent to the building. As you got farther out, there were a lot of questions about discrepancies among the plans and maybe incomplete plans. They did not meet all of the commitments that were part of the original PUD zoning. However, it was felt by the special committee and by DRC, and you will see that in the motion that DRC made, that it was acceptable because, as Phase II goes forward, those perimeter areas have to be looked at again anyway. What do the entryways look like and the landscaping coming in off Perry Road and coming in off of Main Street? What is the perimeter landscaping around the parking lots at J.C. Penney will look like will be adjacent to other areas of the PUD, etc. We would have an opportunity, if they were to bring those plans in with their next phase, to complete that. In essence what they are requesting tonight is that you just do the building piece and areas right by the building and then let them defer the rest and complete that with Phase 2 when they come in. If you go to one of the exhibits that I gave you, Exhibit A-1, on the bottom of the first page you actually see the DRC motion. I m going to jump right to there instead of going all the way back to the first committee and the things that happened prior to that. DRC made a recommendation for approval. Mr. Haase said it says that they are going to use precast concrete panels with sto dryvit-like finish. Are those panels going to have dryvit over them or is it prefinished? Mr. Higbee said I think they are going to have to explain exactly how the materials are applied. It is my understanding that they look like dryvit so you will see a consistent look on the facade but it is not the same thing. They need to explain exactly how that works. Perhaps I should have started there. That is a good point. I didn t describe too much about the details of the building. I was going to jump into the DRC motion and then talk about that. Mr. Haase said go ahead. Mr. Higbee said I wanted you to know before I go into that the DRC reviewed it and recommended approval of the building elevations, building materials and foundation area landscaping. That was what I was saying the areas right there and the building itself and immediately adjacent to the building. Subject to conditions, which I enumerated there it basically said we are very comfortable with the material of the rest of the information to Phase 2. So, that is what is captured in that motion by the DRC. If you go to Exhibit A-2, it kind of gives you a list of all of the items that weren t met from those original zoning commitments. I put a double asterisk by the ones that were not met, which there are quite a few of them. And then you will see a double plus sign by the ones that were met. So, you will see that several commitments were met as well.! 14