PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING June 4, :00 p.m.

Transcription

1 PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING June 4, :00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Brouillard: Welcome everybody. I would like to call to order the Plainfield Plan Commission Special meeting for June 4, ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM Mr. Brouillard: quorum. Mr. Perona: Mr. Perona will you poll the board to determine a Mr. Brouillard- here Mr. McPhail- here Ms. Lafata- here Mr. Brandgard- here Mr. Smith- here Mr. Kirchoff- here Mr. Gibbs- absent Mr. Brouillard: In the absence of Mr. Gibbs I will be playing the roll of the chairman for the first time so please be patient. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mr. Brouillard: Would you please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES Mr. Brouillard: There are no minutes to review for this meeting. OATH OF TESTIMONY Mr. Daniel conducted the Oath of Testimony. PUBLIC HEARINGS Mr. Brouillard reviewed the Guidelines Governing Public Hearings. Mr. James I believe the first item on the agenda is PP Mr. James: Thank you Mr. Vice President, you did an excellent job. This first petition tonight, we are going to hear the Get Go primary plat and development plan again for the southwest corner of US40 and Ronald Reagan Parkway. The request is to subdivide 7.43 acres into 2 commercial lots and they are requesting development plan approval for 6,127 square foot gas station, convenience store, and café. It is within 600 of a gateway corridor, those being Main Street and Ronald Reagan. This petition was denied in May but at the Plan Commission meeting June 1 st, a vote was taken to allow this petition to be heard Plainfield Plan Commission Special Meeting

2 again within 6 months as an adverse decision, so the Plan Commission agreed to hear it again and the reason why we are here tonight is because Get Go has offered a new elevation. For the gas station and market it is a more traditional look with a parapet that will screen rooftop mechanical units from all elevations and we have also worked with Get Go to solve the potential traffic problems that could create. They agreed to have the median on US 40 to prevent left turns into the site. So they will still have the right in and right out across from Haliburton but if INDOT allows us we will extend that median and close the median so they can t make the left turn in to the right in right out. They will still keep this entrance down here. The Town is also going to take steps to do things to allow Medallion Meadows to have access to their subdivision to be able to make a left turn and to go east or to enter as they are heading east. They still need waivers for the fiber cement block and for the canopy and also the metal coping on top of the canopy and the new elevations don t meet the material percentages because of the secondary material. I will show you the difference, these are the original elevations and I think one reason it got denied in May it had this tower feature and then here is the roof line showing that the parapet will screen all rooftop mechanical units from all elevations. There is a comparison for each elevation and then the canopy will still have the stretched fabric and they are still proposing it to be back lit with a LED light. They added a metal corniest to the top of the canopy and but he DRC did not support the LED back lighting. Here is an example of the canopy but they will not have all of the logos on the canopy it will be more like this and that is what it will look like at night. Landscaping plan complies; they are going to save as many trees as they can in the south perimeter. That is going to help with their required landscaping and also provide a screen and a buffer from Ronald Reagan. Then heading north on Ronald Reagan, all of those trees that they will save. Here is a long range plan that will help Medallion Meadows out, we will do a left turn, like a Michigan left turn here and then hopefully it will make the connection to the Adesa collector here to give Medallion Meadows the access that they need. Mr. Kirchoff: Joe I see a puzzled look, what is the Adesa Connector. Mr. James: This is in our long range transportation plan to punch the Adesa Drive through up to 200 South and it will be a collector and that will help take some of the volume from the Ronald Reagan and US 40 intersection and they will be able to come out here and use the light to go west. Mr. Brouillard: I was more puzzled with the Michigan left hand turn. Mr. James: There is already an opening in the median here so we will just design it so it will be like a Michigan U. Mr. Brouillard: So in order to leave Medallion Meadows they would have to go north and then make a U. Mr. James: I think we are going to make that a right in right out. Mr. Belcher: The concept was when we struggle with the issues of right in and right out and our experience with those not working very well even though a traffic study and the state approved the permit for that Plainfield Plan Commission Special Meeting

3 access point, we have all of that before us but we have this experience of it not working very well so the Plan Commission is very concerned about the neighborhood not having very good access after that if you extend the median so we brainstormed a little bit and the idea was, imagine somebody going from the neighborhood there to Wal-Mart to shop whatever, and they shop and come back home. If the median is extended they can t turn left into Haliburton, if you approve this plan as shown. So the idea is what is a better way or at least a less incontinent way to get them back to their home. Taking a left at the arrow at Ronald Reagan going north on Ronald Reagan and creating an actual turn lane on Ronald Reagan an existing median, move it over enough so that you can see clearly to the north so you can see any cars coming south and then bubble out on the west side of the road, an actual place where somebody can make that turn and come back and either come either around the corner to Haliburton and come in at the right. So everything is only one left at the U turn, so what we are promoting is the U turn. It is legal and all of that and away from the intersection, so we have talked about putting a right in to go with the right out that is there, one problem with that since we ve had the last meeting I had a complaint come in from a resident who was unaware of this project but they are actually having violations at the right out now. People who are backed up on Ronald Reagan are turning into the right out to cut through the neighborhood. So what we might want to do and again if you go forward with this project we might want to phase the timing of that southbound right turn lane to US 40, get that in so it relieves the pressure of somebody wanting to cut in the neighborhood. Before we put the right in, I think the right in could still help the neighbors get back and then in the long term like Joe said it takes several years to get the Adesa connector from the signal, that Adesa there at 40 up to the neighborhood. That means that people would have a protected left and in and out and that is our long term goal but we wanted something if you decided to go forward, we could implement that relatively quickly and the right of way that already exists on Ronald Reagan, US 40 and also again if you are uncomfortable with that experience we have had with right in and right outs right across from Haliburton. This is would be a way to protect that and keep that from being misused. So that is the solution that we came up with if you go forward that is the one we implemented relatively on the same timeline as Get Go s implemented. Then the other improvements will be implemented as they can be but it will be later. So the neighbors will have something relatively soon and then as the project went forward we would continue to move forward on the other long term solutions. Mr. McPhail: Tim the current exit out of the subdivision north of the Speedway, that is east bound only, right? Mr. Belcher: It is right out, east bound right out. Mr. McPhail: And that is where they are trying to cut in? Mr. Belcher: Yes, people are backed up, this complaint, it is a valid complaint I can see it happening. Somebody backed up all the way in that location and sitting right next to this drive and they just turned their car around and cut through to avoid the light, so we have to be careful about putting that right in too soon, and we may be able to do something to prevent that but there is so far you can go to prevent Plainfield Plan Commission Special Meeting

4 people from doing dumb things and they will just do them. Mr. Smith: The name of that little drive is Bradbury. Mr. Belcher: Yes, Bradbury going out is a right out. Mr. Smith: I went over and looked around that today and for what it is worth, to get west out of Bradbury or out of Haliburton to get over to the Adesa future drive; there is actually an empty lot. Mr. Belcher: We think that long term that there is probably 5 or 6 options in there, so there is probably would be a willing seller, somebody that is ready to move for whatever reason and we just find someone who isn t concerned about selling and we would have negotiation. Mr. Kirchoff: But the key is we need to make that happen. Mr. Brouillard: Thank you Tim. Does the Commission have anymore questions for Mr. James or Tim? Mr. Smith: I have one last question about this Michigan left or whatever. There is an example of course at 96 th and Allisonville, people up there in Fishers either love it or hate it. You have to go down a block to do a U turn in traffic and come back. Mr. Belcher: That is also signalized isn t it? Mr. Smith: Yes. Mr. Belcher: That is a little more complex. Mr. Smith: I was just wondering rather than having the left U turn up there, is it at all feasible to just have a cut in the median and create a left turn immediately so if you were east bound on 40, turn north on Reagan, you want to get into Bradbury, can we just not put a turn lane, is there room to put a turn lane immediately Mr. Belcher: believe. No you would be conflicting with the southbound left I Mr. Brandgard: You are too close. Mr. Belcher: I think the southbound left is going to grow. I did measure just as an alternate, somebody coming back the Wal-Mart scenario going north on Smith Road to 200 across and dropping down Ronald Reagan is about a 2 or 3 minute change in time. So there is another alternative for the neighborhood that probably cuts a minute or two off of the whole thing. So it isn t totally out of the question that we have construction on up there soon, there will be a longer delay right now but so we came up with a couple of options that we think will work. McPhail: them. Those Michigan lefts work pretty well when you get used to Mr. Brouillard: Would the petitioner like to make any comments? Plainfield Plan Commission Special Meeting

5 Mr. Cauldron: Good evening Mr. acting chairman and members of the Commission. Joe Cauldron, Attorney with offices at 111 Monument Circle, Indianapolis, I represent the petitioner. I am not going to say very much other than to introduce Todd Waldo from Giant Eagle to kind of walk through the building changes. We heard you loud and clear a month ago in terms of really 2 main issues and that was aesthetics and your feelings on what that corner and what that gateway needs to look like and of course the traffic so I just wanted to say thank you to the Town leadership and staff for agreeing to meet with us so quickly and to essentially work things out at least at that level to bring something that we think is much better tonight. Notices have gone out again so we can hear this case tonight and the application was amended with findings of fact and waivers so hopefully you can support all that has been submitted. The final component that I will mention briefly is that all of the things that you ve heard with respect to particularly traffic and what Tim and Joe have described will be moralized in a memorandum of understanding that we will enter into with the Town Council. I have prepared an initial draft my client is reviewing that, so we fully understand that your vote could be contingent on that MOU being finalized and agreed upon by the parties. That will dictate the responsibilities and the obligations of each party particularly with respect of the traffic. So we hope that does the trick and gets us over the hump that we couldn t quite get over last month. Thank you very much. Mr. Brouillard: Just for the record, I understand we waive the 15 day notice and you put out a 10 day notice. Is that correct? Mr. Caldron: Yes, every statute allows for that, so it got published and re-noticed by mail. Mr. Daniel: Just so the Plan Commission understands what may or may not happen after a while, because of the timing involved on the denial of the original petition to protect their record last week they filed a petition for judicial review that initial denial which they had to do to preserve their legal rights. So if the Plan Commission chooses to do a favorable recommendation one of the conditions of that would be the dismissal of Mr. Caldron: Absolutely we would be happy to dismiss that. Assuming that we are favorable tonight and the 30 day period runs from tonight. I will introduce Todd Waldo, who you have met before I think I will have him explain his board to you unless you have any questions. Mr. McPhail: I just have one quick question, there is no change in your commitments to build a right turn lane and improve the old US 40, that is all in tack. Mr. Caldron: Here is what I think that I would like to do is that the road improvements would be memorialized in the MOU that leaves the tree preservation commitment which we will keep as part of your commitment. If you have any different thoughts of that (inaudible) suited for the memorandum of agreement. Mr. McPhail: Thank you. Plainfield Plan Commission Special Meeting

6 Mr. Waldo: Good evening Commission members, Todd Waldo, Giant Eagle. I would like to echo Joe s comments there, we are again excited about this opportunity to bring this new very modern concept Get Go plan to the Town of Plainfield and we are hopeful that all of our hard work collectively will pay off tonight with the approval of the plan. So just to recap a couple of things, we ve all seen the revised elevations; I think everybody has those in the packets. It has been a significant modification to the architectural design of the building. A lot of the materials that you have seen and reviewed previously are the same with the exception of a couple of samples that I will pass out right now. That being the red brick (inaudible) panel and also the block which will be on the base of the building. I will pass those out for everybody to see, those are the substations that have been made to the design of the building. Mr. James highlighted in his summary, we have not only changed the design of the building but we have increased the height of the building especially through the parapets to screen the rooftop units. The overall height of the building is and that is consistent all the way around the perimeter of the building, that is detailed within the roof area that is illustrated the dash line on the elevation, that helps the rooftop units themselves. There has been a lot of articulation added to the building with some of the stone pilasters that are on all 4 sides of the building, the windows that are on the east side, the Ronald Reagan side and also the south side of the building again giving it some more visual interest from the public right of way. It really has resulted in a pretty nice composition and one that we think hopefully fits more within the standards of the Town of Plainfield. The other modifications that we made, the fuel canopy itself again we modified the brick color on the column wraps; we ve also added a metal cornice on top of the canopy as well. The height of the canopy remains the same it is still 20 overall height. The fascia height will be 3 and then the cornice will be an integrated metal cornice will be essentially anywhere from 6 to a foot in detail. So it gives it a nice finish look and it gives it something that relates back to the building with a similar type of design with that top cornice that runs around the perimeter of the building, again the fabric that we have talked about before in the photos that we have seen, that is a stretch nylon fabric that is structurally attached to the metal structure for the canopy itself so it is held tight. It doesn t fade; we had great success with it in the past. It is backlit with LED lights and it does glow at night just to give you a little bit more of a presence for customers to distinguish where to go upon entering the site so it gives it a nice clean look and something that brings it into more compliance. Mr. Brouillard: Todd before you change the page, the backlighting. Is that something that you need, I am heard the design review committee they weren t so sold on it and I just wasn t sure if there was options. Mr. Waldo: That is something that we have dropped. If you have seen it on the elevations we dropped our corporate blue band around the building so you can see just the red and the earth tone colors that we have now so we are trying to maintain that with the fuel canopy itself (inaudible) is essential. The site plan, not much is there we have talked about some of the road improvements, the right turn lane on Ronald Reagan which we have pledged to work with the City Engineer and staff to reach an agreeable design for that, but we agreed in principal to construct that. We also agreed and again all of this will be in the Plainfield Plan Commission Special Meeting

7 MOU, but to reconstruct that portion of Old National as part of our new curb cut onto Ronald Reagan, extend that probably 200 or so to the west or just 50 or more west of where we have our driveway connection on Old National and that will be done per town standards as well. So with the only other part that we had discussed before about the commitment with the tree preservation, again that is highlighted I think on the landscaping plans and those trees will be preserved as best as we can, granted any diseased trees or things of that nature will be cut down during construction. We are hopeful of your approval tonight and any questions that anyone has about the materials or the elevation, modifications I would be happy to answer those at this time. Mr. McPhail: Your backlighting in the canopy that just glow, I mean it is not a bright light coming through there. Mr. Waldo: No sir not at all, that is behind the canopy itself blocked by the stretch fabric, you cannot see the actual light fixture itself. We have a detail we can provide when we submit for a building permit and Engineering approval. But yes that will not be anything that shines directly into anybody s face. Mr. Brandgard: Is that anything similar to what Applebee s have? Mr. Waldo: It is nothing that would be visible it just has that internal illumination. The awnings they have at Applebee s that actually has a fixture underneath it so it just gives that illuminating effect. There will be no light fixture shining anywhere other than downward on the property itself with the exception of these architectural lights features. Mr. Smith: Will there be any glow upward? Mr. Waldo: Very little. What is positioned with the fascia that is the fascia with the structure on it and the actual backlighting is on the base of the roof and it shines at an angle at the fascia panel, so it would just be any ambient light created by the internal illumination, very minor. Mr. Smith: The trees on the south side, just driving by there you look like you got viable probably not worth having, so I am wondering if we might consider a commitment to add plantings if they were unsightly gaps if that strand of the trees doesn t hold up could we expect it to be some replacement put back so that it looks nice. Mr. Waldo: I would like the Commission to be aware that that is a wetland area and that is also a jurisdictional stream, so we have to be very careful about what we do in that area. We have obtained a wetlands permit and I would like to minimize any type of disturbance within that area, but anything will be done. We ve taken down a couple of trees already because of Indiana Bat Habitat and some diseased trees; I think everybody has seen a couple of trees that have been cut down. As we ve tried to do that in advance so we will make every effort to minimize that. A lot of the ash trees as everybody knows they are suffering and if that is something that we encounter then we ll carefully remove those. Mr. Brouillard: Any other questions? Thank you, Todd. Did you sign Plainfield Plan Commission Special Meeting

8 the paper? Mr. Waldo: Any questions on the materials? Mr. Brouillard: This is a public hearing at this time the Commission will hear any comments in favor of or supporting petition. Now the Commission will now hear any concerns questions or oppositions to this petition. All questions will be held until all persons with questions or opposing this petition are finished. The public portion of this meeting is now closed. Does the Commission have any questions or anything additional? Mr. James: The commitment on the preservation is very detailed. It says the petitioner shall preserve healthy non-invasive trees located along or within 75 of the southern property line and the subject property pursuant to a tree preservation plan to be prepared by the petitioner and submitted to the Plainfield Planning Director. Mr. Brouillard: I do have a couple comments, one is I really appreciate the petitioner listening to us and you guys came back several times and we appreciate the work that you have done so far. I still have a slight concern about the western exit of the turn where the island isn t, like I said, I go by there every morning sometimes it is dark, 6:30 in the morning. I am not that concerned that I wouldn t say yes to this, but it is still a little concerning on my part. If you stop the flow coming from the other side at least now I only have one side to worry about as people are trying to cross and head west, so I appreciate that. Mr. Daniel: Robin are you going to make a motion. Mr. Brandgard: Yes. Mr. James: appeal. Mr. Daniel: findings. Joe has worded that commitment about removing the judicial I have prepared something for an addition to those Mr. Brandgard: Relative to PP , I move the Plan Commission approve PP as filed by Weihe Engineers requesting approval of a Primary Plat to allow for a commercial subdivision of two lots on approximately 7.43 acres 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 way; and 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 No regarding Drainage; Plainfield Ordinance No regarding Access Permits. 2. Compliance with the standards and specifications of the Plainfield Subdivision Control Ordinance. Plainfield Plan Commission Special Meeting

9 3. All lots created by an incremental Secondary Plat shall have either; (i) direct access to and from a public street; or (ii) gain access to and from a public street across a perpetual recorded access easement through portions of real estate included in the Primary Plat. 4. All lots created by Secondary Plat shall either contain within the limits of each Secondary Plat or have legal access to adequate infrastructure to accommodate the fully developed needs of each individual Lot (I.e., storm water management, sanitary sewer, water, electric, gas, telephone, etc.). 5. Substantial compliance with the primary plat submitted file date March 20, Mr. McPhail: Second. Mr. Brouillard: We have a motion by Mr. Brandgard and a second by Mr. McPhail, Mr. Perona would you poll the board. Mr. Perona: The motion is approved. Mr. Brouillard- yes Mr. McPhail- yes Ms. Lafata- yes Mr. Brandgard- yes Mr. Smith- yes Mr. Kirchoff- yes Mr. Gibbs is absent Mr. Brandgard: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Plan Commission approve DP as filed by Weihe Engineers requesting Architectural & Site Design Review approval for the development of a 6,127 sf gas station, convenience store, and café within 600 of two gateway corridors and residential and requesting waivers from the building materials requirements subject to the following conditions. 1. A 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 completions of the subdivision control ordinance for which a waiver has not been granted. 3. The development plan complies with all applicable provisions per architectural and site design review for which a waiver has not been granted. 4. The development is appropriate to site and its surroundings. 5. Post development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance and regarding a waiver to the building materials requirement the Plan Commission finds that; (i) the proposed development represents an innovative use of building materials which will enhance the value of area properties. (ii) the proposed development is consistent with and compatible with other development located along the gateway corridor, (iii) The proposed development is consistent with the intent an purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance. And that such approval will be subject to the following conditions. 1. Substantial compliance with sign plan, photometric plan, trash enclosure details, light fixtures, landscaping plan, submitted file dated April 27, 2015 and site plan submitted file date May 26, 2015 and building elevations submitted file date May 27, The successful negotiation of a MOU between the Town Council and the developer regarding road improvements and pedestrian crossing improvements needed to implement the proposed Get Go project as Plainfield Plan Commission Special Meeting

10 submitted file date May 26, Petitioner shall preserve healthy and noninvasive trees located along or within 75 feet of the southern boundary on the property line of the subject property. (Inaudible) preservation plan to be prepared by the petitioner and submitted to the Town Planning Director for approval. 4. Petitioner upon expiration of the (inaudible) period following the approval of DPS , shall properly dismiss the petition for the judicial review file or about June 3, 2015 with respect of the petition of DP Mr. Daniel: That covers those two items. Mr. McPhail: Second. Mr. Brouillard: We have a motion by Mr. Brandgard and a second by Mr. McPhail, Mr. Perona would you poll the board? Mr. Perona: Motion is approved. Mr. Brouillard- yes Mr. McPhail- yes Ms. Lafata- yes Mr. Brandgard- yes Mr. Smith- yes Mr. Kirchoff- yes Mr. Gibbs is absent Mr. Brouillard: The next item is RZ Mr. James: This one should still be pretty fresh in everyone s minds, we just heard it Monday night, it was continued to tonight. This is a request to rezone General Commercial to I-2 but the rezone commitment that only the I-2 use allowed is light assembly for the MCC Services Center at 2707 East Main Street. This is the old Professional Garage Door site. It has 3 lots and they want to rezone the lot 3 which is the back lot. All operations will be done indoors and no outdoor storage is proposed. It has 2 entrances from Main Street and MCC assembles high pressure spray equipment on trailers and trucks and then the use variance was granted for self-storage for lot 3, the back 3 buildings earlier this year. Here is the site again, this is lot 3 here is Main Street, Andy Mohr Ford; West Gate Chrysler is over here. It is all General Commercial. There is the plat they will replat it to change that lot line a little bit from the north side so that 3 buildings will remain with the northern lights and then the 3 buildings would remain on lot 3. Regional Commercial is recommended for the site but it does abut to I-2 to the east. A commitment has been offered that they have no outdoor storage on site. Is I-2 the appropriate zone for this use? Issues from the Monday night meeting, based on the comp plan is light industrial appropriate for this site, should the whole site have to be brought up to the gateway standards? Even though the back 3 buildings were built as accessory buildings with new ownership, lot 3 at least one building becomes a primary use building. An effort will be made to bring lot 1 into compliance. Is I-2 the correct zoning for this use or can it be done with GC? The structures have lost their legal non-conforming status. The ordinance requires a submittal of an IOP in compliance with Article 5. Article 5 states for exterior façade renovations, it should demonstrate a reasonable effort to bring the Plainfield Plan Commission Special Meeting

11 building into compliance, Plan Commission review is not required. Possible solutions, their current site in Indianapolis on Georgetown Road is zoned CS Special Commercial, that is very similar to our Commercial Industrial site. Did they install an architectural wall between lots 2 and 3 to screen it better and maybe more landscaping at the west perimeter. I went and visited their shop today off of Georgetown Road. This is the front of the building; they are in what we call a flex office building. It is sort of like Banning s building. This is the back, you can see they have no outdoor storage; they ve got some inventory where they do limited sales. This is their assembly area. They do have a small fabrication area. Here is a truck they are modifying and then here is a trailer they are modifying and this is their service area. So everything is done indoors and I think they ve got about 22,000 square feet and they are running out of room and they need double that 45,000 square feet. Here is a photograph heading east on US 40, you can t even see the back 3 buildings. You can see one of the buildings as you go further to the east and then I think this building and this building will stay with the front two lots and that is one of the 3 back buildings. There is one that will be brought up to code and then that is the view as you are heading west on 40 and you can see part of 1 of the 3 buildings. That building is on lots 1 and 2. Here is the view from Andy Mohr; they ve got a lot of trees on the east perimeter and again looking at the east perimeter. Then that is the view at the west perimeter where you can see more of the building from the west side. This is the Westgate parking lot back here. So with that I will have a seat and I know there is a representatives here to talk to you. Mr. Brouillard: Thank you, Joe. Any board members have any questions for Joe? Would the petitioner like to make a statement? Mr. Culp: Thank you very much and on behalf of my client I would like to thank the Plan Commission for the opportunity on short turn around to try to come back in so that we can try to stay on track with the timelines to try and make this project happen. As we discussed the other night, my clients are planning to put a business in their in the majority of which is going to be the sale of various equipment for some of the spring rigs and there is going to be a service operation and they will also build some rigs that construction will amount so something similar to what goes on in a collision center. It is all prefabricated parts. They will be bringing 18 jobs here and it will grow in time. The short term to 24 and then the plan is to continue from beyond there. We have asked for an I-2 zoning, we did that on the recommendation of the Joe who has worked with us throughout this project and until the other night we were not aware that the corridor standards applied to us or would be interrupted. We have tried but due to the short time and due to lack of certainty over exactly how they apply, it is hard for us to turn around and come up with a reliable estimate about what that cost would be. When talking with Joe it sounds like the Towns practice has been to take the primary structure and get that up to code, we would interpret that as the one most likely that faces US 40 and to try to get that so that it matches with what is under the corridor. We would also upgrade other parts of the property. We would be willing to commit to getting a primary structure up to those corridor standards which was one of the requests. We tried came close and failed to reach an agreement with the remonstrators. We explained that we have no control over the front 2 lots; we can only Plainfield Plan Commission Special Meeting

12 speak to what goes on on lot 3. The concern is over exactly what the application of those corridor standards are is what separates us. That would project the great unknown into our project and we are comfortable going with our understanding of what the Towns practice has been of having one of those buildings be the one that we focus on. We don t know if we were to have to bring all 3 of them up, we have no idea what that would cost. We are also fine with taking measures to screen the view with vegetation and also the view from US 40. We believe that this is a use that is the same as uses that are in the area but the interpretation has been that this falls in the I-2 even though it is very similar so we don t really think it affects that area. As Joe mentioned there are other areas in this that already have the I-2 designation so we would not be the first and we would also be further back from the road with our operations and the traffic would be relatively light. If you have any other questions I would be happy to answer those at this time. Mr. Brouillard: Thank you. This is a public hearing, at this time the Commission will hear any comments in favor or supporting the petition. And if not, the Commission will now hear any concerns, questions, or opposition to this petition, all questions will be held until all the persons with questions or opposing this petition are finished. Mr. Scimia: Members of the Commission my name is Joe Scimia, I am a Lawyer with offices located at th Street, Indianapolis, Indiana. I am here tonight on behalf of Andy Mohr Automotive Group and I would just like to maybe recall a couple of points from the last hearing. First is that the comprehensive plan is recommendation for this property is GC. There is no I-2 ground surrounding or abutting this property. There is a recommendation that the AG ground currently owned by Mr. Mohr be used for industrial use, but if you look at the actual zoning map there is no I-2 in this area. Which goes to show you what aberration this is from the General Commercial area which this property is located. In addition all surrounding uses are zoned GC and are used for General Commercial purposes. So we think that in order to interject this type of use within this area there should be special consideration to restrict the use so it is compatible with the General Commercial in the area. Now the petitioner, Mr. Mohr, and myself have been working very hard since Monday to try and reach an agreement and we got very close. But there is a fundamental difference here which I think is very important. It think it is very pathetic that the Get Go case was on the agenda today, because the Get Go case was a case that you chose not to approve because it didn t meet the requirements when it was originally presented of that at gateway corridor provisions of your zoning ordinance. You chose not to compromise to approve something that was less than what you thought was appropriate for that corridor because that is what the corridor requirements were for. I would suggest to you that there is no reason to compromise with respect to this gateway corridor. The same standards should be consistently applied and there should be a level playing field. As you know Mr. Mohr has gone through extensive development plan review process and made a significant investment in access of $25 million dollars in the exact proximity of this property. All that he would like to see is that there is consistent development and the same standards held to his property. We have proposed even though we still struggle with this use because it is an industrial use and it will effect quite honestly what happens on the end of that property Andy Mohr has because it directly Plainfield Plan Commission Special Meeting

13 visible and has a common ground. We were able to get through and I think there is no disagreement between the petitioner and ourselves with respect to commitment number 1, that limit s the use to the use that they are prescribing to make of it. As you can see there is an assembly of manufactured products there the light assembly repair previously manufactured parts, warehouse distribution center as well as offices incidental of those uses. We also then agreed that the uses which are more intense will be incidental including more than 25% of the gross floor area. I also think that number 2 is not in controversy in any way. It says none of the outside storage or operations that is actually a requirement of I-2 because it is in a gateway corridor we are not exactly sure how you measure that, but there is no dispute over that. The real issue is number 3, and it is basically at the application of the gateway corridor requirements of this property, and we could not come to an agreement on this because the petitioner has asked us to restrict number 3 to a primary building, they will improve 1 building but the other 2 quite honestly there is no mention of it and they say that is based upon interpretation by staff that only a primary building has to be in compliance. I would just tell you that I don t see any support whatsoever for that position in Article 5.5 of the gateway corridor district ordinance. It refers to building façades and here is a perfect example. Mr. Mohr s property which has the large Andy Mohr Ford facility on it and then the adjacent building now under common ownership which is the cooperate headquarters building. We just adjust because of its size and height it is an accessory building and then therefore wouldn t have to be brought up to current standards? That is ridiculous, it is not an accessory building, there is 2 primary buildings on that site and that is exactly what we believe is the issue of this case. We don t have the facts and you don t have the facts and the petitioner hasn t provided the facts to determine whether or not that there is 1, 2, or 3 primary buildings on this site, and we believe the facts will dictate that and that is why our commitment number 3 says that all we are asking is that the property be brought into compliance with article 5 which is the gateway corridor district, whatever those requirements may be. We can argue later about the primary distinction but the commitment that they were willing to offer was limiting that review to an interpretation that we believe is inappropriate and we believe should be fought later. All we are saying here is please bring this into compliance with your gateway corridor requirements whatever they may be and we will talk about that later. We think that is very reasonable in a return for us to allow this industrial use to go in this area. The second thing we have asked in that commitment is that we have asked the petition come to the Plan Commission for a development plan approval petition or activities come to the Commission directly. There is a very good reason for that. The directors allowed under the gateway corridor provisions to make some determinations and we understand that. We are concerned about that way that has been interrupted exactly is why we are here tonight and more importantly the state law says there has to be an appeal right by anybody to appeal the director decision directly to the Plan Commission so they can be reheard. Your ordinance provides for that appeal right because 30 days after the Directors decision is made, so far so good. But here is the problem. It says it has to happen 30 days after the director s decision is made and there is no requirement for anybody to receive notice by publication or otherwise that the directors made that determination or that a petition has even been filed. So here is what typically happens the director will file a petition, it will be Plainfield Plan Commission Special Meeting

14 approved, and it won t be until construction starts that anybody is aware that something is going on. I guarantee that will be more than 30 days after the director has made his decision. I m saying that given the importance of this to Mr. Mohr and the fact that he is allowing an industrial use go in next door to him, he would feel more comfortable that we have the petitions heard by the Plan Commission for development plan approval so that he gets notice and an opportunity to voice his concerns. The decision will still lie with you, you don t think that is a big issue given the fact that we have an oppositional right from the director anyway, what we are concerned about is somehow we don t get notice of that and so then we don t have a chance to come in and give you our position. You may be persuaded, you may not, we certainly want to be here to give our side of it and given the investment that Mr. Mohr has made we think that is a very reasonable condition. So we would ask you first, we still would ask you to deny this case because we don t think the use is appropriate but if you decide otherwise we are asking that you include these 3 commitments to ensure the fact that we have a level playing field. There has been a lot of discussion here that we are trying to shoehorn this into a very short time period because we have an uncooperative seller I think and they couldn t get more time. I think quite honestly that there is a lot of questions here both on our side and as he petitioner just told you they are not even sure what they need to do or that they can afford to do it. That would certainly be nice to make that decision but they are not afforded that time. I am sure you heard a little bit of that with the Get Go case, we need to get this approved tonight and you guys stuck to your guns and you said we are not going to compromise, but the bottom line is that case came back and it is appropriate in your minds to proceed and I can honestly applaud you for doing that. I don t think we should rush this case but if you do feel compelled to vote on it tonight I certainly ask that you include the commitments we have asked for, I think they are a very reasonable compromise, I don t understand other than the fact that someone wants to argue that they want to do less than the ordinance requires as to why they want to agree with this, but it concerns me and my client that they have already set the stage and they don t to do full compliance, they want to limit that to 1 building. I find that unacceptable. We can argue and I can show you pictures that show that 2 of those 3 buildings are clearly visible from 40 right over from West Gate; it depends on where you stand and how you take the picture, quite honestly. That is the issue here. All we are asking for is if you are going to allow this use there or any use there quite honestly if you redevelop in accordance with the gateway corridor requirements and you will be the ultimate decision maker with respect to that. That doesn t seem to be a whole lot to ask quite honestly. It seems like it goes common sense that you would do that anyway. But that is the reason we are here tonight, I would be glad to answer any questions that you have and Mr. Mohr is here too. Mr. Mohr do you have anything you would like to add? Mr. Mohr: Andy Mohr, 2713 East Main, Plainfield. Thanks for again for hearing us. We are not into fighting and making enemies, we were trying to be lovers and sell everybody a car. If anything I would just say this, and Joe kind of said it, if we do anything lets be on the side of safety for the community, for the property owners that are already there and have already have the investment. I have seen too many short term uses come in and if we end up approving the zoning request then lets at least make folks get their facilities up to a Plainfield Plan Commission Special Meeting

15 standard that we can all be proud of and that the people that wanted to invest more money in the community and want to live here and want a reason to get them to come, and it is a gateway corridor after all. There should be some standards that come with that, so I met with Tony recently and we were talking about that whole corridor area and it is a problem area because it is a hodge podge of different buildings, but you know what when we have an opportunity to do it right, we can t pass on that opportunity and reuse is not what we are looking for, we are looking for redevelopment. I just ask that you consider that when you are making your decision, I really appreciate your time. Thank you. Mr. Brouillard: The petitioner may make any final comments regarding this petition and answer any questions raised by the public. Mr. Culp: Just a couple things, the document you were handed, we have no problem with the first 2 bullet items. We also have no problem with a commitment to abide by the corridor standards on our primary structure. As it was indicated the disagreement is whether the ordinance as it has been applied requires us to deal with all 3 structures. It is our understanding that the ordinance has enforced being interpreted that way and that is what we have been following the guidance the Town has provided us, we have been trying to comply we ve been trying to do that all along, we ve been basing our decisions and our business decision off that guidance. This isn t one of those projects that showed up and then realize we need to get zoning later. This is a project that from the get go contacted the Town, worked with the Town and tried to follow and done everything the town asked of us. We are talking about a level playing field; we are talking about trying to follow the rules as we ve been told that they were. As I am sure as any attorney would tell you especially if you are working with the government, enforcement is just as big as what is written down and you ve got to treat people equally in the way you enforce the law not just the way the it is written. If our understanding is correct that this has been enforced that way, well we don t see a reason we should be treated any different. We also don t see a reason why we should be singled out to not go through the Planning Director and have to go through the Plan Commission. That is a special distinction that wouldn t apply to us normally but we are being asked to go through that right now. While the ordinance and the people may have their debates about whether that means due process that is seeking to impose a special condition on us. A condition that hasn t been imposed on other people when you talk about a level playing field. Imposing a condition on us just because somebody feels that we should have some sort of sign off or may say or that the ordinance should treat them a little differently because it currently doesn t is quite frankly not fair and it is not a level of playing field. My client has no intention of moving in there and not doing anything with the buildings. My client s intention is to build up and make this a permanent home and grow those buildings. What you run into, and this is a key issue with any redevelopment, this is a key issue with economic development as you have structures that exist as they are and you are trying to get someone to come in and use them. So what is it going to cost your community to get people to come in? And a large part of that is going to be what is the cost of me bringing this building up to code. We got our own needs, we are going over $400, it is looking closer to $500, inside the buildings. We are not talking about the outside, but that is just so we can operate. Then we are adding to that any costs that are brought on us by the ordinance. Now we will Plainfield Plan Commission Special Meeting

16 follow the ordinance, we will comply and we will be treated like anyone else under the ordinance. At the same time if the ordinance is interpreted in a way that makes it cost prohibitive those buildings aren t going to get filled. If you run the cost of building the outsides of such a level that it starts to depend on the cost of actually building what creates those jobs and what creates those tax dollars and what brings money in the door in the first place those buildings aren t going to get filled. That is part of the reason those buildings are still open. That is part of the reason we are in the position where the only way to try to sell them and put them back on the tax role in a useful way is to have 2 people who had to hammer out an agreement that has to close on the exact same day or it falls apart. That is because you ve got existing structures and you have to work with that. We are not talking about coming in and building something new, we are talking about how you treat someone who is coming in and taking a building that is unused and trying to put it into something that is useful to your community. I appreciate the chance to address you and if you have any questions I would be happy to answer those. Mr. Brandgard: I have one question and we keep alluding to this is being fast tracked because the seller wants to close by a certain date or something like that. Well I guess I ask the question does the seller want to close or does he not want to close so what makes a difference if you close tomorrow or if you close 2 weeks of tomorrow, give yourselves time to answer the questions you don t have an answer too. The difference I makes to my client is we would lose the right to back out of the contract if we don t get the zoning. We would also lose our earnest money which is $20, and if we go past that deadline there is no backing out. I can t speak to why those were the terms, after a great deal of working through a site selection process, we identified this are and these buildings as being perfect and we worked for a long time to negotiate an agreement and this is the agreement we have, I don t represent the seller and I can t tell you what their motivation was or wasn t. I can only tell you this is the timeline we are under and these are the terms that we have to comply with. Mr. Brandgard: I guess that I would have thought the seller would be more to work with you as long as this has been on the market with no buyers. And what you are telling me if we turn this down you are going to walk and it is still going to sit there and Andy is still going to still have his eye sore sitting next to him with no body doing anything with it other than deteriorating, which would be different if somebody was in there trying to keep it up. Am I correct? Mr. Culp: Yes. We got the party is here, we can say that but that is how the agreement is negotiated and would I have liked the agreement to say something different than that and would my clients, yes. But we can t control that. That was the best terms we could get and we still thought this property was worth going after but that was the terms they were willing to sell it on. Ms. Lafata: Are you responsible for lots 1 and 2 or is this just 3. I don t represent or have any connection to the owner to lots 1 and 2 and they have no connection to petition. Mr. Smith: You have mentioned several times that there is 2 sales Plainfield Plan Commission Special Meeting