TOWN OF PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION. February 5, 2007

Transcription

1 TOWN OF PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION February 5, 2007 The Plainfield Plan Commission met on Monday, February 5, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. In attendance were Mr. Matrana, Mr. McPhail, Mr. Brandgard, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Kirchoff and Ms. Whicker. ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM Mr. Carlucci administered the roll call. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to approve the January 4, 2007 and January 9, 2007 Plainfield Plan Commission minutes as submitted. Second by Mr. Gibbs. Motion carried. OATH OF TESTIMONY Mr. Carlucci administered the Oath of Testimony. PUBLIC HEARINGS Ms. Whicker reviewed the Guidelines Governing the Conduct of Public Hearings. Our first petition this evening is DP and has requested a continuance. Mr. James said yes. I recommend that we continue this request to the April 5 th Plan Commission meeting. They are still working on their plan and we need to take this plan back to the Design Review Committee. I m going to recommend that we continue this to the April 5 th meeting. Mr. Kirchoff asked, is that a reasonable date? Mr. James said as far as I know yes. Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to continue DP to the April 5 th Plan Commission meeting. Second by Mr. Brandgard. Motion carried. Ms. Whicker said first on our agenda this evening are the continued petitions for public hearing this evening PP as well as DP Mr. James said if you will recall, this request was heard at the January meeting so I m just going to give you a brief explanation of what they are proposing and then give you a brief summary of what was discussed at the January meeting. The petitioner will need two actions by the Plan Commission tonight. One is for a Primary Plat to create two commercial lots and the other is for Architecture & Site Design Review of a 3,936 square foot gas/convenience market at the proposed northeast corner of Halliburton and U.S. 40. This is the 3.5 acres that is proposed to be primary platted. It is split into two commercial lots. There is a 1.1 acre lot right here at the corner where the gas/ convenience market is proposed. It is currently zoned General Commercial. Just to the northwest you have the Medallion Meadows single-family subdivision that is not in the Town. It is in the County s jurisdiction and is zoned RA, Rural Residential. There is General Commercial down here and right through here is where the Ronald Reagan Parkway is currently under construction. In order to do this proposal they had to do a Development Incentive to reduce the front setbacks off Halliburton and U.S. 40 from 30 feet to about 25 feet. So, the incentive is to increase the perimeter landscaping to go from a Level 1 to a Level 2. The Comprehensive Plan recommends Regional Commercial. Here is the site right in here and here is the Ronald Reagan Parkway Corridor under construction and U.S. 40. Here is the Primary Plat and the two lots. The corner lot is where the gas station is proposed on the 1.1 acres and the remainder of the 3.5 acres parcel. They would have a shared access right here off of U.S. 40. Adequate provisions have been made for access drainage and utilities. DRC recommends approval with stipulations. The DRC did not support a waiver for a pylon sign. Plans have been revised addressing DRC s comments. Some issues last month were the HVAC screening, which that has been addressed. The photometric plan has been addressed. We! 1

2 do have a little light spillage at the entrance, which we feel is acceptable to increase lighting at the entrance for better safety. Here is the site plan for the building. The gas station will have access off of U.S. 40 and it will also have access off of Halliburton. Here is the rendering of the building. It is all brick. They have a variance to allow signage from the front of the canopy to the sides. They also have a variance for the changeable copy sign that will be on the building. This screening has been addressed for the rooftop mechanical units. Here is a plan showing the gate across there. On the photometric plan we show some spillage here but we feel that is appropriate. These are some photographs of the site. Here you see the Ronald Reagan Parkway under construction and here is Halliburton. At the January Plan Commission there were some issues brought up and the issue of most concern was the safety and the impact of the Halliburton/U.S. 40 intersection. It was agreed that the conditions could be made better at the intersection and the gas station could have some negative impacts for access of ingress/egress at the intersection and also the construction of Ronald Reagan Parkway doesn t help things because of the need for a left turn lane. Several Medallion Meadows residents came to the podium and expressed their concerns about the intersection and the impacts. One idea was to re-establish access to the parkway from Bradbury Drive that had been cut off when the parkway went through there. Other issues - were gas stations allowed within the Ronald Reagan Parkway Corridor Master Plan and overlay? The final issue - were pylon signs allowed along the Gateway Corridor based on the sign hierarchy? Considering those issues possible solutions were our Transportation Director, Don McGillem has been in touch with the County Highway Department and they have agreed to a right out from Bradbury Drive to allow access to the Ronald Reagan Parkway and improve ingress/egress at the Halliburton/U.S. 40 intersection. But there still needs to be some type of agreement and we still need to determine when improvements are made and who pays for these improvements. Looking at the Ronald Reagan Corridor Master the Plan Preferred Alternative of the plan recommended commercial uses around the U.S. 40 intersection as it relates to General Commercial zoning. A gas station is allowed in Plainfield s General Commercial District. Regarding the sign issue, as a compromise on the pylon sign, Speedway has proposed one ground sign with a sign surface area of 72 square feet per face and the height would be seven feet and eight and a half inches including the brick base. Here is a rendering of the proposed sign. So, they are proposing just one ground sign instead of the pylon sign or they could have two ground signs but the signs cannot be combined to total more than 100 square feet because that is based on the amount of frontage that they have on Halliburton and U.S. 40. So, as an alternative to two ground signs and a pylon sign they are proposing just this one ground sign. So, with that I will turn it over to Mr. Wocher. He spoke to you last month and Jonathan can fill you in on any details that you might have some questions about. Mr. Jonathan Wocher at 5725 Dragon Way, Suite 220, Cincinnati, OH, said I m a land use planner representing Speedway Marathon on these two applications, both the Primary Plat request and the Development Plan Architecture Review. Mr. James has summarized issues once again for me. I will not go through the discussion debate on the interpretation of sign regulations tonight as I did at the last meeting. I believe at the last meeting we resolved the issues related to lighting or at least presented an issue for resolution on the lighting and on the rooftop mechanical screening issue, which left the signage issue to be resolved. We are proposing this sign based on the comments from the Plan Commission meeting in January. It appeared that you were not inclined to approve the pylon sign so we thought that this would be an appropriate compromise. The height does exceed the ground sign height, which is limited to six feet. We are requesting approval to have seven foot and eight and a half inches so a seven foot and nine inch sign. It is less than the 100 square feet maximum; we are asking the board to approve a 72 square foot sign. This allows us to have a brick base and stay within the sign areas that we feel we need and really it is the base that causes the height difference. But again on this corridor I don t think it will look any different than a regular ground sign in the speeds that they will be traveling. I do have this handout but I think the slide presents it just as well.! 2

3 The other issue that received a fair amount of discussion at the January meeting had to do with the access at Halliburton/U.S. 40. Just a couple of brief comments on that; we recognize that there is an access issue that currently exists. There is a turning conflict issue today without Speedway there and based on what we heard it is anticipated that the Ronald Reagan Parkway construction and opening eventually will acerbate that turning conflict for residents in Medallion Meadows trying to exit. Based on those comments it is my understanding the Town met with the County and the County set a right out access from Bradbury. We have been to the site and they have built a cul-de-sac now where Bradbury terminates. So, there is a threefourths of a cul-de-sac I would say that there still needs to be some paving done to complete that turn. If I understand it correctly, the solution that is being proposed would be some kind of an on ramp. We are calling it a right out but basically a ramp or a drive that would connect that cul-de-sac to Ronald Reagan Parkway. Speedway supports that solution. We are, however, in a delicate situation where we don t really know what that design looks like and don t know exactly what the cost of that solution is. Mr. James was gracious enough to share the Staff Report with us in advance and I believe the recommendation that was presented states that Speedway shall commit to the cost of putting in a right out from Bradbury Drive onto Ronald Reagan Parkway. If I may, I would ask the board to consider this alternative language, which I will pass around. Basically, we are asking a little bit softer language, which would commit Speedway to work with the Town and the County on determining the appropriate fair share cost of that. I will read it for the record. We are asking the Plan Commission to modify condition number six to would be the following Speedway shall commit to continue to work with the Town and the County to determine the appropriate funding for the right out driveway from Bradbury Drive onto Ronald Reagan Parkway and to contribute the mutually agreed upon cost that reflects Speedway s fair share of said improvement. Basically, we just don t think it is appropriate to sign a blank check tonight. We don t know what the cost is. It could be a low number; it could be a high number based on various design issues. I believe that it is agreed that you don t want Speedway to design it and Speedway to build it. I think that is something the County s contractor would do as far as building it and the County s engineer would design it. We think that is the appropriate thing to do because that is what they do and we build gas stations. So, as far as that issue, I think that is the direction the Town is going. We just don t feel it is appropriate to commit to an unknown cost at this point and would ask the Commission to accept this wording or something similar to it that allows us to work with you to determine what is the appropriate funding. So, with that we would ask the Plan Commission to approve the Primary Plat and to approve the Development Plan with the conditions on lighting and screening and the modified sign and this issue to be resolved so that we can continue to work on that. We do want to start construction. We still have some technical permitting that needs to take place and we hope to be in a position to start construction in April. If we are delayed in trying to resolve this, that won t be possible so we think we can resolve this with the County given some more time and work with the Staff directly on that. Ms. Whicker asked, do you have a proposed ground location for that ground sign? Mr. Wocher said we don t at this point. We would want to work with the Staff on that. It is my understanding it has to meet the required setbacks; I believe it is 10 feet. There are some easements that run along the frontage so it is probably going to be near the corner but farther east, if that makes any sense. We would probably slide it a little bit more in front of the store but still generally to the corner. We may need to look at adjusting the landscaping slightly just so that it is not blocking the sign but obviously staying within the required PUD values. Ms. Whicker said I know you are requesting going with a higher sign and I was just thinking of the view from all vehicles and safety. So, you don t have a proposed location? Mr. Wocher said no. We think the pylon sign is the thing that we need but I don t think you are going to approve a pylon sign so we think this is a better alternative. A ground sign would really be a difficult issue for us. Mr. James said they would still have to meet vision clearance requirements with the appropriate sign.! 3

4 Ms. Whicker asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this matter? Ms. Zainal Van Horn at Bradbury Drive said I m just off Halliburton. I just had a few other things that came to my mind between the last meeting and tonight. I would like to be sure that there would be a way for the fire department to give some kind of all clear on the distances between the gasoline pumps and the front doors of the apartment building right across Halliburton. I think the first set of pumps is quite close to the corner to the Halliburton/U.S. 40 corner. That s what it looks like on the drawing. The apartment building really also comes quite close to the edge of the street and the distance right there to make sure if there was an explosion one day. Between the time we met here from the last time on the news there was one gas station with the propane exploded and it had quite a bit of damage. The other concern I have is about the face on Halliburton. Is there a sidewalk for access to walk out? Halliburton is going to become very congested right there with ins and outs both to the gas station and our neighborhood. Would we be able to walk out on that side to continue because I know there is a sidewalk in the front. I know they cut back the setbacks so that leaves less land there. I m just concerned that we would not have a way to walk physically out of the neighborhood. Mr. Wocher said in response to Ms. Van Horn s question in reverse order we do have a sidewalk proposed on Halliburton. That was a requirement of the Town on our side of the street. Regarding her first comment about distances and dimensions I m not aware of any restrictions that she is referring to as far as State code or whatever. We have to go through town fire department review and State fire safety review and will comply with their standards. So, I m not aware of dimensional requirements that guides that but we will comply with State requirements along that line. Ms. Whicker said with no one else coming forward the public portion of this matter is now closed and I will open it up for any discussion from the commission members or a possible motion. Mr. Brandgard said a quick comment relative to the issue on the pumps relative to the location of the street and the apartments. The fire department does do a review and they review all of the plans that are submitted for building to make sure they meet the Indiana fire code, which we support in this Town. I have to agree and I don t know of any distance requirements on that but generally you have a road between the gas station and any buildings. There are a lot of places that you have filling stations right up against other buildings but again that is something the fire department will be looking at when they do their review of the building plans. Ms. Whicker asked, does the Staff have any comments on the change of verbiage for the proposed road? Mr. McPhail said I have a couple of questions I would like to ask Staff. Can we legally approve a ground sign that exceeds the standard height? Mr. James said there are two ways that we can look at it. Is a pylon sign permitted in a General Commercial District? A pylon sign height is 20 feet so we could look at this as a pylon sign and say it meets the requirement under the 20 feet height. Or we can say it is a ground sign and it exceeds the six foot height restriction and it can be approved as maybe an alternative plan or the worse case we have to take it to the BZA to get an approval. Mr. Brandgard said I don t want to approve this as a low lying pylon sign because that allows somebody to come in and put a pylon sign in there, if you approve it as a pylon sign. Mr. McPhail said my other question would be to Mr. McGillem. Do we have any cost estimates on this connecting Bradbury? Mr. McGillem said no we haven t gotten into any design or any cost. (Inaudible).! 4

5 Mr. McPhail said I see that there is just as much advantage to the gas station because otherwise all of their traffic is going to have to end up going west and figure out a way to get back east. So, it is a win, win situation I think and I certainly understand Speedway not wanting to have an open checkbook and I don t want the Town to have an open checkbook either. I was hoping that we would have enough information to put a cap on their contribution or something but I wouldn t have any idea what that would be. Mr. Brandgard said I think what we are saying here is I would like to see that verbiage modified just a little bit where what was given to us tonight is that Speedway shall commit to continue to work with the Town and the County to determine appropriate funding. I would like to change that to Speedway shall commit to reach an agreement with the Town Council to determine the appropriate funding for the right-of-way. The reason that I put it that way is it is a County problem; it is not ours but we also know that the only way it is going to be fixed is if we drive it. Mr. Carlucci said I think you make an excellent point here. On both sides of the old Six Points Road the County s approach has been just to shut it down and not even take into consideration what it was doing to those neighborhoods on either side of U.S. 40. Given that approach this certainly is a solution to get it this far. Mr. Brandgard s point too is that this is really a Council issue and would have to go to the Council for approval. Mr. Kirchoff asked, (inaudible). Mr. Brandgard asked, do you mean the road? Mr. Kirchoff said no the agreement. Mr. Brandgard said yes. I think any approval that we give has to be subject to the agreement being reached. You are not going to get it constructed but we have to have an agreement in place. As he said, he s got two months before he figures he can start construction. If we can t reach an agreement in two months, we are never going to. Mr. Carlucci said back to the issue of signs I think Mr. McPhail may have brought this up about the pylon signs but we argued at the last meeting that it was not a pylon sign on the hierarchy unless I have that wrong. Our position was that it was not a pylon sign, is that correct? Mr. James said the issue was the question whether pylon signs were allowed instead of a ground sign based on the hierarchy. (Inaudible). Mr. Brandgard said I think what we were kind of saying up here is we are not going to approve a pylon sign. Mr. Carlucci said that being the case if it is a ground sign, I ve never known the Plan Commission having any authority to change the requirements of the ordinance that says you have to have so many square footage. Anything above that they will have to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals. I just don t see any way around it. Mr. James said they are okay with the square footage; it is the height. If they want to keep the height at seven feet and eight and a half inches, then they would have to go to the BZA or they can reduce it to six feet. Mr. Carlucci said which includes the brick base. Mr. James said that is right. Mr. Carlucci said it is the base and the sign that has to be six feet but did you say the square footage is okay? Mr. James said yes the square footage is okay. Ms. Whicker asked, would you show that slide one more time? Mr. James said as far as the base, if it is at least two feet, it doesn t count against their square footage but if it is lower than two feet, then it does. No, it s the other way around if it is higher than! 5

6 two feet, it counts for the square footage and if it is lower than two feet, it does not. Mr. McPhail said but still the maximum combined the sign and the base is six feet. Mr. James said it is still six feet. Mr. Brandgard said I guess when I look at this, the sign itself is six feet and the base is approximately one foot and nine inches. Mr. Carlucci said I will go back to my original comment we can t approve it because it has to go to the BZA. Mr. Brandgard said we can approve it subject to the BZA approval. Mr. Wocher said we went through this in pretty good detail last month. You can approve a pylon sign and I clearly showed, as an outlot or a single lot, all the different options the signage that we were allowed. What we are asking the Plan Commission to do on the signage issue is you call this a pylon sign that is limited to seven feet and eight inches, 72 square feet. I don t see where that s a problem. I would agree you can t call it a ground sign because that would be a variance but if you call it a pylon sign, you certainly have the ability to attach conditions and you limit it to the sign that we submitted and I don t see how someone could come in and say you gave them a pylon sign, therefore, you have to give me 20 feet tall. There are different situations, not transferable necessarily. I would agree that you cannot call this a ground sign; that would be giving us a variance but you can certainly call it a pylon and cap it at the height that we submitted and be completely consistent with the regulations, the complicated system that you have adopted. Your hierarchy would be met. Mr. Brandgard said just a comment to your statements there is a filling station to the west of your location that has a ground sign where they normally have a pretty high pylon sign. If we were to approve this as a pylon sign, if they weren t back in wanting a pylon sign, I would think there would be something wrong with the planners. Understand we try and do things on a level basis. Mr. Wocher said I respect that. I think to say that you can have a 100 square foot ground sign, which is one of the alternatives presented to us, that is a maximum six feet tall, and by the way you would like for us to have a brick base on it, which we would be willing to do; which would mean we would have a five foot by 10 foot sign. Dimensionally it doesn t work. I don t know how the gas station to the west could come in. If they want to come in and say hey we deserve another one foot and eight inches, I guess that is something they could argue, I don t know. I don t see the connection there. They have the same setback requirement that we have and the same conditions. Mr. James said let me clarify something. You can approve a pylon sign with the waivers. (Inaudible). If someone else would come in, they would have to get a waiver to have a pylon sign. Mr. McPhail said this is one of the issues that I see. This is the first sign along the Ronald Reagan Parkway we have been asked to approve and we have said with that overlay we are not going to allow pylon signs. If we approve this one, we have set a precedent that anybody can come in and ask for a pylon sign. The next guy is going to want eight foot six and the next one is going to want eight foot nine and then you are going to be to 20 feet. It is either a pylon sign or a ground sign in my mind. Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible). Mr. McPhail said I think it is a matter of setting a precedent that I don t want to defend next week or next month. They could go to the BZA for a variance for the height of a ground sign. That would be the normal procedure. Mr. Wocher said you have real issues with the way your regulations are written and you have a hierarchy set up that says pylon signs were permitted and then you are saying they are not permitted and then you are saying if you are an integrated center, which the Town would like to call us at some point during the review, then we are allowed a pylon sign but then if we are a single use site, which you! 6

7 would like to call us during another part of the review, then we are only allowed a ground sign. I mean the sign regulations are going right to left and right to left and we think we have proposed a fair compromise that I think is defensible. Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible). want. Mr. Wocher said I don t think I m going to get the sign that I Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible). Mr. Wocher said yes. Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible). Mr. Brandgard said subject to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Kirchoff said we can t do it but you are going to get that sign through the BZA. that. Mr. Wocher said if that is part of the motion, we are all for Mr. Carlucci said it can t be a part of the motion. Mr. Wocher said, of course, it can t be part of the motion. Mr. Brandgard said it can be subject to the BZA approval. Mr. Carlucci said you can technically meet every requirement of the ordinance and Development Plan Approval. The Plan Commission is never obligated to approve it. They may have different opinions about colors and schemes and stuff that they think would be inappropriate, not only on a Gateway Corridor, but also on the Ronald Reagan Parkway. So, as you continue to argue for those things, and you should because that is what your company wants you to do, but the Plan Commission can reject it all and say you need to go back and start over on the whole site. So, I think they are trying to be accommodating here but they don t have to approve anything. It is not automatic. Mr. Kirchoff made a motion that the Plan Commission approve PP as filed by Marathon Petroleum Company requesting approval of a Primary Plat to divide and create two commercial lots from 3.5 acres finding that: 1. Adequate provisions have been made for regulation of minimum lot width, minimum lot depth and minimum lot area. 2. Adequate provisions have been made for the widths, grades, curves and coordination of subdivisions public ways with current and planned public ways. 3. Adequate provisions have been made for the extension of water, sewer, and other municipal services. And that such approval shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Town Standards, including but not limited to: Plainfield Ordinance 1-96 regarding Floodplain Management; Plainfield Ordinance Nos and 3-86 regarding Sewage Works; Plainfield Ordinance No regarding Drainage; Plainfield Ordinance No regarding Municipal Waterworks and Plainfield Ordinance No regarding access Permits. 2. Compliance with the standards and specifications of the Plainfield Subdivision Control Ordinance. 3. All necessary easements as determined by the Town Engineer shall be incorporated into any Secondary Plat prior to approval and recording. Second by Mr. McPhail. Roll call vote called. Mr. Matrana yes Mr. McPhail yes Mr. Brandgard yes Mr. Gibbs yes Mr. Kirchoff yes Ms. Whicker yes! 7

8 6-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried. Mr. Brandgard made a motion that the Plan Commission approve DP as filed by Jonathan Wocher requesting Architectural & Site Design Review approval of an approximately 3,936 square feet of a Speedway gas/convenience market at 3066 E. Main St. with 600 feet of a Gateway Corridor finding that: 1. The Development Plan complies with all applicable Development Standards of the District in which the site is located. 2. The Development Plan complies with all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Control Ordinance for which a waiver has not been granted. 3. The Development Plan complies with all applicable provisions for Architectural and Site Design Review for which a waiver has not been granted. 4. The proposed development is appropriate to the site and its surroundings. 5. The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance. And that such approval be subject to the following conditions: 1. Substantial compliance with colored rendering, landscaping plan and trash enclosure details file dated December 1, Site plan submitted with ILP shall be revised to show location of proposed outdoor display of seasonal items such as salt and mulch. Outdoor display shall not encroach into setbacks or vision clearance areas and shall allow for safe maneuvering on site. 3. Substantial compliance with light fixtures file dated December 27, Building elevations submitted with ILP shall be revised to show that rooftop mechanical equipment is fully screened. 5. Signs for spandrels, pumps and pump bollards shall be limited in use. 6. Speedway shall commit to reach an agreement with the Town Council to determine the appropriate funding for the right out driveway from Bradbury Drive onto Reagan Parkway and to contribute to the mutually agreed upon cost that would reflect Speedway s fair share of said improvements. 7. The ground sign, as presented, is approved subject to BZA approval and site location approval by the Staff. Second by Mr. Gibbs. Roll call vote called. Mr. Matrana yes Mr. McPhail yes Mr. Brandgard yes Mr. Gibbs yes Mr. Kirchoff yes Ms. Whicker yes 6-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried. Mr. Brandgard said for those of you tonight that are residents of Medallion Meadows I m speaking both from the Plan Commission and from the Town Council to tell you that I have heard the term and I have seen it written of being second-class citizens. From the Town s standpoint I want you to understand that we do take your needs into consideration as we do our planning in and around the area in which you live. It is not our intent for you to be second-class citizens. Although at times it seems like you are it is not Plainfield s intent for that to happen and we appreciate you coming in and letting us know what your thoughts and concerns are out there and we will try and help work with you to get them corrected. Ms. Sprague said tonight I wanted to present to you the Development Plan for the Indiana Members Credit Union. It is located on the northeast corner. It will be located on the northeast side of Stafford Road and SR267. It was primary platted as Stafford Crossing awhile ago and all they need to do is secondary plat their lots in order to get that approved out there. One of the main considerations that we have at this point for that site is that their entrance needs to coincide with the entrance to the south. That looks like they are! 8

9 going to need an off site easement to get access to that entrance on Stafford Road. The site is surrounded basically by General Commercial. Marsh is across the street. The south side is the new Plainfield Commerce Center and to the north I think is a sub station but is zoned General Commercial. Stafford Road and SR267 are both Gateway Corridors so all sides of their property need to comply and they do. They did use a development incentive for reduction in depth of yards, which is now a Staff approval for the west side and they have increased their landscaping to accommodate that. They went to DRC twice. It was just a little bit of an update that they needed to do and they have approved all of those. This is what the building would look like in the front. On December 12 th DRC recommended approval with a couple of stipulations that the petitioner has provided new plans for. They had a secondary material that was just split face concrete block and they changed that to a granite. All the plans comply with the Gateway Corridor standards and then the shared drive is the main issue maybe for the petitioner and as far as the Town is concerned for this property. Here is the site plan. The entrance that comes back over here is not on the site plan from this view. Here are the elevations. They are a little hard to read in black and white. Here is the landscape plan and that complies. With that I would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Bob Beaman said I m the petitioner/design architect. We have met with DRC on a couple of different occasions to make sure that we had a building that was appropriate to your standards. I believe we have worked that out, everything from lighting to exterior finishes. The secondary plat is being filed by the owner of the whole development currently. And then the access to the drive; this is lot one; lot two is the next one over, which is where the current access is at today. That is being moved and relocated farther to the east and we have been assured by Greg Allen, who is the developer, that they are aware of that. They are going to be working with the drive and getting an access agreement across there. As it sits today, we would still have access to this drive, which would give us a right turn out and a right turn in but the left turn access would be closed to that drive and we are aware of that. I think that is the only issue. We resolved the landscaping and the lighting and I think everything else is in agreement. Mr. Kirchoff asked, are you talking about the shared drive? Mr. Beaman said it is a shared drive anyway but it is being relocated to the east. I think there are three lots in that Stafford Crossing development. Mr. McPhail said you will have the shared drive plus a right in/ right out is that correct? Mr. Beaman said as I understand it now I don t believe they are taking the drive out that is there now but they are just adding another one farther to the east that would have a right turn/left turn, as I understand it. Ms. Whicker asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this matter? Being no one coming forward I will close the public portion of the matter and open it up for discussion or a possible motion. Mr. Kirchoff asked, what kind of spacing are we talking about? Are we talking about multiple accesses off of Stafford? Mr. McGillem said the right in/right out as they indicated is where the current opening is, which is being closed by the development to the south. (Inaudible). Mr. McPhail said the right in/right out will be shared also right? Because they have the far west lot and there will be one east of you and then one east of that. Mr. Gibbs made a motion that the Plan Commission approve DP as filed by R. Beaman Associates requesting Architectural & Site Design Review approval of an approximately 3,139 square feet credit union at approximately 799 Quaker Boulevard finding that:! 9

10 1. The Development Plan complies with all applicable development standards of the district in which the site is located. 2. The Development plan complies with all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Control Ordinance for which a waiver has not been granted. 3. The Development Plan complies with all applicable provisions for Architectural & Site Design Review for which a waiver has not been granted. 4. The proposed development is appropriate to the site and its surroundings. 5. The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance. And that such approval be subject to the following conditions: 1. Substantial compliance with the site plan, building elevations, colored rendering, sign plan, light fixtures, photometric plan and landscaping plan file dated December 15, Second by Mr. Kirchoff. Roll call vote called. Mr. Matrana yes Mr. McPhail yes Mr. Brandgard yes Mr. Gibbs yes Mr. Kirchoff yes Ms. Whicker yes 6-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried. Ms. Whicker said our next petition is PUD Oak Tree development by Bay Communities. This is the Mr. James said this request is for a rezone to a mixed use, active adult, lifestyle community PUD. It is currently zoned RA, Rural Residential. The location would be around the Oak Tree Golf Course on the west side of Town. The Oak Tree Golf Course is on both sides of the CR500E and south of the Vandalia Trail. Bay Development is the developer and Centex Homes would be the homebuilder. What they are proposing is about 992 units on 266 acres for a proposed density of 3.7 units per acre. They would have five areas and each area would have a different dwelling type and density with different models. At the center of the development would be what they call their village center, which is the area in red. It would be like a small town center as a focal point for the community, a gathering place. In Area A they are proposing multi-family or triplexes. In Area B would be smaller detached units with a lot width of I believe of 46 feet. In Area C, which would have the most number of units, it would have 52 foot wide lots and then Area D would be their largest lots at 90 feet with what they call a Rivera detached unit. Also in Area E they are proposing perhaps some condos that would be stacked flats within the village center so there are five different housing types and five different densities with the village center as a focal point. It is an active adult lifestyle community with a specific market. They are targeting baby boomers that are reaching retirement age. The golf course would not be part of the development but residents of the community would be able to use the golf course. This will be an age restrictive community. That means a minimum of 20% of the dwellings would be restricted to individuals at the age of 55 years and older. I also wanted to point out that in the village center there would be about 16,000 square feet is what they are proposing. There s a recreation center and maybe some shops and some retail and maybe some dining, a pub within this village center. Also, there will be a place for an auditorium facility where they could hold special events and things like that. So, this is a unique proposal. There has been one done in the Indianapolis area. It is being developed in Fishers right now. It s the Del Webb product, if you have heard of the Del Webb type of community. So, they have a specific market that they are going after. With this comes some positives but also we still have what we believe are some negatives with the density and positives would be less impacts to the school system. In fact, there would be no impacts to the school system because there shouldn t be any school age kids in here. There are less traffic impacts. They say this would only generate about 25%! 10

11 of the traffic that a normal traditional single-family development would generate. There would be less rush hour traffic because a lot of these residents wouldn t be going to work. There would be less water and sewer impacts and they say even less crime impacts so there wouldn t have to be as many police officers patrolling this area. Surrounding this proposal we have Saratoga over here, a Saratoga PUD with different densities that ranges in densities from two units per acre all the way to four units per acre with Kensington. You ve got Yorktown and then the Paddock at 3.3 units per acre so Saratoga is similar. It has different densities. The Comprehensive Plan recommends medium-density east of CR500 and then as we go to the west away from the urban center, it recommends lower density. Mediumdensity is about 1.5 to 4 units per acre and low-density would be about a half unit to two units per acre. They are also proposing a trail path system throughout the community to help promote an active lifestyle. It would be a no maintenance community. That means for a monthly fee they will take care of most of the maintenance throughout the community. Most density is with the attached triplex and the village center and then the smaller lots being east of CR500 and it will be less dense with the larger lots on the west side of CR500E. This is a unique proposal. When we compare this to our Zoning Ordinance and development standards in the Zoning Ordinance, there are some differences because the Zoning Ordinance was created for your traditional single-family residential development and not a community like this. That can also be said for the residential design guidelines. Those were created for your traditional single-family so when you compare the development standards and the design guidelines, we have to be flexible because of this specific type of community. We compared their models and housing types with our residential design guidelines and we think most of the models comply with the design guideline standards. Mr. Kirchoff asked, (inaudible). Mr. James said all except for three, three or four out of 20 to 30 models. Area D complies with the garage size standards of 484 square feet. Only Area D complies with the ratio less than 40% because Area D is proposed as a side load garage. For the vinyl standards they are proposing plywood or OSB or hard surface to take advantage of the item six for vinyl siding. The traffic impact study has been done but even though it is going to generate less traffic than your traditional single-family development we think improvements would still be needed to CR500E and most importantly at the intersection of U.S. 40. It was continued by the DRC. Issues were they would like time to review the ordinance. No landscaping or trail concept plans have been submitted. They are proposing street widths of 26 feet back to back to curb. The Town standard is 30 feet. Mr. Carlucci said you might explain the reason of what they want to do on the street and the parking. Mr. James said they would like to do parking on one side and use street trees and by using the smaller street width they have a larger planting area and less conflicts with sanitary sewer and sewer pipes. This is a comparison of the development standards. There are some differences comparing it to similar zoning districts; setbacks, front setbacks, lot widths and minimum lot area. This is the matrix that we did during the housing elevations to our residential design guidelines. Out of all of these just these four right here don t comply. Mr. Carlucci asked, was that four out of 60 elevations? Mr. James said I m not sure of the total number. Mr. Carlucci said but those four could also represent 50% of the houses built, is that correct? Is that possible? It is one thing to say that there are four elevations that don t meet the requirement but that could also be elevations that are mostly built out there too. Mr. James said it is possible. More Staff comments: most models have at least 50% brick on the front facades but no models are proposed with brick wraps. Like I said fewer impacts for the traffic, school! 11

12 impacts, crime, water, sanitary sewer. Road improvements will be needed to CR500E and U.S. 40. With the Beazer plan we have a trailhead for the Vandalia Trail but no trailhead proposed with this proposal. Are the architectural standards adequate enough to provide resale value and create a sustainable community? We have no landscaping or trail path concept plans. Once we get those we would like to take them back to DRC to get their approval. Along CR500E are additional architecture elements required? The amount of open space has not been provided. Compared to similar communities the amount of open space is inadequate and similar communities are less dense and lot size, lack of open space translates into higher density. This is a table that I did comparing other active adult communities that have been done. These are all Del Webb communities. I compared them just to see the density was, open space, what type of amenities they offered. I could only get density for two. That was one done over at Fishers, which is called Brick Falls. They are about at a 3.2 units per acre. Then there is one around Chicago that was at 2.27 units per acre and then you have Oak Tree proposed at 3.73 units per acre. Square footage of the homes start at 1,900. It is just a minimum. I believe they go all the way up to 2,700 square feet. Staff concerns are lack of open space, which means higher density and the development is very compact and there is a lot size concern and then with a no maintenance is there really justification for smaller garages? No landscaping and trail path concept plans have been provided. We would certainly like to take a look at those. We want to take it back to DRC so that we can get their recommendation. Only a minimum of 20% of the building will be age restricted. Is it going to stay at 20%? What is going to happen to the other 80%? Does that mean a family could go in there and buy a home? Are the architecture standards enough to provide for a good resale value creating a sustainable community? Lack of brick is a concern. Maybe we could wrap the corners or at least along CR500E to do something to it to enhance those lots. What are the scope of road improvements needed for CR500E and the U.S. 40 intersection? Hopefully, I have given you a good summary of this request and I would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Jon Isaacs is here representing Centex. He would be glad to answer any questions that you might have and Bruce Sklare is here representing Bay Development. Mr. Bruce Sklare with Bay Development Corporation said we were here at your last meeting on a Wishes to be heard. Very shortly Jon Isaacs will speak, as Mr. James said, and what Jon is going to talk about is taking the PUD ordinance that was submitted and highlighting a number of the distinguishing characteristics of this community that are different from a standard residential development that you see. A key point is to have an annexation of the Elks Golf Course and I had hoped tonight to have a document in hand that would achieve that. I don t have it but we are working towards it but that is a key element for us to have that accomplished. I also do not want to sound argumentative but I do not believe that things are as bad in terms of what Mr. James went through during his discussion. Actually, this is a different development than what has been presented to Plainfield before. I want to make a suggestion, which you can do with it as you deem fit but given the differences and uniqueness of this community as opposed to taking an hour and a half or two hours here to go through it, which really I think is what is justified to really go through the issues and to talk out how the standards that we are asking to do fit this development, as opposed to a standard development, I would ask that you set up a subcommittee that we could meet with and go through the entire PUD ordinance. And explain and have discussion back and forth about that and come back to this commission next month for further discussion. I will leave it at that and what I would like to do, as you listen to Jon go through the highlights going through the PUD ordinance and explaining how this is different, I think you will see how maybe that may be appropriate to do. Mr. Jonathan Isaacs said I m the Land Entitlement Manager for Centex locally here in Indianapolis at 8440 Allison Pointe, Indianapolis, IN Briefly I just want to run through this and I will take about 10 minutes or so and run through the active adult community that we are proposing. I will highlight some of the unique characteristics that we can identify with. Hopefully, when we get done here, like Bruce said, perhaps move to a committee discussion type situation where we can dig a little deeper.! 12

13 What makes Oak Tree community different is for one we are looking at an active adult community. The center of the active adult community is a themed village concept that Centex is developing. This is the most important part of our community. It is part of a multi million dollar investment by Centex Homes for the commitment to construct the first phase of this village center in this development. We will have park areas throughout the community typically centered around amenities and open space throughout the community. Mr. James mentioned a minimum of 20% of the residents will need to be age qualified. That is a commitment that we are making in the ordinance. The minimum number of the area would be for age qualified at age 55 and older. The balance of the community is targeted to that buyer type. Not all buyers in that buyer type want to live in an exclusive age restricted community. So, we are going to set up areas in the neighborhood that would be age restricted only verses age targeted. How do you get to age targeted? Age targeted plans are typically all range plans. So, this community will have 100% ranch plans in it. The only exception to that is some of the plans will be offered a second story loft, roughly 400 square feet of area that is not a second story but the living area would be on the main floor and then the loft area. That would be the only modification to that. All come with standard nine foot ceilings with six foot tall windows. That is something that we have asked the DRC to consider adding into the design guideline criteria to allow a six foot window with a nine foot ceiling as the equivalent of like a transom window, which is identified in the ordinance. Also, Mr. James mentioned the three house plans that did not meet the requirements. Those three house plans, if we take a look at them, and I will lay them out, all three of those plans have a hip roof structure. If we were to put a normal gable roof on it, all of them have a reverse gable to the front elevation, which would qualify but because it is a hip roof the gable is not being counted. So, it is not that they have any less architectural desire to them but it is the way that the ordinance would be interpreted. Walking trails; we will have three miles of walking trails throughout this community with three connection points to the Vandalia Trail. There will be connectivity to the Oak Tree Golf Course via an agreement to be established between the Elks Club and Bay Development to annex the golf course to the Town and preserving the golf course in perpetuity. There will be exterior maintenance for the attached products in this neighborhood. In addition to that all the other yards and all of the other product types will be full yard maintenance provided by the HOA for all homes in Oak Tree development. That is how we can separate ourselves from a standard development to age restricted or age targeted because the typical household with four kids cannot afford to pay the monthly maintenance fees for that service. There will be no school children or virtually no school children in this community, which results in a positive impact on the schools via tax dollars with no school kids coming to them. Also, there are substantially fewer people per household in an active adult community and fewer vehicle trips per day in this proposal from others that you have seen on this site in the past. So, who is our buyer? Different from a conventional neighborhood active adults want to be near their children and grandchildren. The past generation of active adults were considered the silent generation. They wanted to move away to Florida or to Phoenix and be left alone. The boomer generation is an active generation in the grandchildren s lives. They want them to sleepover. They want to be able to go to the aquatic center. They want to take them shopping and take them to restaurants. They attend sporting events including the Superbowl champs, the Colts. More active adult communities are being built in cold weather climates for this very reason. So, what about our buyer? Our buyer, at the time of move in, generally 70% of them will still be working. They are generally 55 years of age or older. However, they are desiring that lifestyle, that resort style lifestyle, that you find in the south in those active adult communities. These people have more time on their hands. They have already raised their children. They volunteer regularly in the community. Again, they are family orientated. They desire the low maintenance living. So, there is no! 13