PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION. November 4, 2002

Transcription

1 PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION November 4, 2002 The Plainfield Plan Commission met on Monday, November 4, 2002 at 7:30 p.m. In attendance were Mr. Thibo, Mr. Matrana, Mr. McPhail, Mr. Brandgard, 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 October 7, 2002 minutes of the Plainfield Plan Commission meeting as submitted. Second by Mr. Thibo. Motion carried. OATH OF TESTIMONY Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Testimony. PUBLIC HEARINGS Mr. Haase reviewed the Guidelines Governing the Conduct of Public Hearings. The first item on the agenda tonight is PUD , Premier Properties, at which time, they are, along with the Town, asking for a continuance on this until the December meeting. Mr. Higbee said that is correct and I don t have any comment to add to that unless you have any questions. Mr. Haase said I don t believe that we do. We tabled this for at least days in the last meeting. It looks like it is going to stretch out 60 days. At this time the Chair would accept a motion to grant the continuance to the December 2, 2002 meeting. Mr. Thibo made a motion to grant the continuance on hearing PUD until the next meeting. Second by Mr. Matrana. Motion carried. Mr. Haase asked, is there anyone else in the audience who would care to ask for a continuance? If not, we will begin with PP , Premier Properties USA, Inc. Mr. Higbee said as you can see from your Staff Report, the request would create two lots and also, what we call a Block A, which is the drainage area that would help accommodate those two lots. The location is on Gladden Road approximately straight south to where the apartment complexes are there on Gladden Road. And next to All Seasons Insulation if you are familiar with where that is. One of the lots would have frontage on Gladden Road and then the other lot would be back behind that lot. And then the drainage area would have a swale that runs along the entire east side of those lots and then swings around to the south where there is a detention area. The Staff Report project description was actually a little bit confusing when I read it today. So, I will restate it slightly from the way that it reads there. I was talking about the back lot to the south or I believe it shows as Lot 2 in your plat. The next case that you are going to hear tonight is for the NuGenesis facility that disassembles and distributes appliance parts. That would be on that plat as proposed. Right now Premier Properties still owns that property but it is my understanding that the petitioner in the next case will end up owning it. So, if that is not clear from what I wrote in the Staff Report, that is what I m stating to clarify that. The property is located near some residential zoning, which will become an issue for the next case, which is a development plan. There is one item that Staff discovered that we should have caught at the TAC level and we didn t but we want to bring to your attention now, which is in reference to Lot 2, which is the southern most lot. We just realized this right before the hearing tonight so we haven t had a chance to really warn anybody but that southern most lot would not meet the street frontage requirements of the ordinance. Because of the way! 1

2 the easement is coming down from Gladden Road to provide access to the lot would terminate at that north property line and would be 24 feet wide. The ordinance requires at least 100 feet of public street frontage for an industrial lot. So, this configuration will require a variance. That is something that I just advised Premier of a few minutes ago before the meeting as proposed. Also, I wanted to point out that the name of the plat was changed to Westcor Phase 2. I think it says Westcor on your paper work there. We did that because there was a previously existing plat with a similar name. There were a couple of items mentioned in the Staff Report about what could happen with pending development to the east and this is just by way of painting the big picture. You know that the case that you continued at the top of tonight s hearing, PUD , includes some potential multi-family development as well as commercial development. So, that would lie immediately east of this industrial plat. Staff made some suggestions that if that does indeed develop some residential development in the future, that this plat and the land in this plat should be looked at in terms of landscaping and buffering. The development plan that you are going to see next on Lot 2 does actually respect that by providing some higher level landscaping on the east side of that lot. So, what we are really talking about is the land over there in Block A east of that line between the lots and then the potential PUD to the east. Mr. Ryan Cronk with Premier Properties at nd Street, Indianapolis, Indiana said I was unaware of the road situation so I guess what I would ask tonight is that this would get approved subject to that variance, which doesn t appear to be a huge issue I think. But I will leave that in your opinion and I will answer any other questions that you may have. Mr. Haase said everything hasn t changed much. Mr. Cronk said with respect to the landscaping we want to shield that property as much as Mr. Higbee does. Obviously, if we put residential in, we want to shed off the industrial from the residential so we will honor that request and comply with the ordinance. Mr. Haase asked, is there anyone in the audience who has any questions about this or cares to make any comments? Being no one coming forward, we will close the public hearing. If we are to add that stipulation about the approval of the BZA, where should that fit in best in the motion here? Mr. Higbee said you could put it anywhere in there. It really isn t required at all since they have to comply with the variance. If you want to put it in there just for a matter of illustrating that it was discussed, you can insert it anywhere. Mr. Haase said we have done that before haven t we? Mr. Higbee said yes you have done it before. Mr. Haase said I think it would be a good idea that it gets in the motion. So, at this time the Chair will accept a motion to act on this measure. Mr. McPhail said Lot 2 is the one that needs the variance, is that correct? Mr. Higbee said that is correct. And when I was up here before, I was stating 100 feet of street frontage for an industrial lot but I actually double-checked it a minute ago. And when you go to the I-3, if you recall, this is a site that is pending the I-3 zoning with the Town Council. It is actually 150 feet. It goes up when you go to the I-3 lot but that doesn t really change the nature of the variance. It is the same kind of variance. Mr. McPhail said you have me confused on this variance. Mr. Higbee said if you look at the location of Lot 2, which is behind Lot 1, that lot fronts on Gladden Road. Lot 2 lies south of that lot as well as the existing lot where the All Season Insulation is! 2

3 located. And since Lot 2 is not directly accessed by a public street with at least 150 feet Mr. McPhail said this is not a public street. Mr. Higbee said that, as listed, could be made a public street. Even if it were, it is only 24 feet wide. So, it definitely creates a variance. Mr. Haase said hearing no further questions from the board members the Chair will accept a motion to act on this measure. Mr. McPhail made a motion that the Plan Commission approve the Primary Plat PP requesting Primary Plat approval for a subdivision to be known as Westcor Phase 2 subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with 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. Substantial compliance with the subject plat file dated October 18, 2002 and the Plainfield Subdivision Control Ordinance. 3. The petitioner shall install sufficient landscaping material within Block A to comply with the intent of the side or rear buffer yard requirements of the ordinance, if the land to the east is zoned for residential uses as a result of PUD If Shady Lane is extended along the east property line, the owner/developer of Block A shall also install sufficient landscaping within Block A to comply with the front yard landscaping requirements of the ordinance applicable at the time of the extension of Shady Lane. 5. Lot 2 will require a variance for lack of road frontage. The Plan Commission finds that the Primary Plat is in full compliance with all terms and provisions of the Subdivision Control Ordinance, the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance and 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. Second by Mr. Ward. Roll call vote called. Mr. Thibo yes Mr. Matrana yes Mr. McPhail yes Mr. Brandgard yes Mr. Cavanaugh absent Mr. Ward yes Mr. Haase yes 6-ayes, 0-opposed, 1-absent. Motion carried. Mr. Higbee said DP , NuGenesis Appliance Recycling is an Architectural Review request for a site that is located within 600 feet of a Residential District as opposed to a Gateway Corridor. It is not located within 600 feet of a Gateway Corridor. As I always point out, therefore, it is not subject to the Gateway Corridor requirements of Article 5.5 such as the 60% masonry brick or dryvit requirement as some of the others that we look at. When you have a building on Main Street or Perry Road, this site is not subject to those but because it is near a residential development, being the development to the south, which shows the R-5 block that is on your zoning map, it does have to meet a compatibility standard with the buildings around it as well as the residential development. On the land to the north, which is where the apartments are that I was talking about earlier there are a couple of different dimensions on the plan that were a little confusing. One of them was more than 600 feet away from the residential to the north and! 3

4 one was less. That really doesn t change the petition since you also have some to the south that is less than 600 feet away. But that might be something that the petitioner would clarify just how far away it is. It is certainly close to 600 feet one way or the other to the north and definitely within 600 feet to the south. The building being proposed is a 15,000 square foot industrial building to accommodate, as I described earlier, the appliance operation that is now located in Andico Park that would relocate here. They disassemble and they distribute appliance parts. It is pending an I-3 zoning at the Town Council. It has already gone through the Plan Commission for that. The building is a metal primary material with some concrete block. When the petitioner gets up, he can show you. There is a color board back here that he can show you the actual building materials. There was sufficient landscaping provided. There was sufficient lighting. The lighting was wall-pack lighting, bollard lighting and flood lighting. And the photometric plan did comply with the ordinance requirements. A substantial issue that was discussed at TAC and DRC had to do with the area to the south of the building where the outside storage would be conducted. Because they have an operation that, as I understand it, would be taking materials directly from a dock and dumping it into a container that would be immediately adjacent to the building. That would constitute an outside storage area in our ordinance. So, when you have those screenings required and if you looked at the site and landscape plan, you saw a wall coming along kind of sticking out adjoining to the south on the west side of that outside storage area in the rear of the building. And then you saw some fencing around the corner of the site on the south and east. Those three legs there constitute screening for the outside storage area that is required by the ordinance. There is also a dumpster enclosure back there that meets the requirement of the ordinance as well. The objective of that was if you looked to the south where the R-5 zoning is, was to obscure those operations as much as possible from potential residential development in the future. Whether or not you believe that R-5 area will actually go residential is another issue. But right now it is zoned residential and is undeveloped so potentially it could be. Under the ordinance you have to provide screening in that situation. They have done that. They also have provided a mound along part of the east property line. There is a complying sign on the building. It is a wall sign. The Design Review Committee did review this and every item that was on the DRC s comments was later met by the petitioner. The plans that you have in your packet today met all of those requirements. So, I would be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mr. Doug Peters with JDC Associates representing NuGenesis said I m just here to answer any questions that you may have regarding the project thus far. Mr. Haase said show us this rear enclosure that Mr. Higbee is talking about. Mr. Peters asked, on the landscape plan? Mr. Haase said I was wondering about the enclosure like the open storage area. Mr. Peters said off the rear of the building there is a dock area and there will be open dumpsters that will house the cooper and aluminum, etc. that will then go out to be recycled. So, it is the area primarily in this portion right here that this fenced area is shielding from the R-5 down here. Mr. Haase said that wall extension is shielding just from the other direction. Mr. Peters said that is actually where there is going to be an elevation change where this ramps up to the building and where this ramps down to the trailers to back up to. The primary concern was the visual potential from the R-5 down here coming this direction.! 4

5 Mr. Thibo said on your operation at Andico Park you have a lot of trailers parked outside. Will this hold true for the new place? Mr. Peters said there will be some trailer storage there and for specific questions I will refer to Jim Parker for that. But there will be some trailer storage outside yes. Mr. Thibo asked, do they stay outside all of the time? Mr. Peters said yes. Mr. Haase said Mr. Parker if you could come up, because there is a question as to how many trailers will be out there. Mr. Parker at 8010 Dogwood Ct. said I am the president and part owner of the company. At intervals throughout the year the peak amount of trailers that we might have interacting with the facility, not necessary on site, but interacting with the facility are between 12 and 16, something like that. During our peak season it could be 16. That is the reason that we accommodated some trailer parking to the south and west of our current building and it accommodates 8-10 spaces. And there is an area docking space for another six to seven, which brings us to about what we normally have. It is advantageous to us in our business to keep those trailers on the road so it is a premium to us to turn around trailers and move them as fast as possible. So, the less trailers you see on the lot the better we are doing. We try to accommodate that so it is an organized situation and we can bring them out to our dock space. Mr. Haase asked, how much of the outside storage or the dumpsters for reclamation are you going to have at this facility? How much of the goods are going to be stored outside on a regular basis? Mr. Parker said once we have the new facility I m hoping that none of it is. Right now there are a few pieces stored and we try to shed them behind the trailers right now. That is just because of shear space. We have run out of space in the building. The new facility should more than accommodate what we do right now. Mr. Haase asked, what about the aluminum and the cooper that you strip out? Mr. Parker said in those open bins there will be three bins right now outside and it accommodates our needs right now. There are two 40 cubit yard bins open topped and one 30 and they receive the cores from air conditioners. They receive the aluminum and the cooper. The purpose of the dock area was to organize that so that they could come out and just dump right into them. It would be close to the facility and it would be a clean atmosphere to operate in. But there are two 40-cubit yard bins and one 30 set adjacent to that dock area. Mr. Carlucci said there is a certain percentage of outside storage allowed in an I-3 zoning district. Could you tell us what amount that is? Mr. Higbee said 25% and what they have configured on the site plan, if you look where that wall is coming out from the building on the west that I was describing, you will see the dock area that they would be operating in would fall underneath that. Mr. Haase asked, is there anyone in the audience who has any questions? Being no one coming forward, we will close the public portion of this hearing and the Chair will accept any more discussion or a motion to act on this public hearing. Mr. Ward made a motion to approve the Development Plan/ Architectural Review, DP finding that: 1. The proposed development represents a use of building materials and site design features, which will enhance the use or value of area properties. 2. The proposed development is 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 consistent with the intent and purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.! 5

6 And that such approval shall be subject to the following condition: 1. Substantial compliance with the site plan, landscape plan, photometric plan, lighting cut sheets, building elevations and sign specifications file dated October 28, Second by Mr. Matrana. Roll call vote called. Mr. Thibo no Mr. Matrana yes Mr. McPhail yes Mr. Brandgard yes Mr. Cavanaugh absent Mr. Ward yes Mr. Haase yes 5-ayes, 1-opposed, 1-absent. Motion carried. Mr. Higbee said DP , the Wingate hotel is an Architectural Review but a little different than the typical one that you might expect for a hotel. Usually we would be coming in for a Gateway Corridor Article 5.5 review like we did for the Homewood Suites recently, for instance. But this one is different because it is located on the south end of Town if you look at your zoning map in the PUD. It pre-existed my tenure here but it is down there where there has been an industrial building existing for a number of years and there is some vacant land south of that building where Gateway Drive terminates. This would just create a lot at approximately where it terminates today and then would extend the right-of-way of Gateway Drive along the edge of that lot and create a new cul-de-sac. If you have been down there, there is a cul-de-sac, a temporary cul-de-sac today so this would essentially just shift that a little bit placing this on the north side of Gateway Drive. Since it is a PUD it is subject to the PUD standards, which those standards permitted both General Commercial and industrial development. Since a hotel is a General Commercial use this is a permitted use in that PUD. However, there were no specific standards in that PUD for building materials or some of the other things that we look typically for this kind of project. So, even though I believe that this project does meet those requirements, generally speaking, it doesn t technically fall under those requirements of the ordinances. It falls under the PUD requirements. So, if something comes up during this hearing at all that requires any kind of flexibility, you probably have that flexibility. Although I don t believe that it is going to be necessary. It does have a landscape plan. I made a comment in there that a typical Level 1 landscaping would be expected and that is exceeded on the landscape plan. But one specific comment was made had to do with the screening of the HVAC units. If this were a Gateway Corridor, Article 5.5, which it is not, there would be a requirement for screening for HVAC units on the ground. The petitioner has met that requirement anyway. Some of the HVAC units showed on the site plan as being in the front of the building and some showed as being on the rear. There is no requirement under the ordinance that they have to be in the front or the rear even if it is on a Gateway Corridor. There is just a requirement that they be screened. But the petitioner s representative at TAC and DRC indicated that he was going to have them all moved to the rear and that was the representation that was made in DRC. In their recommendation to you I actually restated that. That all HVAC units will be in the rear and be screened. I heard today on the telephone that the last minute adjustment may make that hard to do. So, I would like the petitioner to come up and clarify where the HVACs are going to be so that you can correct your motion if necessary. The proposed motion in your report assumes that they are all going to be in the rear. Here is Gateway Drive on the south. Here is where the culde-sac exists today and it is going to get shifted. Here is what I m referring to as the front of the building and there would be HVAC units in this area I believe as well as back in this area. If you refer to all of the plans and refer them to each other, you will see them in different locations but they are all screened on the landscape plan. So, that is the main issue from a prospective of what we usually review. There is a complying lighting plan. They would be using a typical shoebox fixture on the light poles and they have also offered to do! 6

7 fixed brackets, which is always a concern. We have issues with people tilting lights at different angles so the fixed bracket would guarantee that the light stays like this. The building materials, as I believed, were actually specified on your building elevations were at least 60% dryvit on all sides. I think the numbers were closer to 80% on all facades and the percentages are actually on the plans that you have for each elevation. They also have a second building material of brick, which on the plans proposed, I believe, would be about three to four feet of brick. You do have some renderings and photographs in your packets that show brick at different levels than what is actually on the elevations. So, if there is any need for clarification, I would ask that you look at those and decide which ones you are acting on when you make your motion. I would assume normally that it would be the actual building elevation drawings unless you place a different condition on here to specify that it would be according to the color rendering or according to the photograph that is in the file. One of the photographs in the file is for the similar hotel at Rockville Road, which coincidentally several of us have had a meeting on another case out there recently and have drove right by that. This would be very very similar in color and building materials but the amount of brick may vary from what you saw at Rockville Road. The signs are generally complying type signage. There are a couple of differences with what is on your plans and what is actually being proposed. One is that since this would be considered a commercial outlot you are permitted a freestanding sign and up to two facades of wall signs or you can have more than two facades with wall signs and no freestanding signs. So, you have to make that choice. The petitioner didn t realize that early on so they came in with three facades with wall signs and a freestanding sign. So, they have been advised that they will have to eliminate one of those facades if they want to keep the freestanding sign or seek a variance for signs. Another thing is the original wall sign design had a box sign with the Wingate logo on the top. So, the actual Wingate part of the sign was not individual letters, which has been the policy for the Town to require on new construction. So, they did come back with another design that would just be individual letters on the bottom and then they had the logo on the top. So, there is a slight difference between what they are proposing and what is in your plans. Other than those differences what you see in your plans is accurate and they are complying signs. Also, the color rendering, which is different than your building elevations and different than your photograph is, generally speaking, accurate but is not completely accurate. So, you may want to have the petitioner point out the differences between what they are proposing and what is on the color rendering. Mr. Larry McIntire with Banning Engineering at 698 Tower Road, Plainfield said I am joined tonight by Mr. Jerry Purdue who is representing Charm, Inc. that would like to create the Wingate Hotel down at the interchange at I-70 and SR267. Banning Engineering was contacted for this project primarily to set out a site plan that would meet the Town s ordinance as the preliminary site layout and the landscaping. All of the elevations were done by a company out of Oklahoma. What you see here is what we came up with for the site plan, which does give you the proper setback and meets the parking. Because of the street frontage we are proposing two entries along the extension of Gateway Drive. If you have been out there, there is an existing cul-de-sac just to the south of the large box warehouse. What we will do is extend the street about 350 feet farther south and put another cul-de-sac on the end of that to facility vehicles to turn around. That will be temporary right-of-way for that. The street would be extended as part of the platting process to make this public right-of-way in front of the proposed hotel. As Mr. Higbee mentioned, we have a landscape plan that was done, which does meet the ordinance and does indeed screen the air conditioning units at their present shown locations. At DRC there was some talk of moving as many of them as they could around to the back. I think that might effect some of these here on this side but there might be one here on the front that Mr. Purdue might not be able to move that far back. He would have to address that question for you when he comes up.! 7

8 I don t really have a whole lot more to cover on the site. I could answer any questions or Mr. Purdue can come up and kind of go over the hotel itself if you have questions on that part. Mr. McPhail asked, how far are you from the pond? Mr. McIntire said the pond itself I m not sure of. We are probably a good feet away from the pond. Mr. Ward asked, is that cul-de-sac going to serve another building in there eventually? Mr. McIntire said eventually, as Mr. Higbee pointed out, this is an incremental plat. The developer of the land will undoubtedly extend the street farther back as development continues for whatever buildings he wants. We chose to use the first available spot we came to mostly because of utilities. If you get very far back in there, sanitary sewer would have to be run a lot farther. You might even be looking at a lift station. At this spot here the civil plans are still being finished up. I believe we can extend the existing sewer a little bit closer and still get enough fall to perhaps surface this hotel and maybe one other spot. We are in the process of checking on that to see if we have to get a grinder pump. We are here to answer any questions you might have on the site or Mr. Purdue could answer anything. Mr. Higbee had several points he brought out of facade materials and I m sure Mr. Purdue can answer for you on that and the signage. Mr. Haase said I don t know if we need to have Mr. Higbee state those again or state them one at a time and let Mr. Purdue answer them so we make sure we cover all of the issues. Mr. Higbee said one point that I made, and this may help Mr. Purdue, I will let him use these. You have a color rendering like this in your packet as well as some photographs and there is also a blue line, full-size elevation drawing of the building facades. And then you do not have this but this is something that was turned in recently that shows the actual colors. So, I wanted to make the point that you, as a Plan Commission, should decide which one of those renderings and/ or drawings that you are going to be acting upon. And maybe the petitioner can clarify what is going to be there. Mr. Purdue said the color white is these two sections here of the building. The dark green is your trim of the roofline. The rose color is going to be your brick, which will come up to the bottom of the windowsill but we decided to raise it all the way according to Rockville Road like I discussed with you in the office. We will take it all the way up to the second floor. Mr. Haase said the first story will be all brick. Mr. Purdue said that is correct. Mr. Haase said story two and three would be the dryvit. Mr. Purdue said it would be all white yes. Mr. Haase said the trim that you are talking about would be the same trim as this? Mr. Purdue said yes. Like a forest green. You have a picture of the hotel on Rockville Road that I believe Mr. Higbee gave you. It will match it identical with the brick all the way up to the top of the first floor ceiling, then your dryvit and then your forest green trim. After looking at the hotel on Rockville Road we decided to take the brick all the way up as Rockville instead of by the windowsills. It makes a nicer hotel. Mr. Haase said that is brick. Mr. Purdue said yes. It is all brick. Mr. Higbee said the only other item relevant to the building was the signs. There were two issues with the signs. One of them was that they converted the text portion of the signs to an individual letter sign as opposed to a box. And then they would maintain that kind of sculpted logo on the top. And then there was the issue that if they were going to have the freestanding ground sign, they have to eliminate! 8

9 from one of the three facades to be in compliance with the ordinance with those wall signs. So, if they are ready to, they may want to specify each side that they would be eliminating the sign on. Mr. Purdue said we are going to eliminate the sign on the west side of the building and keep the ground mount sign. So, we will have a sign here and here and this one would be eliminated on the west side. Mr. Haase said there is one shown on the canopy there. Mr. Purdue said they have one right here. It is a small one. Mr. Higbee said the issue is not the number of signs, it is the number of facades that have signs. Mr. Purdue said so there will actually be one on the east and one on the canopy and one above the canopy and have the ground mount but we are going to delete the west side. Mr. Thibo asked, will there be a meeting room? Mr. Purdue said yes. There will be a meeting room, a boardroom and a steam room. Mr. Thibo asked, will there be a kitchen? Mr. Purdue said there will be not kitchen. There is a pantry but no cooking facilities like the Homewood Suites. They have a kitchen but this has no kitchen. This is an elite hotel. It is for corporate gentlemen. It is a very beautiful hotel. I built one in Chicago and they are nice looking hotels. Mr. Haase asked, where are the HVACs going to be placed? Mr. Purdue said there is one that we really hesitate on. I m going to see if we can get it moved. It is right up in here. This one here. I m going to see if I can get it moved back. If I can t, it will have to stay but it is according to the ordinance. Mr. Haase asked, is it fully screened? Mr. Purdue said yes. We have all of our parking lot lights like Mr. Higbee asked us to do with a secured bracket where it can t be raised up and down. Mr. Haase asked, is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak on this public hearing? Being none, we will close the public portion of this hearing the Chair will accept questions or discussions or a motion to act on this public hearing. Mr. McPhail made a motion to approve DP requesting Architectural Review for commercial development within 600 feet of a Gateway Corridor subject to the following conditions: 1. Substantial compliance with the site plan, landscape plan, lighting cut sheets, building elevations and sign specifications file dated November 1, Subject to Staff review of landscape plan revisions and a photometric plan for compliance. 3. All HVAC units shall be screened per the ordinance. 4. Accurate color renderings and paint specifications for the building shall be supplied. And regarding development within 60 feet of a Gateway Corridor finding that, 1. The Development Plan will comply with all applicable Development Standards of the district, which the site is located. 2. The Development Plan will comply with all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Control Ordinance for which a waiver has not been granted. 3. The Development Plan will comply with all applicable provisions for Architectural Review for which a waiver has not been granted. 4. The proposed development is appropriate to the site and its surrounding.! 9

10 5. The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Haase said before we second that I have one question about the substantial compliance of the site plan actually with the building elevations dated November 1. Does that cover what we need to have? Mr. Higbee said it depends on what you mean by substantial, of course, but it probably would be best to clarify it to reflect the increased brick that was talked about in the hearing. Mr. McPhail said I will amend my motion to read the building elevations shall have eight-foot brick on the first floor all the way around the building similar to the Rockville Road rendering, which was supplied this evening. Second by Mr. Thibo. Roll call vote called. Mr. Thibo yes Mr. Matrana yes Mr. McPhail yes Mr. Brandgard yes Mr. Cavanaugh absent Mr. Ward yes Mr. Haase yes 6-ayes, 0-opposed, 1-absent. Motion carried. Mr. Higbee said DP is an Architectural Review. It is kind of a little bit of a split type of Architectural Review but what you have is a building renovation next to a Residential District and that renovation is not subject to the Gateway Corridor, Article 5.5 requirements. But it is subject to what I always call the compatibility standard or compatibility test for the nearby development. Because it is only a renovation and not a building addition, it is not a new building. However, there is an outside storage display structure that would be placed along the east side of the building toward the rear relatively small compared to the building. And that structure, because it is an addition to the building, would be subject to Article 5.5. So, for them to have it there you would have to grant a waiver because it is an open wooden structure. It is not a brick or dryvit building addition. So, if you were to approve it as is, you would be granting a waiver for that. The existing building is 5,000 square feet. It has been there for a number of years. It has brick on the front or north facade and some brick going back on the east and west facades. And then it has concrete block and then concrete block in the rear. What is being proposed, and I will bring one of the renderings up to show you, is you have something like this in your packets that show a hardware store with a metal facade on the north completely covering what now exists as brick. And then extending along the east facade and west facade but not going all the way to the rear of the building. I would point out that the elevations that you have in your packets show dryvit where the metal stops on the east and west. And there was some discussion at TAC or DRC that might change. So, I m not sure, much like the last case, that what we have in the packets is actually representing what the petitioner plans to do. So, we would like to get some clarification if it is going to be all metal on the east and west side? Is there going to be any dryvit? What exactly is going to be there? But that is the metal material and there is some metal up here against the wall that I will bring up for you to look at. It is my understanding that the petitioner is leasing to somebody who I m sure is in the audience tonight that has several stores that he either owns or operates. He has had similar types of materials on the stores. So, that is the issue with the materials themselves. Another issue that came up in both TAC and DRC has to do with signs. If you look, you can see a number of different sets of lettering on different facades here. Those would be applied directly to the metal and I believe that they are vinyl graphics. I was verbally told that they would not be illuminated. Elevations in your packets show external illumination for some of these signs but I was told that there would be no illumination in some of the meetings. If you were to make a motion for substantial compliance, you would probably want to clarify whether or not that illumination is actually there or not.! 10

11 But another issue is that under our Sign Ordinance any time you create a background for a sign that kind of sets that off against the background of the building itself that background has to be included in the sign area in the actual square footage calculations for the signs. These orange stripes, the Staff looked at that as being there for the purpose of setting off those letters that are being applied to it. If you took the letters off, that would not be considered a sign. But if you put the letters on, the whole thing becomes a sign. That is the way the Staff reads our ordinance. As such, you would have that orange stripe being a sign, that orange stripe being a sign, a couple of boxes and then a couple of more areas that would be considered signage. When Staff did some calculations based on the renderings by the petitioner, we found that on two facades that primarily because of the orange stripe that they would not meet the requirements of the ordinance for sign area. So, we explained to the petitioner that some of the options would be to shorten the stripes so that there is less overall size or to remove the letters all together from the stripes. Those would be some of the options that they could look at on those facades so that they could bring the sign area into compliance with the ordinance. If it were to be approved as proposed, variances would be required for those two facades. Mr. Carlucci asked, before you go on is there anything they can do as far as lettering on those orange stripes that would make it meet the sign code? Mr. Higbee said correct. As soon as you put lettering on these, they become signs is basically the way that we look at it under the ordinances. Mr. Carlucci asked, can you give us some examples of where we have used this in the past? Mr. Higbee said specific ones aren t coming to mind but we have used it. For instance, if you look at some of the commercial outlots over at Plainfield Commons, somebody has come in and they have attached this panel of a different color as a background to the building. And then put the sign on the panel. The reasoning is that it brings the whole thing out. It is bigger. It gets more attention. It creates more sign area. So, we have counted that entire area. If it is actually part of the building, that is different. If it is actually integrated into the architecture of the building. But this is something that appears to have been applied for the purpose of providing the sign background. Mr. Haase said I don t know if you were here but did Auto Zone? Mr. Higbee said no I wasn t. Mr. Haase said Auto Zone is similar to this. They had neon actually running and colored block or something and basically something was done with it. The end of the lettering even though the banner kept on going where they didn t have any signage in it that was not counted I believe in the signage. But as far as where they had their signs in the colored area then it was counted as signage. Mr. Higbee said I wasn t here for that one. That brings up an interesting point if they were to just remove some of the lettering, then would you not count that part of the stripe? Which we really didn t get into that discussion with them. But I just want to point out that, as proposed, it would require a variance. There would have to be some kind of modification unless they want to go to the BZA and get an approval. There was also a comment made that some wall-pack lights would be placed on the adjacent building. I think my report says to the west but it is actually the building to the east. The purpose would be to shine light over toward this building, which sits west and perhaps help with that outside display area I assume as well as the parking lot lighting. We did get a rendering or elevation of the wall-pack light that is being proposed. That is not in your packet. I can hand that out if any of you want to look at it more closely. But it would be a 250 watt metal halide light and it would have an open face, which caused me to discuss with the petitioner that our policy at DRC and the Plan Commission has, generally speaking, been to require a down-shielded wall-pack light or a shoebox fixture as opposed to an open-face light. That is to eliminate the possibility of a bright spot that would distract people or make the site less attractive. The petitioner has! 11

12 some reasoning that he wants to talk about when he comes up regarding why this kind of light he feels is appropriate at this location. Mr. Carlucci asked, are they going to put it on the west facade on the old Preston Safeway Store and shine it to the west? Mr. Higbee said yes. the building next-door. If that is where Preston Safeway was yes, Mr. Carlucci asked, the building just to the east? Mr. Higbee said yes. Mr. Carlucci asked, did they provide a lighting plan? Mr. Higbee said no. They just indicated that they would be mounting these on that building. Now usually we like to have a building elevation but we don t require a photometric plan for just a couple of wall-packs because it doesn t effect the overall level of lighting on the site that much. We are more interested in the aesthetics of the wall-pack itself. But we don t have anything that precisely tells us where it is going to be. They have just told us that it is going to be on that building. I pointed out that this was just a renovation and as such, it is not subject to the Gateway Corridor requirements. It is also not subject to the landscape requirements because they are not building an addition. Typically when we put an addition on a building, we will say that the part of the site that is effected by the addition needs to come up to code on landscaping. In this case since there was no addition we did not say that so there is no landscaping being proposed but there doesn t have to be under the ordinance. In case you were thinking of that I thought I would mention it. Mr. Ralph Daum said I m President of the Daum Investment Corporation and owner of the building that Ferguson Hardware will hopefully be moving into. With me is Joe Collings. Mr. Collings is President of Ferguson Lumber who has two Do It Best locations. One in Rockville, Indiana and one in Veedersburg, Indiana. This will be his third Do It Best hardware store. Unless you have questions, I will address the four articles that the Design Review Committee had on our building. I think the packet shows some color renderings of what this store is going to look like. It should also have some photographs of Sullivan Hardware that was just recently built in Brownsburg, Indiana. Do It Best is an expanding hardware association. They are all by franchise similar to Ace Hardware except they don t have the exposure that Ace has but we are working toward that. So, whatever the board wishes to do we will proceed. Mr. Haase asked, what type of material are you covering this material with? Mr. Daum said this is used in all of the Do It Best stores. Mr. Joe Collings said I live in Rockville. Just to bring you up to speed this is like a reversed standing seam product because it goes on backward. It has a smooth front surface that vinyl letters will adhere to. It has a 24 gauge baked on enamel surface. It is made by Post Frame Manufacturers but it is a commercial product strictly just for facades. The red color that you see is the corporate color that is being used or proposed for the background behind the signs. The signs are vinyl self-adhesive graphic letters. They have no projection on them whatsoever. They are surface applied and we have no intention of illumination on this at all. The reason that we wanted the product identifiers on this red sign is our corporate image. It is something that we are doing and you are seeing with the Sullivan packet. It is being used by Do It Best throughout their facilities and throughout the country. Not only is our name being identified but some of the items that we are using in our product line, which you might think are standard and ordinary to the business itself, are not commonly identified. So, we would like to put them up on the banner. Mr. Haase said on the paper that I m looking at it is going to be filled out like I see it here. Mr. Collings said yes.! 12

13 Mr. Haase said from what I am looking at here it is going to be filled out like I see it. Mr. Collings said yes. Mr. Haase said where the vertical stripes are will be this smooth metal siding and then where the vertical stripes are not is that just painted cinderblock then? Mr. Collings said it is currently block. That is something that Mr. Daum and I would like to go ahead and let the metal run to the back corner of the building. It was our intention to let the beige color, which is the bottom color under the signage on the north elevation and the bottom and the top on both the east and west, let them both run all the way to the south corner so that we have a contiguous elevation. Mr. Haase said on both the east side and the west side. Mr. Collings said that is correct. Mr. Haase said and the south side? Mr. Collings said we will paint it. We just hate to see with a stucco finish, with metal signage, the banner coming across, we are getting too many surfaces. We want to clean up this building and it is my name on the building and it is Mr. Daum s building and we want to be proud of it. We don t want something that is half rate or we don t want a post-framed building on the corridor at all. But we do want something that we can maintain and we can cover the overhead door. The front elevation has different colors of brick plus windows that have been displaced. We just want to clean it up. Mr. McPhail said it seems like to me that you are degrading the quality of building by putting metal over brick. Mr. Collings said the brick is a different color. If we just leave as is and add additional brick, we have a crisis. We are going to have to paint it. We are going to have to do something to it. We want to cover it so that we have something for perpetuity instead of an 80 year old brick that is a glazed brick that is not going to accept paint. Mr. McPhail said since I have received this package it just bewilders me why you want to cover up a brick building with metal. Mr. Collings said the north elevation is brick. Mr. McPhail said the north and the west. Mr. Collings aid maybe 30 feet of the west and maybe feet of the east. But it is hodgepodge and we want to do something there to make it all continual to be presentable. Mr. Daum said there is definitely two different colors of brick that don t even match. They just filled them in and then there is even still some more fill in. Mr. Collings said the other issue is on the lettering and the 42- inch product that you saw. In just looking we were trying to find something that was similar in your community that had background differential between the lettering that was of a large scope. Pizza Hut stuck right out with the red roof and their signage on it. It is the same thing that we are trying to do and I m sure that doesn t meet the signage requirement. Mr. Carlucci said that is probably the worst example because it was two zoning ordinances ago I believe. And they came in for a variance to get it but that is so complicated on that one. Mr. Collings said the other one that I see is the Walgreen and they are showing product identification with the pharmacy being their line but one-hour photo being something else that most of us would commonly associate with it. We are just trying to stay congruent with what is going on around us. This is something that has worked real well in other communities and we wanted to bring it to you today. The reason for the rational east/west metaling of the building is to bring it all under one common surface. To put dryvit on there, to paint the block, to paint the brick is going to be a sore thumb we feel.! 13

14 Mr. Thibo asked, there used to be a small business in the back of the building. Have they moved out? Mr. Daum said yes. We totally remodeled on the inside, all the wiring, put a new roof on, put four new furnace/air conditioners in, put epoxy paint with glass beads on the floor for slipping. The floor is somewhat similar to the ride up area of Andy Mohr Ford. But the glass beads is more aggressive than what is at Andy Mohr Ford. I went out to the Eastgate Chrysler Plymouth and looked at their floor that was aggressive and that is what I decided to go with. Mr. Thibo asked, do you have plenty of parking spaces? Mr. Daum said there will be more than enough parking spaces. We are a hardware store for the women traffic, people that have a little hard time maneuvering into a parking spot where I currently have. It will be an 100% improvement. Mr. McPhail asked, are you proposing to cover only what is currently brick? Is that what you are saying? Mr. Collings said we would prefer to cover the block also on both east and west sides and leave the south side exposed has bare block painted. Mr. Daum said on the east and west side of this building back where it is cement block for a number of years some of you might remember, I know Mr. Ward would and I know Mr. Thibo would, that this building was originally built as Ed Phillips Chrysler Plymouth. Ed Phillips Chrysler Plymouth had two overhead doors, one on the east side and one on the west side. The State put in a driveway on the west side to come into the overhead door. Well this is now totally covered up and it will be plywood covering up those two overhead doors. During the course of the years the building then became the Waffle House Commissary. The Waffle House Commissary took out several of the windows that was on the east and west side and put in cement block there. I m sure all of you are aware that whenever you have a building and you take a window out and you put cement block in, now you have this unattractive block on the side of your building. No matter how much you paint it or whatever you do to it you still have the rendering for this window where it used to be. I honestly feel that it would be a better asset to the building and to the community that this earth tone be carried all the way to the back on each side. It would make the building look so much better. The east side is not quite as important as the west side. The reason being is this is the east side of the building. Over here is what used to be known as Preston Safeway and now Gold s Gym, this back 40 feet. feet. Mr. Collings said it is about 80 feet. It is under 2,000 square Mr. Daum said the back 80 feet is where you have pictures there of Sullivan s Hardware Appliance, outdoor pumpkins, etc. This is the part where the boards will come out. It looks like redwood boards. They will come out 20 feet by 80 feet. So, if you desire us to put the earth tone all of the way to the back on the east side, it can work out because it is going to be covered anyway with the pots and plants. Mr. Ward asked, is it going to be covered storage? Mr. McPhail asked, trellis type storage isn t it? Mr. Daum said that is right. Mr. Collings said it is a super structure only, it is not solid. Mr. Ward asked, is the lattice side on Main Street? Mr. Collings said it is open on the sides. Mr. Ward asked, to obscure the front of the storage area from U.S. 40? Mr. Daum said no. We want the people to see the flowers that we are going to be trying to sell. Mr. Ward said this drawing that you have I don t understand it.! 14