TOWN OF PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION. May 1, 2006

Transcription

1 TOWN OF PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION May 1, 2006 The Plainfield Plan Commission met on Monday, May 1, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. In attendance were Mr. Thibo, Mr. Matrana, Mr. McPhail, Mr. Brandgard, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Kirchoff and Ms. Whicker. ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM Mr. Carlucci administered the Roll Call. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to approve the March 6, 2006 Plainfield Plan Commission minutes as submitted. Second by Mr. McPhail. Motion carried. Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to approve the April 6, 2006 Plainfield Plan Commission minutes as submitted. Second by Mr. Brandgard. Motion carried. Mr. Matrana, Mr. Gibbs and Ms. Whicker abstained from voting on the minutes of April 6, 2006 because they were not present during that meeting. OATH OF TESTIMONY Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Testimony. PUBLIC HEARINGS Ms. Whicker reviewed the Guidelines Governing the Conduct of Public Hearings. We have a few petitions tonight that have requested a continuance. The first petition is RZ Mr. James said they have asked that we continue this petition so that it will coincide with the primary plat request that will be heard in June. COOR Consulting, DP had to make revisions to their development plan and they will go back to the Design Review Committee in a couple of weeks in May and then they will come back to the Plan Commission in June. Mr. McPhail asked, so both of these have asked to be delayed until June? June. Mr. James said yes. They have requested to be continued until Mr. McPhail made a motion to continue RZ , North South Corridor Properties Bert, LLC and DP , COOR Consulting & Land Services until the June meeting. Second by Mr. Kirchoff. Motion carried. Mr. James said the first request tonight is DP , G.B. Indiana 2, LLC. This was continued from the April meeting. The request is for a development plan approval for the architectural site design for a proposed CVS Drug Store at the northwest corner of Saratoga Parkway and U.S. 40. The proposed building is 12,900 square feet. The reason why it was continued from the April meeting is there was concern that this site would be consistent with the site that is to the east of this property, which is the Saratoga Shops. The Saratoga Shops, when it was approved, has about a foot front yard along Saratoga Parkway and then wraps around and has a foot yard along U.S. 40 between the right-of-way, or actually it is between the back of curb and the parking lot. When CVS was presented last month, the site plan only had about maybe 12 feet from the right-of-way to the parking lot. So, this was presented to the Plan Commission and then the Plan Commission thought to make these two sites more compatible and more consistent that revisions are made to the site plan and then this request is brought back to the Plan Commission. In order to get a larger yard along Saratoga Parkway they were able to eliminate parking in front of the east elevation. On the site plan this was a reduction! 1

2 of about six parking spaces, from 70 to 64. But they are still able to meet their parking requirement of 46 spaces. The thought last month was there was also too much parking for this site. So, they have sort of taken care of two issues with one revision and that is by eliminating the parking. Another concern was the perimeter landscaping would be consistent with each other on both sides of Saratoga. The Saratoga Shops, since they have a larger front yard, were able to do more perimeter landscaping and do a row of trees with their perimeter landscaping. And because of the small width of the CVS site they were unable to get some trees in there and all they were able to get in there were some hedgerows for the parking lots. So, with the larger yard, now that they have eliminated the parking, they were able to save some existing trees and make it more consistent with the Saratoga Shops to the east. So, that takes care of some issues with the site plan. Some other issues were the sign package. I believe they had proposed two ground signs but according to the ordinance only one ground sign is permitted per lot of an integrated center. This site is considered an integrated center. It will be the first outlot developed in this integrated center. When this development was first proposed, it was always thought that this area would be part of an integrated center. Other issues were access along the drive off Saratoga Parkway. The Town saw the need for a dedicated right turn lane for Saratoga Parkway. With the old site plan the turn lane was not able to be put in there but with the new site plan the turn lane was able to be put in there. There is an existing median. They did have to shave off just a little bit of the median, the north part of the median, to get this dedicated right turn lane in there on Saratoga Parkway. Another concern was the access off of U.S. 40. This access will be permitted by the Indiana Department of Transportation, the Crawfordsville district. There was concern about the proposed decel taper, if the decel taper had an adequate length to allow vehicles to slow into the right turn lane and make a safe turn into the entrance off of U.S. 40. Staff has asked the petitioner to consider maybe extending that right turn lane on Saratoga Parkway and taking it on around the curve radius and just extend it to the entrance onto U.S. 40. Another issue was the sign plan. Like I had said earlier they had proposed two ground signs but only one ground sign is permitted for an outlot. So, they would still like to have two ground signs so they have allowed for a variance, which will be heard this month to allow two ground signs. And also there was a concern about the changeable copy sign. But according to the ordinance an outlot can have a changeable copy sign. It just depends on who gets there first, if it is with the integrated center or if it is the ground sign. It is just that you can t have a changeable copy sign on both the ground sign and then as a wall sign. So, they have filed for a variance to allow for two ground incidental signs that were proposed near the U.S. 40 ground sign. We thought there could be a conflict there and the incidental ground sign could reduce the effectiveness of that ground sign on U.S. 40. In the Staff Report I reported that the proposed ground sign was too large because the aluminum embellishment was included as part of the sign surface area. But that is not the case. It is the sign surface area between the aluminum embellishment and the stone base on the sign. That portion Staff believes is too large and that it would not include the aluminum embellishment. Last month I believe the building material was considered adequate. When the stone and brick were combined, it did meet the Gateway Corridor standard. So, that leaves a couple of questions and concerns and one is has enough been done to the site plan and the landscape plan to make this consistent with the Saratoga Shops to the east? And the other issue is the sidewalk not in the right-of-way? When Saratoga Shops were approved, part of the sidewalk was not in the right-of-way and that site plan was approved without the need for either a waiver from the Subdivision Control code or a variance from the development standards. So, with that I will wrap it up and let the petitioner explain any other details or questions that you might have regarding this request. Ms. Annemarie Varga said I m with Bingham & McHale. Our offices are at 2700 Market Tower in Indianapolis. With me this evening is! 2

3 Craig Forgey with Ace who is the engineer on the project and he does have a site plan. So, we can work off this and Rob Antrim with the petitioner is here as well. Hopefully, we will be able to answer all of your questions. Since we were here last we made a few revisions to the site plan, which Mr. James has gone over. I will briefly review them as well since we have something in front of us now. We heard loud and clear the concerns at the last meeting that this project needs to fit in with the greater character of the intersection of Saratoga. What was done at your request is the parking spaces that were along the building on the east side were taken out. Four new spaces were added for employee parking in the back, which is why we only lost eight spaces instead of 12 but that was the change that was made there. That allowed this whole thing to shift over. So, we now have approximately 25 feet now from the road to the parking lot. As Mr. James mentioned, the sidewalk does run through that 25 feet that was really kind of set for us when Saratoga was first laid out when they put that fence row down there. So, that kind of dictates that the sidewalk needs to go behind the fence. But we still do have 15 feet of green space now between that sidewalk and the parking lot. So, that allows for a lot more plantings. The landscape architect did take a look at the Saratoga Shops and their landscape plan in revisiting this landscape plan they are very similar. They are not exact because there are some plantings that are already on this site that we do plan to maintain here so they are not an exact. But to a casual passerby they are going to look essentially the same and in the same manner the setbacks aren t exactly the same as they are at Saratoga Shops but as you are driving by, they are really going to have that same character and look the same to somebody who is driving by. So, those were the changes made to the site plan itself. Regarding the signage, first of all the big change is the wall sign. If you recall at the last meeting, what we call ancillary signs that said the photo center, etc. those have been removed from the elevation so now it is just the CVS Pharmacy and the reference to the drive-thru that will remain on the wall elevations. We are still showing the two ground signs that you saw in the last package as well. One of them is located at the entrance on U.S. 40 and one at the entrance on Saratoga Parkway. We have submitted for a variance for those. We understand because we are considered being part of an integrated center that the outlot is only permitted one ground sign. We feel it is very important to maintain the two particularly for the traffic on Saratoga Parkway heading south. Because of where that fence is if we were to just utilize the ground sign on U.S. 40 and pull it closer to the intersection, it is not going to be real visible to anybody heading southbound on Saratoga. We want them to be able to see where that entrance is and be able to turn in rather than driving straight past and having to go out on U.S. 40 and come back around. In terms of the size of the sign area for the sign that the Staff Report mentioned is too large we are fine with revising that and making sure that sign meets the ordinance. I think there is kind of a disconnect as we are trying to talk on the phone about how to measure a sign area. We probably just need to sit down with a picture in front of us. They are measuring it differently than we are measuring it so we have no problem with following Staff s recommendation and revisiting that sign. So, that it meets the square footage cap and the smaller sign on Saratoga has no problem. It is considerably smaller. The Staff s concern about the placement of the incidental signs, our sign contractor is fixing that right now. There were some concerns with the signs that were located up here, the entrance and exit signs being too close to the property line, those will be moved so that they will all meet the ordinance. I found out from our engineer that the roadway changes that Mr. James was talking about, the turn lanes, those, of course, are pending INDOT approval but we are in agreement with Staff s recommendations. I think that covers the items that were outstanding from the last meeting and with that we would be happy to answer any questions that you have for us. Mr. Kirchoff said my recollection was at the last meeting Mr. Brandgard and I asked questions about elevations. In the original! 3

4 reports you had this and then you had what we have this time. recollection was this is what you were proposing. Our Ms. Varga said that still is. You are correct. The sign plan is showing on the wrong elevation. The sign contractor, for whatever reason, didn t get the correct elevations from the architect. So, the signs are showing on the wrong elevations. Mr. Kirchoff said so it is the brick. Ms. Varga said it is the brick yes and we have a copy somewhere. Ms. Whicker asked, are these the ground signs or the exit/ entrance signs? Ms. Varga said that should be the entrance signs. Ms. Whicker asked, so where are these signs located? Ms. Varga said Mr. James has a more detailed sign plan than you have. There is a much thicker document that he has and there is a little entrance/exit sign here and this is the one that provided the conflict because that is where the monument sign is but that is supposed to be an exit sign. Ms. Whicker asked, to be moved to the west? Ms. Varga said yes. Ms. Whicker asked, where are the monument signs located? Ms. Varga said this is the changeable copy version and then the other little one is up here. Ms. Whicker asked, is the changeable copy version the one to go on U.S. 40? Ms. Varga said yes. Ms. Whicker asked, with the smaller one to go here? Ms. Varga said yes. Ms. Whicker asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this petition? Mr. James asked, are you satisfied with the changes that have been made to the site plan and also are you satisfied with the details of the sign package? Also, they have filed for a variance that will be heard to allow for the two ground signs. Mr. McPhail said I guess I would make a comment on the sign package. I find it very disappointing to think that a nationally recognized company as well as CVS thinks that they have to ask for a variance to our Sign Ordinance. That really disappoints me. We have a Sign Ordinance and if anybody can t find CVS without the second ground sign, I think it is disappointing that they come in and ask for that and that they are going for a variance. I just felt like I had to make that comment. Mr. Brandgard said you verbalized my thoughts. putting one up on U.S. 40. I understand Mr. Kirchoff asked, do you suggest we modify condition three? Mr. James asked, would you feel more comfortable if there was one sign, say in the corner, that was out of the site vision triangle? Mr. Carlucci asked, at the southeast corner? Mr. James said yes. Mr. McPhail said it wouldn t bother me I think. Ms. Varga said it is my understanding from our engineer because of where the fence is located we could not put a sign in that location and keep it out of the vision triangle, which is why the one has been moved all the way to the U.S. 40 entrance.! 4

5 Ms. Whicker said that is one thing that the drawing doesn t depict is the fence line of where the fence is or how that blocks the view. Mr. Kirchoff asked, would it work to strike that first phrase? Do we have the right to say that they need to comply? Have they already filed for the variance? Mr. Daniel said these are conditions based on approval of what they have asked for and the answer is a condition of their approval by this board is that the sign plan comply with the ordinance. My view is yes you can. Mr. Kirchoff said they could still go forward with asking for their variance. Mr. Daniel said I m not sure they can. Mr. Kirchoff said that was my question. Mr. Daniel said well let me change it. Yes they can but what they get approved here tonight has to comply with these conditions. Mr. Brandgard said in other words if we approve this without talking about a variance, we are approving it as it is here. Mr. Daniel said what Mr. Kirchoff asked was on number three if you strike out a variance being granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals and start out number three with the sign plan shall be amended to comply with the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance requirements, I believe this board can do that. They can get a variance but if they put that sign up, it violates the condition of this approval. Mr. Carlucci said the thing that is a little different here is the Plan Commission and the DRC are the final arbitrators on development plan approvals. So, if you don t give a development plan approval for that sign, I don t think a variance will do much good because that is still reserved the rights of the Plan Commission to do that. You can bring that whole project in and it could meet almost every requirement of the ordinance but if the Plan Commission looks at it and says it just doesn t look right, it may be the wrong color, etc., we don t have to approve it and I think they can do that. It s unlikely that would happen but that is a possibility. Ms. Whicker said you had mentioned that the communication between what Plainfield had measured on the sign and what was being proposed on paper were two different things and there isn t an agreement on the sign as of right now, is that what you are saying? Ms. Varga said I think on the changeable copy sign we are confused on how Plainfield is measuring it verses how we are measuring it and we have no problem with complying with that. I think the only issue that is still outstanding is the number of signs that we are requesting, which are the two. We would like to do that in front of the Board of Zoning Appeals and present our case there. Obviously, if they have the same sentiment as this body, we are not going to win and we would certainly have to evaluate whether we are going to continue after we have heard deliberations this evening. But we would hope that you could approve it contingent on the variance and give us that opportunity to go to that body and seek the two sings. So, that we don t have to come back to you if we do get the variance and ask us to amend our development plan. Mr. Brandgard made a motion that the Plan Commission approve DP as filed by G.B. Indiana 2, LLC requesting final detailed plan approval for the development of a 12,900 square foot drug store located within 600 of a Gateway Corridor finding that: 1. The final detailed plan satisfies the development requirements and development standards in the PUD District ordinance establishing such district. 2. The final detailed plan accomplishes the intent set forth in Article VI 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.,2., of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.! 5

6 And that such approval be subject to the following conditions: 1. Substantial compliance with the site plan, landscape plan, building elevations, light plan and the sign plan file dated April 21, A pedestrian easement is needed for the sidewalks along Saratoga Parkway and U.S. 40 at the earlier of platting or issuance of the ILP. 3. The sign plan shall be amended to comply with the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance requirements for issuance of an Improvement Location Permit. 4. If required, a variance being granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals to allow sidewalks out of the right-of-way. 5. An ingress/egress easement across the northern interior access drive of the site shall be provided from Saratoga Parkway to the west property line of the site. Said easement shall be for the benefit of those portions of the integrated center yet to be developed and may be provided on a Secondary Plat or by a separate instrument and shall be recorded prior to the issuance of the ILP for the site. 6. The developer will be responsible for all road improvements needed on both Saratoga Parkway and U.S. 40 as determined by the Town of Plainfield and INDOT. Second by Mr. Kirchoff. Roll call vote called. Mr. Thibo yes Mr. Matrana yes Mr. McPhail yes Mr. Brandgard yes Mr. Gibbs yes Mr. Kirchoff yes Ms. Whicker yes 7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried. Ms. Whicker said our next petition is PP , First Industrial Development Services at 1380 S. Perry Road. Mr. James said this request is an approval of a primary plat to divide Airwest Business Park Section 3, Lot 18 into two lots. The request is to split acres into two industrial lots. The property is zoned I-2 Industrial. The location is in the northeast corner of Perry and Reeves Road. In your Primary Plat in your packet there is an existing building currently on the proposed Lot 18B, the northern half of the lot. On the southern half or the proposed 18A the first industrial building is nearing completion. It is a 241,824 square foot warehouse building. In order to do this split development incentives were created and a variance was granted. The development incentives involved the reduction in the yard along Perry Road and also it was for a use of a common side yard to allow a shared access and turning easement between the two lots. The variance that was created was to reduce the minimum distance between two buildings from 245 feet to 225 feet. So, all the incentives and variances that were needed to allow this split have been granted. The proposed two lots do meet the standards of the I-2 Office/ Warehouse District. There is an existing utility easement across the southeast portion of the lot. It is 150 wide. The building is not within that utility easement power line easement but trailer parking and the access drive is allowed within that easement. The utility and drainage easements are showing on the proposed re-plat. There is no floodplain on the site and the needed amount of right-of-way has been dedicated for both Perry Road and Reeves Road. This proposed split does meet all development standards. Ms. Annemarie Varga said this is a fairly straightforward project and Mr. James has probably gone over it well enough that I don t need to add much. Basically, this is Lot 18 of Airwest Business Park and we are simply splitting the lot in half so that each of the two buildings that are out there today will be on their own individual lots. I m here to answer any questions as well as Will Young with First Industrial who is with me this evening and can answer any questions specific to the project. Mr. McPhail said Lot 18B currently has a building and you are proposing a building for Lot 18A, is that correct?! 6

7 Ms. Varga said yes, the northern one has the building on it. The southern one the building is almost completed. It is already under construction. Mr. McPhail said you are just splitting the lots. Ms. Varga said exactly. Mr. McPhail said there are nine parking spots. actually go with Lot 18B? Does that Ms. Varga said there is parking on the north that goes with B and the majority of the parking is on A. Mr. McPhail said that little parking area doesn t go with 18A, is that correct? Ms. Varga asked, which one are you referring to? Mr. McPhail said the northern portion. Ms. Varga said yes. It is pretty much a straight across split. Mr. Brandgard said the thing that was confusing was I thought there were two buildings out there and this usually happens before you build the second building. Mr. Carlucci said I ve heard a lot of comments on the new building, positive comments about how much they like that building. Ms. Whicker asked, is there anyone in the audience who has any questions on this hearing? Being no one coming forward I will close the public portion of this hearing and the Chair will open it up for a motion. Mr. Kirchoff made a motion that the Plan Commission approve the Primary Plat PP as filed by the First Industrial Development Services requesting approval of a Primary Plat to be known as Airwest Business Park, Section 3, Lots 18A & 18B to divide acres into two lots 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 subdivisions 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 1-96 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. The access and turning area easement as required by BZA shall be depicted and cross-referenced on any Secondary Plat. Second by Mr. Brandgard. Roll call vote called. Mr. Thibo yes Mr. Matrana yes Mr. McPhail yes Mr. Brandgard yes Mr. Gibbs yes Mr. Kirchoff yes Ms. Whicker yes 7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.! 7

8 Ms. Whicker said the next petition is DP , Mark Heaver, FBI Buildings. Mr. James said this request is for another accessory building, a 7,200 square foot accessory building. It would be behind the Harley Davidson Store at 6201 Cambridge Way. Basically an identical accessory building was approved I think in 2003, which is already located behind the Harley Davison building. It is about 39 feet off of the right-ofway for Clarks Creek Road. This building would be the same footprint, the same design, same brick as that existing building. It would be about 20 feet to the north with the same dimensions, 60 x 120 as the existing building. The reason why this has to come back before the Plan Commission is not because it is within 600 of a Gateway Corridor but it is because the total gross floor area for the property, the 7.4 acres with this addition would be over 20%. So, whenever you have an expanse of 2,000 square feet or more or the gross floor area exceeds 20% the request has to come back to the Plan Commission as a development plan if it is within 600 of a Gateway Corridor. So, that is why this is being brought back to you. I don t know if you have pictures of the existing building in your packets but basically it will be the same as the existing building. The existing building where it is it s not very noticeable from SR267, which is the Gateway Corridor. The one issue is the proposed building will be seen from Clarks Creek Road but Clarks Creek Road is not a Gateway Corridor and the setback will be about 39. The Staybridge Suites is under construction to the south. To the north and to the east the properties are undeveloped. They have submitted cut sheets for wal-pac lights. They are not going to have many wal-pac lights. There will be no security light like what is on the existing building and the wal-pac lights will be the shoebox style cut-off fixtures to help reduce any potential light pollution. The plan does comply with all standards. If you have any other questions, I would be happy to answer them for you. Mr. Mark Heaver with FBI Buildings said we are basically asking to add a second accessory building pretty much identical to the one we already have out there, same materials, same size, etc. So, I m here to answer any questions that you might have. Mr. Brandgard said the only question I have or statement is do we know who to contact when we have questions? I ask that because in the past we have had some difficulty communicating because of the owner not being located here. Mr. Heaver said that would be Mark Fortzz. He s from Valparaiso, Merryville area. He is the owner and is the guy that I go to whenever I have an issue. I would say that is probably your contact person, if there are any issues outside of the construction of this actual building. Mr. Brandgard said I would hope there are no issues with this but in the past we have had some issues and a lot of it was we sent things out and we didn t get any responses. Ms. Whicker said it would be great when you write your name down on the podium, if you would write down the name of that contact person as well so that we will have that in our record. Is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this hearing? Mr. Kirchoff asked, have we heard anything from the motel building to the south? Mr. James said I had a phone call from Staybridge Suites and Holiday Inn just asking what the notice was about. Mr. Kirchoff said but no opposition? Mr. James said no. Mr. Carlucci asked, did you talk to the Tim Dora from Staybridge?! 8

9 Mr. James said no. I talked with the Manager of the Holiday Express. I explained to him what the notice was about. Mr. McPhail said I have had discussions with Mr. Dora on other subjects since this petition has been filed and he didn t make any mention to me about it. Ms. Whicker said with no one coming forward I will close the public portion of this hearing and open it up for a motion. Mr. McPhail made a motion that the Plan Commission approve DP as filed by Indy West Harley Davidson requesting Architectural & Site Design Review approval for a new 7,200 square foot accessory building at 6201 Cambridge Way finding that: 1. The Development Plan complies with all applicable Development Standards of the district in which the site is located. 2. The Development Plan complies with all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Control Ordinance for which a waiver has not been granted. 3. The Development Plan complies with all applicable provisions for Architectural and Site Design Review for which a waiver has not been granted. 4. The proposed development is appropriate to the site and its surroundings. 5. The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance. And that such approval be subject to the following conditions: 1. Substantial compliance with the site plan, building elevations and photometric plan file dated March 30, 2006 and substantial compliance with the landscaping plan and wal-pac cut sheets file dated April 18, Second by Mr. Thibo. Roll call vote called. Mr. Thibo yes Mr. Matrana yes Mr. McPhail yes Mr. Brandgard yes Mr. Gibbs yes Mr. Kirchoff yes Ms. Whicker yes 7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried. Ms. Whicker said the next petition is DP , SKK Investments. Mr. James said our final request tonight is a development plan review for a proposed 91 seat, approximately 3,458 square foot restaurant to be known as 96 th Street Steakburgers. The location is south of the existing Culver s Restaurant east of Perry Road in Plainfield Commons. The site is part of the Metropolis PUD but the Metropolis PUD indicated that the General Commercial standards and the Gateway Corridor standards would be met or exceeded by any new development. The land use compatibility to the north is the existing Culver s Restaurant. To the west the property is undeveloped and also to the south the property is undeveloped. Staff believes there was a contractual agreement with J.C. Penney s with Premier that the property to the south would not be developed for a specific time period and then to the east across Perry Road you have the Target parking lot. This request went before the Design Review Committee on April 11 th. The main issues at the DRC were the building materials and the compatibility of the building considering the existing buildings in the area. Other issues were the site plan, landscaping and the proposed sign plan. DRC recommended approval with some stipulations. One was that the pedestrian access is moved to the curb island. Another issue was putting in some more hedgerow shrubs for the parking lot and then to do that they could reduce the number of trees along the south side of the parking lot. Another issue was the primary material for the trash enclosure and the gates. Another was the concern of the wal-pac lights. They had to be rigid. They couldn t be a swivel. The channel letter individual signs on the walls signs were acceptable but there! 9

10 was a concern about the proposed sign on the architectural feature that is on the front of the building facing Perry Road. After hearing these concerns by the Design Review Committee the petitioner has proposed two options. Option one is what they call their prototype. They have one existing store on 96 th Street in Carmel, hence the name 96 th Street Steakburgers. And as they grow they would like this prototype to be the model building for their restaurants. The problem with option one was it was mostly EIFS but there was a matter of interpretation. Did the 50% EIFS meet the intent of the gateway standard? DRC felt that the intent was to have a masonry type product, brick or stone. Another issue was the sign on the front. The standard sign that they would like to have as part of their prototype and something to distinguish their site was it a projecting sign? The ordinance doesn t allow a projecting sign. In order to address that they made it part of the architectural fin. Again, that could be another matter of interpretation. Is it is acceptable? Is the sign no longer projecting? Is it part of the building? Was this an attempt to get around the ordinance requirement? In option two they basically substituted EIFS for painted brick. Does the painted brick go far enough to address DRC s concerns about the masonry type product? Also with option two the secondary material is still the aluminum material. Another concerning with this aluminum with DRC was is this a proper material considering the surrounding uses? What kind of durability does this aluminum have? Another issue is the sign in option two, the large 96 th Street that is painted on the fin, does the ordinance allow a painted sign on a fin like this? According to the hierarchy this would be fourth in what is allowed in the alternatives hierarchy for Gateway Corridors. Another issue is the size of the sign. The way that we have to measure it the option two sign is too large that is on the fin. Regarding the option one sign Staff feels that after taking another look at it that it does comply with the routed letters. It didn t have totally individual letters but the routed letters are permitted. In closing the petitioner has presented two options. Option one is the prototype. Option two are changes they have done to address the concerns of DRC. Are these changes enough to make this building compatible with the surrounding buildings and the intent of the Gateway Corridor? Is the aluminum coping is that compatible for this area? With this type of building material will it be durable and keep its appearance over time? The south entrance onto the interior access drive, the way that it is presented with the site plan there is a pork chop to make it a right-in/right-out but Staff feels the existing median that is on this access drive should be extended past this entrance. By doing this it would make it a right-in/right-out. They do have another entrance on the west side and around the curve. Another issue is the fin. By incorporating the sign as part of the fin is that no longer projecting? Is that a permitted sign? In option two by painting the 96 th Street on the fin does that now become a projecting sign? So, Staff feels there is still some issues with this request that hopefully can be answered tonight. I will let the petitioner make his presentation and explain why they desire to have this option one. Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Testimony to Steve Stitle. Mr. Steve Stitle said I m President and CEO of National City Bank of Indiana during the day and the principal investor of SKK Investments during the day and the night. SSK Investments searched and studied after our initial project on 96 th Street over 20 locations in the Indianapolis and surrounding areas for our second location. We found the Metropolis location fits our needs the best. Plainfield is a growing community and the Metropolis is a big plus to Plainfield and it is a family owned company that cares about its product and employees and most of all its customers. We want to be part of this growing community. As you are probably not aware, before we signed the contract with Premier Properties we read and studied the ordinance put in place by the Town of Plainfield to make certain that we could build a first class building at a practical price that would maintain our consistency and our brand image.! 10

11 The first option that Mr. Wise from Rowland and Associates is going to present meets, we believe, every guideline in the ordinance. However, we feel and believe it is the best option that would allow us to serve our customers but at the same time we have prepared option two based upon the recommendations of the DRC on April 11 th. The 96 th Street Steakburgers is a fairly new concept. It is always fresh and can feed a family of four for under twenty dollars but it is important to our customers to convey to them where we are. It is an upscale, quick service restaurant that serves Indy s best milkshakes and quite frankly recently on an AOL poll, we are not sure how this happened, we were chosen as one of the 15 top burgers to have before you die in the United States. We have been selected as the best milkshake in Indianapolis, the best burger in Indianapolis, the best steakburger in Indianapolis. SKK Investments also wants to stress we are far the nicest quick serve restaurant on the 20-mile stretch of 96 th Street. We would urge you to visit our location. Rowland Design is one of the best architects in Indianapolis and they would not recommend a building or even material that would not meet your standards. We are excited to be a part of a growing community and appreciate your time this evening. I would like to now introduce Tim Wise from Rowland Design, Project Manager for 96 th Street Steakburgers. Mr. Tim Wise with Rowland Design here in Indianapolis said I have come tonight to back up what Mr. Stitle said about the 96 th Street Steakburgers. In this packet we have presented two options that you are all very familiar with. Option one is primarily an EIFS building and option two is a primarily brick building to answer the questions that came up at the DRC review. We feel as the designer of the building that option one fits best with the SSK Investment s idea of the 96 th Street Steakburgers but we also understand that we needed to come to answer some of those questions that came out of DRC and that is what option two was. It was to make the back of this building that was primarily EIFS and make it out of masonry and paint it and we were going to make it look identical to what we were showing in option one. So, primarily the two buildings are very similar if you look through the color renderings. I was actually going to bring a Power Point but since we had a fritz with the projector we are going to have to do it old school and kind of walk through your packets a little bit. I may be out of sequence here but I will try to do as best as I can. As we outlined in the letter that introduced this packet, the exterior of the building being EIFS, is in a limestone finish, which is the finish that we proposed for the EIFS, which is a limestone finish and a masonry material. It is a higher level of finish than what you normally get, which is similar to this. This is the standard one finish. We are also proposing to use their ultra high impact EIFS material, which the standard they say goes up six feet and above and we are proposing to go taller than that. Basically, what that does is it is material that keeps people from putting their fist, rocks, etc. through the material and keeps it safe. If a car hits it, it is going to do damage but a person and regular pedestrian traffic won t put their foot through it without some serious effort. The other items with that is signage, which I know is another very important item for conversation. In the original design over on 96 th Street we had this entire sign, which if you look on A320A option one, is the elevations or you can look at the rendering and that will work as well. Basically, it was originally a flag mounted sign so it hung off the front fin and was primarily separated. After our first review with Baker and Daniels we went back to the drawing board and tried to come up with a way to still keep the owner s original identity as the 96 th Street Steakburgers. This is their logo. This is what they have on all their shirts, all their cups, everything. We tried to find a way to kind of merge what the Town of Plainfield was wanting and what the owner had and that is where we came up with the idea of actually shaping the EIFS fin to fit the logo. So, wherever you see that logo coming off that front fin there is still EIFS behind it and we are shaping it. It is something that Disney does a lot. EIFS is a very controllable material. They use it to make cornices. We were just planning on shaping it so when you look between the two sides of the sign, you would actually see EIFS right in the middle of it. The metal panels that have come into question I kind of think I kind of started down the wrong path. I kept calling them aluminum panels. They are really a steel panel. This is the panel here and I can pass this board around. It is a two-inch factory foam panel with a 22 gauge steel finish that has a stainless coating or it can be something that is powder coated, which is what our storefront is. So,! 11

12 ideally this material has been called aluminum and I know there is concern for acid rain. We won t run into that with the material that we are using. This is used on large hospitals and corporations on a regular basis. It is a very high-end material to be used and a very high cost and a very good material. So, we won t run into situations where it is denting, etc. which you see a lot on metals that aren t thick but this is injected foam two inches thick so we won t run into any of those issues. So, that is why we went ahead with option two and we left the metal panel in because we felt if we came in here and explained it, it might answer some of those questions and fears that everyone has. Option two, which was basically to answer the questions of the DRC review. We have a brick that has been proposed by the owner and it is a standard red brick. It doesn t necessarily fit the design of the building so that is why we proposed to paint it. Originally the DRC said you would only have to go half way up and leave the top of the building EIFS. Our feeling was dollar per dollar per square foot once you put the footings and foundation in for brick you ve basically bought being able to go all the way up the entire height with brick. So, that is why this building shows it going all the way up in the back. The way that we kind of saw the signage is before when we engaged that into the fin, it was still seen as separate signage even though we had sandwiched it on the fin. In this situation we felt like the signage for the building was just the Steakburgers. The 96 th Street is the architectural feature or fin and is a painted material just like you would have on the strip that you would have on the back of the building. It is not illuminated. At night you are really not going to see 96 th Street like you are going to see it during the day. So, it doesn t take on the signage characteristic. It is just an abstract at 96 th and we felt it was a design answer to the questions from the DRC. In terms of paint here are our two paint options. They are very similar to the EIFS. So, if we paint the brick, we are going to be identical. This is the material that we are proposing for the windows. Just to bring everybody up-to-speed this would be that yellow band that is on the glass. It would have this added to the glass so on that height in those renderings you will see that yellow band on the glass. That is just an opaque section of glass that has this added to it and the rest is clear glass. This is basically the color of the storefront so you can see the materials are very similar in looks. So, you won t be able to tell the difference between the two, between the steel and the aluminum. Once again I would just like to go back and reiterate about option one that it really does fit the owner s idea of their prototype and what they are shooting for for their chain nationwide. Mr. Carlucci said maybe Mr. McGillem could comment on the road action. Mr. McGillem said essentially on their drive access off the internal road coming in there they do have a pork chop right-in/rightout. There will be a landscape median just beyond that and essentially what our experience is even though you have the pork chop in there someone coming out and turning right will make a U and cross over and try to go back to the left. Also, our feeling is eventually we are probably going to be confronted with a similar situation when the lot develops to the south of this entry. So, our suggestion was that we feel the landscape median definitely needs to extend farther to the west in there. In fact, ideally it would probably be good if Premier would want to extend that landscape median all the way to the circle. The width is not needed and that would solve the problem. We feel it definitely needs to be extended. Mr. Kirchoff said this wouldn t negatively impact the stacking as you head east to the stoplight, is that correct? Mr. McGillem said no. Mr. Kirchoff said in fact it would help a little bit. Mr. McGillem said it doesn t affect the turn lanes and everything at Perry Road.! 12

13 Ms. Whicker said when you say extending that median, are you saying to extend it to the circle road, which is the unnamed proposed road? Mr. McGillem said essentially the mall circle road. There is a drive in there that tees into the mall-circled road and ideally it would be good to extend it all the way up to that area. But it definitely needs to be extended a specific distance beyond the drive access. My concern is if we don t know where that drive is going to go on the south side for that outlot on the south side, if we only extend it a few feet now and when they come in and want to drive it farther to the west, we have a same situation existing on the south side. Mr. Kirchoff said it is certainly close enough we don t want them to cross over there. Mr. McGillem said we don t want any crossovers. Mr. Brandgard said I have seen several instances recently of people trying to circumvent those dividers where they go out and go at an angle across it to get to where they want to go in the wrong lanes. I think moving it back is a good idea. Mr. McGillem said definitely where it stops right now in the proximity of this drive you will definitely get them coming out and crossing over and there is not enough extension there. Mr. Mark Thorpe with the Schneider Corporation said we are the civil engineers on the project. I guess I just want to make a clarification. Everybody keeps calling that a pork chop. Originally that was just going to be a painted stripe on there to give a directional flow. So, I don t think we have a problem working with the developer to extend that island through there. I just might comment that narrows down as it goes to the west so I think if you go to an island all the way across there, one thing that is going to become a problem is it is so narrow you are not going to be able to put landscaping in there or you won t be able to maintain any grass strips. We will work with Mr. McGillem because what is going to happen is it is going to be so close to that western ring road it is not going to be beneficial to the lot to the south anyway because it is too close. So, I think we can work with Mr. McGillem on that and project that over. I just wanted to clarify that the pork chop is just a painted stripe on there. Especially if the island is going across a pork chop, it is not going to do any good anyway. Mr. McPhail said as your representative on the DRC I think I need to maybe expound a little bit on the building materials. The DRC spent a great deal of time even after their initial meeting on this. In fact, since my time serving on that committee I think there has probably been more s back and forth with Staff over this particular issue than anything that I can remember. DRC, and I concur, feels very strongly that the EIFS does not meet the intent of the ordinance. That the ordinance could be interpreted that way but in all cases I think in the past we have talked about EIFS is probably a secondary material rather than a base material. There has been some research done from some of those people and obviously what they are offering is an upgrade of a standard EIFS but still the DRC really believes that the material will not stand the test of time like a masonry product. They have very strong opinions that the brick should be used. I don t think there is any objection in using the painted brick to meet the intent of how they want the building to look. I think DRC questions on the panels were answered. In fact, I believe this panel is very similar to the panels that are on the Earle M. Jorgensen building on Airwest Boulevard, the wall up there, and that has been up for about 10 years. That material seems to be holding up very well so I believe the question has been answered on the panels but I do believe that masonry is the intent of our ordinance and that we should request that they go with option two on the masonry. I m still a little bit concerned about the sign on option two. I believe that does violate the ordinance. When you take that whole wing wall and paint it, then I think you have to measure that whole wing wall as being a sign and I think that is way too big. The other sign I can t tell whether it fits the ordinance or not but I want to make sure that whatever we approve on signage meets our ordinance. That is a very ticklish subject but I do believe the design of this building fits in with the Metropolis and the designs and some of the things that they want to do but I do think it needs to be masonry but I do think the! 13