TOWN OF PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION

April 5, 2005

The Plainfield Plan Commission met on Monday, April 5, 2005. In attendance were Mr. Thibo, Mr. Matrana, Mr. McPhail, Mr. Brandgard, Ms. Whicker, Mr. Kirchoff and Mr. Haase.

ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM

Mr. Carlucci administered the roll call.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

MINUTES

Mr. Thibo made a motion to approve the March 7, 2005 Plan Commission minutes as submitted. A second was made. Motion carried.

OATH OF TESTIMONY

Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Testimony.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Mr. Haase reviewed the Guidelines Governing the Conduct of Public Hearings.

The first item up here would be RZ-05-001, Denison Partners, LLC. Mr. Valanzano said the first request we have is for a rezoning. The area that is affected by the rezoning is right here at I-70 and SR267. It comes down and then curves and goes out this way to Mooresville. This is the first intersection off of I-70, CR700S. The area that is affected, you can make out this white outline coming through here, this one parcel north of CR700. And then it follows the line of CR700 and jogs around one piece of property that is owned by the Guilford Township. It was bought years ago for a firehouse. It continues along the frontage of CR700 to where it turns to CR825E. It just has the front first parcel at the corner of CR825 and then goes back behind the residences there to the creek and back over to SR267. That outlines the property.

The property south of CR700 is here subject to an annexation request as well. With the annexation request they are requesting rezoning to the GC classification.

The parcel to the north of CR700 is already within the Town limits. When that was annexed, it was annexed into the Town in the AG District and they are requesting that to go from AG to the GC District.

When the petition was initially filed, we looked at the Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Plan, as indicated by the map that is on the front of your Staff Reports, recommends commercial development for the frontage of the property along SR267. And then it calls for residential development on the west half of the property along CR825 and basically splits the property in half. When this property came in initially, I suggested considering where the road would turn, there would be a corner situation there. Having that one finger of property going out along CR700 to where it made the turn to CR825 I talked to the petitioner about doing some sort of buffering to respect the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan. They have submitted an amendment to the petition that takes this corner of the property that lines up with the back of these residential lots along CR825, that tip, would be zoned to the Office District classification and provide a transition to residential properties located west of CR825. So, you would have the residential property, the CR825, the Office District on the corner that would allow for less intense uses and then the General Commercial District would pick up behind these residential properties where the subject lot gets deeper and then goes over to SR267.

One of the things that I would like to point out to everybody in the room, to understand what is going on, is the process that we are here with tonight is for a rezoning recommendation as a part of the annexation request. There are two other steps that require a public hearing before a development on this property can go forward. Most

! 1

likely there is a 99% chance that the property will have to be platted and go through the subdivision process. The only potential exception for that is if it came in as one user for all 21 acres and it was done as one lot. In which case you might not have the subdivision regulations automatically kicking in. But then we also have the development plan requirement that is established in the ordinance that gives the Plan Commission architectural and site design review for anything that would be built on this property. Or any General Commercial District within 600 feet of a Gateway Corridor, which SR267 is as well as within 600 feet of a Residential District. This whole property is going to get incorporated or encompassed by the requirement of architectural and site design review before anything can be built there. That would require a public notice to all surrounding property owners. There would be an opportunity at that time to see specific development plans of what is going on and specific input and adjustments to a plan can be accommodated at that point and time.

I have received some phone calls from some neighbors on this particular project. The concerns basically focused on what the use of the property will be. As indicated at this point and time, it is unknown. The petitioner has not given any indication to us that they have a specific user in mind. They are just trying to get the annexation and zoning in place. They have indicated and we have confirmed this that the property is zoned C-4 for Highway Business under the current County zoning. Annexing it into the Town our ordinance puts it down at an AG District unless otherwise requested at the time of annexation, which is what they have done. They have asked for the GC, which is the Town of Plainfield’s comparable district to the C-4 that is already in place under the County zoning.

I want to make one correction to the Staff Report. In the table where I summarized the Comprehensive Plan’s recommendations the property to the west of this site is recommended for Low-Density Residential and not commercial development.

I would also like to note on the Staff Report in the recommended motion under Staff Comments, Questions and Concerns under the third item, where we talked about the potential commitments, we have talked to the petitioner about either providing a commitment that they will subdivide the property or go through the subdivision process even if it is only for a one lot subdivision. So, that we can address the utility and infrastructure concerns, which would allow us to address the improvements to CR700, the appropriate extension of water and sewer lines and other utilities as part of the development of this site. It also allows us to provide for the potential extension of roadway connections to the other areas to the south of this parcel that are also recommended for commercial development that are opened and available at this point and time. Since SR267 is a limited access right-of-way coming down on the east side other properties won’t have the opportunity to get any access off there. So, we have that property to the south. If you try to follow the Comprehensive Plan’s recommendations, you would need to provide access to those properties through some means. One of those means would be through this property. Again, in a subdivision control one of the main elements of the subdivision control is to provide a street network, an access network to be able to get to properties so that you don’t have landlocked properties. So, there are several things going on there. We are requesting the petitioner to go through the subdivision process. If that is not to happen, there are three conditions that we have listed in terms of dedication of right-of-way and responsibilities for roadway improvements and water and sewer extensions. The only thing that we need to clarify there at the end of the first line on the public sewer and water lines where they would be extended across the development is to clarify that as being from SR267 to the east right-of-way of CR825. That would take care of the entire frontage of that property, at least that length, which is normally what we look at through the platting process.

Just to let you know Staff has looked at or thought about not having anything specific in mind yet in terms of a particular development plan. We have looked at some way that we could provide some transition and buffering in addition to the Office District. I just want to throw a couple of thoughts on the table to let you know what you might expect to hear from us in the future and also to give the neighbors some idea of the things that we would be looking at to try to provide protections in the future. One of those would be to be able to service this area from a traffic network point of view most like CR700 would need to be improved to a three-lane cross-section,

! 2

westbound and eastbound lane and a center turn lane. When you get to the western portion of that site as you near CR825, if you get past the last access point into the commercial development, assuming that happens, there wouldn’t be the need for the continuation of a third lane. At that point you would be able to put a median in there. One of the things that we thought about would be to ask the developer that we have here tonight to put up some sort of stonewall or fence or some type of structure on his side of the road. We will deal with whoever would come in on the north side of the road and do the same thing. Then the median, as part of the road improvement process, maybe put in a monument type structure that we can identify the name of the subdivision to the west. As people are approaching, you would have a very specific visual barrier that you are now getting to a residential section and this is no longer a commercial section of road. Doing that as part of a roadway improvement we can really isolate traffic. We have thrown around other ideas where CR700 comes in and it turns to CR825 possibly working that intersection out as a traffic circle where you can design the radius in there so that you can strongly discourage truck traffic just by maneuverability. Again, to isolate commercial traffic and truck traffic on the improved three-lane cross-section portion of CR700 out to SR267. So, we have some ideas depending on what the development proposal is. How we implement those ideas or what form they would take are obviously going to be different at that point and time. I just wanted to let you know that we have thought about that in light of the Comprehensive Plan’s recommendations. With that I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Mr. Thibo asked, did DRC take a look at this?

Mr. Valanzano said no. It is just a rezoning at this point and time. Since we don’t have any specific plans for development there really wasn’t anything to bring to DRC for them to look at.

Mr. Mac McNaught said I represent Denison Partners. Mr. Valanzano is very detailed so I will give a little bit of my prospective as the petitioner. My guess is being the first south of I-70 off of SR267 might create some questions and I think there are some neighbors here. We have had some conversations and hopefully a good exchange of information.

There are a couple of things very apparent to you. One is this area is in a noise abatement, in fact, a buyout area. So, as you look at residential use and think about residential use and look at the Comprehensive Plan that HNTB recommended, I think you need to put it in context that this is a noise abatement area. As you know, the airport authority maintains a demonstration house opposite this property to show folks how various window systems and insulation systems can work. It is pretty strong evidence of the discouragement by the airport authority to continue residential use or expanded residential use.

So, as Mr. Valanzano outlined our reaction in meeting with Staff and the TAC review committee was to take the western portion, the outline in red that you see in the aerial, I think the first suggestion was to make the commitment that it would be only office uses. And then I think that it was felt that it would be much stronger to actually do a separate legal description and designate that for Office District and respect the boundary that has been created by the residential.

I think the overriding thought as we assembled this property and began thinking about the intersection with CR700, which is the first opening south of I-70, is that the current County zoning for this area and the area to the north and wrapping around to the west along I-70 is all C-4. Again, I think you have a handout that shows that C-4 zoning extending even north and over. That C-4 zoning extends to CR825. In doing our map we stopped it at or property but it does extend to CR825. As Mr. Valanzano indicated, the one corner property at CR700 is zoned AG and that was a change. That was zoned C-4 under the County and was a change that was brought about through the earlier annexation of the Williamson property and then that strip along the west side of SR267.

In terms of the Staff Report and recommendations we can live with either of the recommendations. Number one that we will follow the full Subdivision Control Ordinance process, if that is the preference here. Or if you prefer the three specific commitments, we can live with that as well.

As I listened to the Staff’s suggestions that would likely surface and then be flushed out in detail, upon the more detailed

! 3

review through the Design Review process and by being both within 600 feet of a Residential District and a Gateway Corridor, the three-lane cross-section I think makes a lot of sense. We have done a full traffic study, as requested by the TAC committee. That has been reviewed by Mr. McGillem so we have the benefit of that traffic study and understand that a three-lane section would be appropriate. Of course, the State would control the warrant of a traffic light. If you look at that intersection today, making a left turn out of there is pretty tough. You need at some point a traffic light. We understand that the State has its own means and methods of determining that.

The other comment about a stone wall or fence to strongly identify the transition from commercial to residential makes sense. Again, as those details come forward, we would be glad to accomplish that as well. I would be glad to answer any questions.

Mr. Haase said at this time I will open up this hearing to anyone in the audience who has any questions about this public hearing.

Ms. Pat Jordan at 8096 Redbud Ct. said I moved to Plainfield about five and a half years ago from Wyoming and I have lived in Redbud Ct. in Sycamore Estates about four years. I chose to live in this area probably pretty much because of the same reasons that my neighbors do. It’s a low crime area. It has a rural feel to it. It’s close to the interstate. We can pretty much get anywhere in Central Indiana by just going out of our development. But while we live there it feels like we are isolated and away from the rest of the world. There are approximately 160 homes in the neighborhood that has to do with Cottonwood, Redbud Ct., Black Oak and Timber Wood. It is a very diverse neighborhood. The housing property values range from about $150,000.00 to $300,000.00. We are diverse as far as religion goes and as far as age. We have young, new families coming to the neighborhood and people who are retired. It is a great place to live. I love living there and we understand I think that development is going to happen. What we hope is that the development helps the developer make money and improves our neighborhood but most importantly doesn’t affect our housing values, our property values and doesn’t affect the quality of our life. We, I believe, know our neighborhood the best of anybody because we live there and we go in and out of there everyday and we know what the shortcomings are and what the attributes are.

The first thing that has been somewhat addressed is the traffic patterns in the area. If you drive, correct me if I say the roads wrong because I have no sense of direction, and turn off of SR267 onto CR700 and you come around the sharp right-angled turn, all it takes is a few times down there and you will see the signs knocked down. The one resident who is right here, right after Cottonwood, there is continuance tracks in their yard due to the people that miss that curve all of the time. In addition, coming north on CR825 when you come north on CR825 and you get to approximately Black Oak, in order to make a left-hand turn you basically have to stop. There is a dip in the road there and there is no visual to see the people coming around the corner. I don’t know how you would engineer out of that sharp right-hand curve and then also in addition make concessions for increased traffic.

The other problem is turning left, as was mentioned, off of CR700 onto SR267 to get onto the interstate. A lot of us, when we are not in the mood in the morning, go around to the light. The light is a great improvement from no light before but since there isn’t a left-hand turn signal there, it’s only by the grace of the nice people from Mooresville that anybody ever gets to turn left. So, that would need to be improved.

From what we understand also SR267 is going to be extended south to the Heartland Crossing area and probably I would assume would go there. That would in some way elevate the traffic coming off of CR825 and going south on Indiana Street.

The other problem is that coming off of I-70, if you come home in the evening from Indianapolis going west on I-70 and get off at the exchange, the exchange comes off the interstate as virtually one lane and ends up as three, one going north and two going south at the light. I just don’t know how that is going to bear any more traffic either because in the summer already most of the times you are slowed down out to the half-mile and mile sign off of I-70. So, something needs to be done also for more traffic to go that way too.

! 4

As far as the quality of life issue goes, we are close to the interstate. We have the airport noise going over the top of us, which has been abated really well by the improvements that the airport has done to our homes. But there are quite a few trees in our area and if you cut down all of the trees and don’t leave a tree buffer, I’m not just talking about a nice pretty grassy berm but a buffer of trees, people especially on Cottonwood are going to be affected by noise. If the trees are gone, there is not going to be any broken site to whatever would be developed there.

The solution would be not to stop development but to do it with the thought of us who live back there in mind. We would like to see some commercial shopping that we would be able to walk to from our neighborhood, kind of a small town atmosphere. It would be nice if some developer would come in and create like a downtown Zionsville kind of feeling at a modern level.

The biggest thing that was talked about among the neighbors was that the only solution to this traffic issue was to cut off CR700 from CR825 at the curve. In other words, dead-end CR700 at the curve so that the commercial traffic can come in and go either north or south into whatever ends up being developed there and not ever come around past the homes there. And then those of us who live there are either going to get out by going through the light at the corner of CR825 and SR267 or by going the other direction through Black Oak and out to Center Street.

We would like to very much keep any service stations and so forth on the east side of SR267. I worked for the State of Wyoming and a pollution prevention coordinator was my last job with them for many years. For every story about underground storage tanks that you can tell me how safe they are I can tell you five when humans and machines didn’t work. The creek that was mentioned back there I would hate very much for us to have that contaminated with underground leakage, etc. We are also concerned about the fact that because it is all natural land, woods or whatever you want to call it, that at some point there is going to have to be some storm water plan to go with this development. You are going to asphalt over acres and acres of land that is absorbing and taking water away from the creeks that run in between all of the homes here. We would prefer not to be put into a floodplain based on pavement being everywhere because that is going to double or triple our homeowners insurance with having to buy flood insurance. By people who have lived here a long time we have never seen the creek run over. It has come pretty high but never over the bank. We are concerned about what that runoff will do. So, we would really appreciate a very extensive study of that storm water runoff system. That also affects the quality of our life and not just the fact monetarily not being in a floodplain but also most of us are on wells and on septic systems that can gravely affect our quality of life in the neighborhood.

Along where some of us would think that you would cut off CR700 from CR825 it would be really nice if there would be a green area or a bike path or whatever so that those of us who live over there can get a soda, sandwich, etc. when the weather is nice. That would also be the buffer between the commercial area and the residential area. So, that there is no pass-thru on that street at all.

Pretty much we are not saying don’t rezone and don’t annex it into the city, we are just saying please remember that there is quite a few of us who live back here and many of us have been here a long time, much longer than my five years. We would hate to have our quality of life destroyed just for the sake of development.

Mr. Haase said I know the Town has no control over I-70 and the developer would probably not have any control. That is all a State function. The runoff of water Mr. Belcher can speak to that.

Mr. Belcher said it has been spoken to tonight that there is another whole process that this project would go through, if it goes forward with the rezoning and the developer comes back with a project. The storm water plan that you mentioned needs to be done and it would have to be done before seeing another project. There would have to be a plan in place at the next public hearing so that you would know exactly what the plan is.

Mr. Haase asked, what is the runoff?

! 5

Mr. Belcher said there is a comparison done between the current ground surface and what runs off in its current state and the developed property and the two have to match. There has to be a way to control that. You have seen ponds but there are different methods used. Both storm water quantity and the quality, both issues, would be looked at for future development.

Mr. Haase said this is already zoned commercial in the County so we are really not changing any zoning that isn’t already in place. The developer or any developer could go through the County and already be developing it. So, nothing is really changing as far as the type of product that can go on there.

Ms. Jordan said we have heard that the Town is more stringent than the County, which is a good thing.

Mr. Haase said that would be my belief. We are not really changing anything that isn’t already existing there. It would just be brought into the City for the City to oversee, I can speak to that.

Mr. Brandgard said almost every point that you brought up are things that we look at as we approve developments. Again, this is a rezoning hearing and not an approval of what is going to go on there. But your thoughts of closing CR700 we really can’t do that because of fire protection and the safety of the people in the area. You have to have a way in and out if the other area is blocked. So, trying to close that would create a major problem for you in an emergency situation.

Ms. Jordan said they could put in breakdown barriers and not concrete walls so if an emergency vehicle needed to go through, it could. That is an option too.

Mr. Brandgard said again at the same time it doesn’t work well if something happens to one of the other entrances or exits. It creates a problem. Again, those are things that will be looked at as we go through the development process.

Ms. Jordan said we already have people that routinely cut through CR825 to avoid the traffic. What happens during rush hours and busy Saturday afternoons when a lot of people are out, what happens to SR267 at CR700, is that two-lane road becomes one lane going north, which is the lane that is supposed to go north. And people turning right onto CR700 are using the shoulder of the road and the right-hand turn lane for CR700 is being used by the through traffic going south. And the regular lane is being used for left-hand turn lanes onto Camby Road. So, already the traffic is trying to make it what it should be, I’m assuming.

Mr. Brandgard said a partial solution when this comes into the Town and a developer comes in here, the road will be fixed at that point and time. If it stays in the County like it is now, it will stay like it is.

Ms. Jordan said I think most of the neighbors that are here understand that this is a hearing about zoning and annexing it into the Town. We understand that but we wanted to take every opportunity possible so that you know that we are there and that we do live there and these problems with the traffic are not small. One of the people here this evening can testify how many times they redo their lawn because of people coming around that corner too fast.

Mr. Haase said to speak on that I know the limitations were put here so that developer should go to the east right-of-way line of CR825. I think whoever develops this property I think they are going to need to develop that whole turn there at CR700 to get onto CR825. So, that we don’t just dead-end it there on the east side but it actually goes to the west side and solves that whole corner situation. If you just dead-end it there, the improvements I mean, then you haven’t accomplished anything. So, if you are finished, I was hoping that you are sort of a spokesperson for a lot of the people out there.

Ms. Jordan said I think a lot of my ideas I’ve gathered for everyone else but I told them I was not coming to speak for them. If I have said something wrong or inappropriate, I want to give them an opportunity to speak.

! 6

Mr. Haase said we will let the developer and petitioner to respond to you or anybody else that might come up. We will let them respond at the end of the questions so he will have a response for you.

Mr. McPhail said she talked about SR267 connecting down to Heartland Crossing. That is certainly in our comp plan but I don’t expect that to happen in the next few years. I don’t think that is going to solve any of your problems in the near future.

Ms. Jordan said a left-hand signal would be very nice.

Mr. McPhail said as much as we would like to think we have control of those things, SR267 is a State highway and any traffic signal there has to have the blessing of INDOT. And then we get into a little more confusion into your area because you folks are not in the Town limits so then we have the County to deal with when we go into your subdivision. It is a little bit confusing but I know that most of you probably have not had the opportunity to see how the zoning ordinances of the Town of Plainfield work but they are very sensitive to neighborhoods. I think this particular developer is very sensitive to those issues and is really good to work with the Town as he has developed in other areas. We really believe our ordinances have those protections built in for you. We can’t address those until we see a site plan and a developed plan, etc.

Mr. Haase said and then that goes to a full public hearing and you are welcome to come back here. Is there anyone else who would like to speak?

Mr. John Barks at 6878 Cottonwood Drive said I would just like to mention that most of the issues that she covered are issues that I have. But the one issue that hasn’t been covered so far is I have an open drainage easement through my property. It drains in from the east so it will be coming directly from the property in question.

Mr. Haase said the Town’s specifications on drainage does not allow for more surface water to runoff in any fashion. Actually, it usually lessens the amount of outflow during a particular time span.

Mr. Belcher said right now there is no control over it so whatever falls at whatever rate when we put the pavement in, it has to be controlled. It is all part of what they have to submit and comply with our ordinances.

Mr. Haase said our ordinances are also based on State laws.

Mr. Belcher said I don’t think it is a State law necessarily. It is a very common development process and methods that we use are very common across the County and State and country probably.

Mr. Barks said to follow-up on that is I believe it was stated that we are not in a floodplain now but I believe my property is because I was required to get flood insurance for my property. So, I am in a floodplain and I have a drainage easement, an above ground drainage easement so I’m kind of concerned about that to make sure that situation is not aggravated any.

Mr. Haase said I hear you and agree with you and I can tell you that the Town will do every effort to make sure that your drainage water flow does not increase.

Mr. Bob Miller said I live on Redbud Court. The petitioner’s first comments to you were that the area where I live in Sycamore Estates is an airport buyout area. I don’t know the purpose of that conversation except to denigrate the value of our houses because it has no bearing on this case. I hope that isn’t what he meant.

Mr. Haase said we will let him speak to that.

Mr. Miller said all I’m saying is, as I understand it, the airport spent anywhere from $25,000.00 to $75,000.00 per house to correct it. So, the houses are not just in a buyout area. They are good and substantially well built maintained houses.

Mr. Tom Featheringhill said I live at 6939 Cottonwood Drive. I have questions. First of all I understand a traffic density study has been made by the petitioner and I’m wondering if they don’t know what type of business they are going to build, how do they know how much

! 7

traffic to plan for? Maybe that is a question they can answer later on. A question on the rezoning, your agenda tonight says a request rezoning of approximately so many acres. I thought I heard you make a statement that it is already zoned.

Mr. Haase said it is already zoned in the County that way. When the Town annexes a property, it is automatically rezoned to Agricultural. It doesn’t matter where that property is located. It is just brought in as Agricultural unless the petitioner, who is asking to be annexed, wants it to be rezoned to a particular zoning classification, which is what is happening in this case. He is wanting to make sure when he annexes that property, he actually retains the zoning classification that he already enjoys with the County. So, we really aren’t changing anything but due to the way that Plainfield annexes property we have to go through this procedure.

Mr. Miller asked, so then would a variance have to be granted depending on the type of business that Denison would like to put in there?

Mr. Haase said no because we are getting the zoning to General Commercial, which is Plainfield’s mirror image of what the County has as a C-4.

Mr. Miller asked, has a certified appraiser reviewed the zoning request and possibly made any study as to advantage or disadvantage of property values if this should go in? Maybe we should do that as a committee of homeowners.

Mr. Haase said nobody has I believe.

Mr. Miller said the small bridge on CR825 just south of CR700 has that been determined by the County or the City or by the people petitioning for the change as to what weight limit would be on that bridge? It is more like a culvert with two cement concrete edges on it. I would think that the traffic would have to be limited to maybe like a 20-22-foot van, limited to 20,000 pound gross or what kind of limitations would be placed on the rezoning for trucks coming to deliver a product? Would they allow tractor-trailers to come in over that bridge? I don’t know if the bridge would stand it but maybe it will.

Mr. Haase said I don’t know that either. I will ask Mr. McGillem when you are done.

Mr. Miller said I know change is inevitable but I would like to have all the facts to make a very objective termination as to what my feeling would be toward this request. I really don’t feel that we have been given all the facts as yet to make an honest determination as to the change being good or bad.

Mr. Haase asked, what change are you talking about?

Mr. Miller said to grant the building of commercial property out there.

Mr. Haase said that is already in place. We really aren’t changing that. The only thing that we are changing actually is that it is going from County control to being annexed into the City and being put under the City’s control.

Mr. Miller said the main question tonight is being annexed into the City.

Mr. Brandgard said no it is the zoning.

Mr. Miller said but we will be if this goes about.

Mr. Haase said he will be but you won’t be.

Mr. Miller asked, are we going to be surrounded with annexation and be one part that won’t be annexed?

Mr. Haase said someday unless you want to be annexed. Yes I’m sure that can happen.

Mr. Miller said we could be a new Speedway.

! 8

Mr. Haase said to all places that don’t want to be annexed certainly but at some point and time that area may want to be annexed but that would be determined later. But only annexation and a rezoning request is coming out of that area right now with the property that we are discussing tonight. The zoning classification that exists on that property under the County right now is what the petitioner is requesting.

Mr. Miller said the property directly behind Cottonwood Drive to the east is Agricultural isn’t it?

Mr. Haase said it is not from my understanding. You can come up and take a look at this map. If I understand where Cottonwood Drive is, this is called C-4 in the County and this is C-4 in the County already. So, if the Town annexed all of this, if it was already in the Town, it would be GC with the same classification as C-4 in the County.

Mr. McNaught said a comment early on was a connection with a pathway or sidewalk and how the residential area could connect to the commercial area. That is something that we have always done. Saratoga and Airwest both have had ample pathways or sidewalks and, as you all know, that is a key ingredient of Staff review and the DRC review. It is not that the idea would be original with us. That kind of connectivity would be important so we support that.

I think the next comment that was touched by Mr. Brandgard was whether to close CR700 where it meets up with Sycamore Estates. That is beyond our ability to comment. I just recognize it as a concern but I think given the kinds of studies, traffic studies, and the kind of complex development with Metropolis and U.S. 40 I would guess that there are some good solutions to make that a safer transition. If our improvement extends to the west right-of-way line of CR825, so be it. That would make sense.

I apologize and didn’t mean to imply at all that the airport noise abatement area somehow influences your property values. The only question in the Staff Report is the Comprehensive Plan’s designation of the westernmost part of our property for Low-Density Residential. I have spoken to the Staff about that and recognize that is a little inconsistent with what the airport would urge you all to do and be respectful of. I was addressing the Staff comment in the comp plan in identifying that as an overall consideration in your look at this.

As far as drainage, I deferred to Mr. Belcher. We hire engineers and go through various careful studies and he is correct in identifying that not only are we dealing with the quantity and velocity that we have always dealt with but, as of November 2003, we now have an additional regulation dealing with water quality. So, you have structures like aqua swirls or you have larger containment areas that have staged dams that water flows through and any debris or sediment is captured before it leaves the property. That is being administered by IDEM through their DNR folks. The regulations have gotten even more stringent.

As to property values, I agree with the observation that was made earlier. It has been my experience that the Town is much more detailed in requirements as to sign control, limiting the view of HVAC units, landscaping, sidewalks, architectural review for the whole corridor of Quaker Boulevard. I think it would be highly preferable in terms of a land value impact to the County zoning. I think the other thing is we are changing the zoning from the County’s C-4 where it abuts Sycamore Estates to the Office District. I think that would be a positive influence on property values.

As to the traffic study and the assumptions, again we worked with your Staff and Traffic Engineering, Inc. out of Danville. The assumptions made in order to complete a study and have this kind of analysis was that there would be 172,000 square feet of retail and 43,000 square feet of office. So, you have over 200,000 square feet being analyzed and that to me is the most dense. I can’t imagine 21 acres with detention and rights-of-way and other kinds of improvements hosting that kind of square footage. In my view that is the worse case scenario. That was the basis of the study that was studied.

Mr. Haase said and they are using industrial standards.

Mr. McNaught said yes.

! 9

Mr. David Losh at 6915 Cottonwood asked, is the purpose of this meeting to simply annex the property from the County to Plainfield?

Mr. Haase said no. He is requesting a rezoning. We, being the Plan Commission, does not get involved in the annexation. It is a Town Council issue. I’m assuming that the annexation issue has been brought up at the Town Council?

Mr. Brandgard said yes. It is moving through. It is contingent upon the zoning. The way our rules are when somebody asks for annexation, they can also ask for zoning at the same time and come through so they run parallel. At the end everything is in place. This is just the zoning part.

Mr. Haase said I think the petitioner just wants to make sure he’s not losing anything by bringing it in Town. If he can’t get the rezoning, he will probably go forward with it. I’m assuming since he acquired the property he is going to go ahead and do this project through the County, which he already has zoning for.

Mr. Losh said the property would abut right up to my backyard.

Mr. Haase said I don’t think so but if you can come up here and show me where Cottonwood is, I will check. This is Cottonwood right here is that correct? Here is his property. So, just a corner of the Office District but if you will look, this is all in the County and is already business.

Mr. Greg Roznawski said I’m speaking on behalf of Mary Ellen Shaw at 7085 S. CR825E. That would be 0100-002 on the map. To be fair to all concerned the residences of Sycamore Estates are concerned about their property, therefore, the buffer zone. Mary Ellen Shaw is concerned about her property value. By Denison buying the major portions of land it lowers the value of Mary Ellen Shaw’s land. It goes from commercial to lessen residential property. To make it fair to all Denison should absorb the cost of the buffer zone.

As far as talks about possibly needing to widen the road or make it more accessible for traffic to get through there, the area of 0100-002 falls just south of the area that they currently own or is in question. It could be used for a green area or sidewalks, a green area for a buffer zone or increasing the road to have better traffic that goes through for access. I just wanted to state that.

Ms. Amanda Webster at 8075 Cottonwood Ct. said just listening tonight it became somewhat clear to me that a lot of residences of Sycamore Estates area some of us seemed to have misunderstood. We seemed to have gotten the impression that the cornfield, which is immediately behind the homes on Cottonwood Drive that was outlined in red on this map over here. We understand that although that might not be in question now it is going to be very, very soon since it is under the same owner. Perhaps you think it is an ordinance concern but that huge, huge plot surrounding our neighborhood, we are more concerned about the red section, some of us, than the yellow. I just want to make sure that you understand that we are thinking about the whole picture and not just the portion that is outlined in yellow that is perhaps on the docket to discuss tonight.

Mr. Haase said that is all that we are dealing with tonight is the yellow section, which would be south of where you are. That is all that we are dealing with tonight. How long have you lived there?

Ms. Webster said we’ve lived there two years only.

Mr. Haase asked, could I see the hands of somebody who has lived there six years or seven years on Cottonwood?

Ms. Webster said we have neighbors that have been there for 18-20 years.

Mr. Haase asked, when was that rezoned to C-4? Do you remember getting any information?

Gentleman from audience said I don’t remember getting any information. I’ve been there 16 years.

Mr. Haase said I don’t know how long it has been zoned that either.

! 10

Lady from audience asked, are you talking about Cottonwood only?

Mr. Brandgard said yes.

Lady asked, or CR825E?

Mr. Haase said no I’m talking about the land just to the east of Cottonwood.

Lady said we had to be notified because we were within 600 feet and that was about 15-18 years ago.

Mr. Carlucci said the County will go periodically through the comprehensive plan and go through a new zoning ordinance. When they go through a new zoning ordinance for the entire County, we cannot notify individual property owners. So, that could have been zoned at least since the last zoning ordinance in the County. I don’t know if Mr. Valanzano knows when that was.

Mr. Valanzano said 2001.

Mr. Carlucci said so since 2001 that property has been zoned C-4.

Lady said it was before that I can guarantee you.

Mr. Carlucci said it may have been but that is the ordinance that counts now is the one that is there.

Lady asked, why weren’t we notified?

Mr. Carlucci said when you do an entire ordinance for the entire community or the County, they publish a notice in the paper. They try to communicate to the public that this is being done. This is the County and not the Town. But to notify all of the property owners in the County would be so insurmountable. They are required to publish a notice and publish the zoning ordinance in the paper.

Mr. Haase said but irregardless of what we do with this property that is here before us that property on the east side of Cottonwood Ct. area is already zoned commercial. So, whoever owns that or whoever does the development on it can come in the County and go to the County and develop that into whatever business classification that a C-4 allows. There isn’t a variance that is needed.

Gentleman from audience asked, what does a C-4 allow?

Mr. Haase said I don’t have an idea.

Mr. Valanzano said it allows for gas stations, restaurants type of uses. I don’t have specifics.

Mr. Haase said so General Commercial would actually be a little more stringent usage probably.

Mr. Valanzano said it allows for more neighborhood type uses. Those can be allowed as a matter of a highway business type district. Those are typically geared toward higher related uses. You wouldn’t get the neighborhood uses or office uses in those types of districts. The use package may be broader. It may actually allow for more compatible uses as well.

Mr. Brandgard said I think in regards to what is going to go on there or the usage when we go through the site development review and the approvals for what is going to be put on the land that is where all of this is taken care of. Just like you ask for buffers that is where that comes in. It doesn’t come in at this stage in the zoning.

Mr. Kirchoff said we would be notifying the neighbors again. When he files his plan, it will be specific and we will know exactly what he is proposing at that point and time.

Mr. Haase said it would be two deep or 600 feet, which is what the legal mailing notification of the Town is. There will also be a notification in the Hendricks County Flyer in the legal section like was posted for this.

Mr. Carlucci said each property that is platted will be in a separate public reference. Each parcel he wants to plat and if it is

! 11

within so many feet of a Gateway Corridor, then there is another public hearing. So, a lot of this property, each parcel that is developed, there will be at least two public hearings.

Mr. Valanzano said that is correct. What Mr. McNaught agreed to tonight is to go through our Subdivision Control process prior to any development occurring on the property. At that point we can handle all infrastructure issues, which is the water and the sewer and the drainage and roadway improvements. That can be addressed at this point and time. Secondly, we have the architectural on site design review under the ordinance. At that point and time they need to be very specific to come in. They would have to be bringing in specific building designs and building elevations and building materials, light fixtures so you will know exactly what you will be getting at that point and time. As Mr. Carlucci said, each one of those next two steps require a public notice of their own. The notice requirements are the same as tonight’s hearing. So, if you got a notice of this hearing, you will get a notice for the platting and you will get a notice again for the development plan. They may do the timing right if you get both notices on the same day, you will get the two steps at once but you will get a notice and you will get an opportunity to see a specific plan. They have this 20 acres and if they want to change it from C-4 in the County to GC in the Town, you will actually be able to see what the road layout is going to be, how wide the right-of-way is going to be, where the drainage is going to be handled, where the sewer lines are going to be extended, what the cross-section is going to look like, what the building is going to look like, where they are going to be located on the property, parking areas, landscaping, loading, building orientation, you will see all of that. But that is not at this step of the process. They are the future steps and you will receive notice of those hearings. It will give you an opportunity to see those and if you have comments on the design, give us input to help us to make a better design out of it. That opportunity will be there.

Mr. Carlucci said if the Plan Commission and the Town Council approves the rezoning, that does not allow them to build anything on that property at all. They couldn’t pull a permit for anything because they have to go through two more public hearings.

Mr. Haase said and all of the hoops the Town makes them jump through to get to that public hearing.

Mr. David Losh asked, on public notice what is the requirements for the property in question to be recognized? Right now we have 8½ x 11 pieces of paper on sticks as notice.

Mr. Haase said that is the requirement.

Mr. Losh asked, is that size acceptable?

Mr. Carlucci said there are three notice requirements.

Mr. Losh said I’m talking about the size.

Mr. Haase said as far as being posted on the property yes. Of course, then there are the mailing notifications, which are to any adjacent property owner and the next property owner or 600 feet, whichever comes first.

Mr. Carlucci said and the notice in the newspaper.

Mr. Losh asked, is 8½ x 11 acceptable in size?

Mr. Haase said it is.

Mr. McPhail said you have to stop and get out of your vehicle and read it.

Mr. Losh asked, what if you never see it?

Mr. Haase said your neighbor will tell you. You bring up a good point and we will take that under consideration. The 8½ x 11 is the size required.

Lady from the audience asked, would it be conceivable that the red section would not be annexed? Would that happen that you have an island in the center?

! 12

Mr. Haase said I can’t speak of anything that isn’t going to happen but I would think that if the same property owner that is doing what we are doing tonight owns that also I would think that he would want to come in to the Town. Obviously, he likes to work with the Town but he could sell it tomorrow. It is already zoned C-4 and then the next guy might not want to work with the Town and he would go through the County. You would then still be legally noticed but it would be going through the County.

Mr. Carlucci said the reality is the developer needs something from the Town that he can’t get from the County. If they are going to have the Town’s water and sewer, they are going to be annexed into the Town.

Mr. Greg (inaudible) at 8094 Cottonwood Ct. said I would just like for these guys to take a good look at what they are doing because they are taking an area that on Cottonwood Ct. we may have two or three cars a day come around that circle. If you put a business in front there, it is going to turn that into a very nice turnaround for larger vehicles, etc. We really need to control what is coming in our neighborhood and they need to take a look at just how they are going to plan this out. I don’t want semis driving down my street. We moved there because of it being peace and quiet. They are talking about all of the buildings they have done and there is no residential where they are talking about. So, I just want to make sure they take a good long look at where we are. A lot of us are new homeowners in this area and the majority are new homeowners and we moved into this very quiet neighborhood and they are talking about taking that away from us. We have people already talking about selling that haven’t been in their house for two years. So, it is just now getting built back up with residents moving in and now this comes along and we are going to have to fly away because of that. It is something that we need to look at hard and heavy before it is approved what they can do and can’t do.

Mr. Haase said, which will be done at another hearing.

Gentleman said I understand that and I will be at that hearing as well. It sounds like it really doesn’t matter because it’s already zoned.

Mr. Haase said that is what I want you to understand that we really are not changing anything that doesn’t already exist.

Gentleman said Plainfield is just moving in that area.

Mr. Brandgard said but in general the Town’s standards are much more stringent.

Gentleman said I understand that but we all have a lot of small children that play in the street. If you want to come and take a look, come and take a look because there is no traffic. Building something like this could really increase the traffic flow in the neighborhood. That is something that really needs to be looked at it. I mean if you need gas, you go right instead of left. We don’t need a gas station.

Mr. John Barks at 6878 Cottonwood said the one thing that I’m not clear about is I’m not sure why if we don’t reach an accord through this set of meetings, if they can go around the Town of Plainfield and go to the County to do what they are trying to do, I can understand why they are doing it but I have a hard time understanding. If they are able to get around the Town of Plainfield and go to the County for whatever they want to do, then what is the point of what we are doing here?

Gentleman from the audience said they want annexed into the City limits to get water and sewer.

Mr. Brandgard said they get water and sewer and they get police protection.

Mr. Barks said and that is through the Town of Plainfield.

Gentleman from the audience asked, what happens if you don’t annex them?

Mr. Haase said I don’t know I can’t speak on that.

! 13

Mr. Carlucci said it is probably unlikely through the policy of the Town that they can get water and sewer from the Town if they don’t get annexed. Mr. McNaught has worked with the Town for most of his developments. I think he prefers coming through the Town of Plainfield even though our requirements are more stringent. The development will be a higher quality development but he wants to be in the Town of Plainfield and that is probably the only way that he is going to get the water and sewer.

Mr. Seth Charles at 8191 Redbud Ct. said thank you for your time. I was unclear on the 600 feet. Is it 600 feet of a buffer or is it just notification of 600 feet?

Mr. Haase said notification is what I was referring to.

Mr. Charles said the petitioner spoke of a stone wall or fence and I did not receive notification at 8191 so I would like to take this opportunity to make it clear that my children take the bus at the corner of Redbud Ct. at 8:25 and the comment of either a stone wall or a fence is okay with them is interesting because the only thing that I hear at home is the concern that my wife has that there will be a privacy fence, a dumpster in the back of a Wal-Mart. I have nothing against Wal-Mart but that is what she uses as an example. So, I have a little concern because my children take a bus there. It seems like I hear the comments about green area and things and that would be great. I don’t have a solution, I just have a concern that the bus stop is at least not a hideout but behind a dumpster.

Mr. Haase said that is something that is addressed when the development occurs. With no one else coming forward at this time we will close the public portion of this hearing. Again, we do not do any rezoning at this particular hearing. That is all done at the Town Council level. We are just making a recommendation for rezoning.

Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to certify the zone map amendment request RZ-05-001 as filed by Denison Partners, LLC requesting rezoning of approximately 20.835 acres to the GC classification and 0.735 acres to the OD classification pending annexation to the Town Council with a favorable recommendation subject to the following commitments being submitted on Exhibit “A” forms prior to certification to the Town Council:

1. Owner shall follow the full Subdivision Control Ordinance process prior to any development occurring on the site even if only for a one lot subdivision.

Second by Mr. McPhail. Roll call vote called.

Mr. Thibo – yes Mr. Matrana – yes Mr. McPhail – yes Mr. Brandgard – yes Ms. Whicker – yes Mr. Kirchoff – yes Mr. Haase – yes

7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.

Mr. Haase said the second item on our agenda is RZ-05-006, South Construction Company, Inc. for Caldera Development.

Mr. Valanzano said the next petition that you have in front of you is a rezoning of 37.8 acres from the OD District, which is the Office District to the GC classification. This is for the property basically the Lovell Field area east of Cinergy and north of Walgreen’s on Dan Jones Road and U.S. 40 basically up to the railroad tracks at the north end of there.

At this particular time there are no firm plans. The petitioner did submit one conceptual layout for how the property might layout just so that you can see it in terms of the traffic flow contingences but there is not a plan at this point and time that we are aware of. As we had some lengthy discussion a few moments ago this entire site, or at least the first 600 feet of it from Dan Jones Road and along the north property line within 600 feet, is subject to review for architectural site design review under the ordinance. So, all of those materials will have to come back through and there will be public hearings at that time for any development to occur. What we are talking about here

! 14

tonight is whether it is appropriate to change the zoning from the Office District to the General Commercial District. The Comprehensive Plan, which was recently revised recommends mixed use Office/Commercial development for the property. So, both districts existing in the proposal are relatively consistent with that.

The only concern we really had from a Staff level was when you look at the base map and you look at the development on the east side of Dan Jones north of Beechwood, there is still a line of residential properties and a residential development existing to the east of there. When you get from Beechwood south, when you get to the commercial facilities and a new office building being developed down to the commercial strip along U.S. 40, we are not too concerned in terms of compatibility to the commercial uses on the east side of Dan Jones south of Beechwood. The only thing that we have considered is how is it appropriate in our minds to protect our buffer in residential areas north of Beechwood on the east side of Dan Jones? A couple of things to think about that is appropriate to suggest is the land use limitation. If there are outlots north of Beechwood, that those outlots are limited in some fashion in terms of the use or design, should you instruct us, as a part of Staff, when we review a development plan in the future, to assure that a higher level of landscaping is provided there? Having talked to Mr. Banning about how the land lays and falls in the area it may be possible that the pond that is on the conceptual plan shown on the west side of the property, since the outlot is actually at the northeast corner, it may end up that we can simply work a redesign of the site where the pond gets put to the northeast corner. And we can put landscaping and a pond and make a nice park-like setting and get buffering by really providing the utility the need and providing a huge setback before any development occurs and move the buildings farther west. All of those things are possible. We won’t know at this point and time and we won’t know that until they come up with a specific plan but that was really the issue in terms of the site with the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan for Office/Commercial mixed use. In looking at the layout of the ground it seemed like the northeast portion was the most sensitive one that we had to address. We are looking for some direction from you should the zoning go forward. How would you want us to address the buffering issue?

There was a letter submitted to file from a gentleman who was concerned about the loss of fields in the area and was suggesting that development be delayed and I believe you have been provided a copy of that letter. With that I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Mr. Jeff Banning with Banning Engineering at 698 Tower Road, Suite 100, Plainfield said Mr. Valanzano has really kind of gone through a lot of our presentation. One thing that I wanted to do is pass out another conceptual plan kind of relaying what Mr. Valanzano had talked about from a buffering standpoint especially along the northeast portion of the property and Dan Jones. It’s a little bit different than what was actually submitted.

One thing that I wanted to address is there sounds like there is a letter in the file that I haven’t seen yet about the loss of the athletic fields. As a lot of you might or might not be aware of I have hopefully been fairly involved with trying to get those located somewhere else within the area. I have to say tonight soccer season did open and we were able to come up to a five to nothing victory. We are still playing out there. I hate to see those going away but I think you know from the highest and best use one of the things we are going to see is this isn’t the highest and best use of this property at this point. Therefore, I think Cinergy has come forward and said we would like to sell this property and that is what we are bringing for you this evening.

Who I have with me here this evening is I have the proposed developers of this property, Mr. Best and Christopher Day with Caldera. So, our team is here this evening to answer any questions and give any insight or comments to this development.

Effectively what we have done is we have filed a rezoning request, as Mr. Valanzano had mentioned, really not knowing what is going to go on this property. Unfortunately, being in the commercial/real estate business a lot of people do not want to locate to a particular parcel of ground until they know they have zoning in place. I think you have heard that in meetings in the past. This is just a

! 15

process to get zoning in place so that we can find a user that can come in. So, that is the process that we are trying to go through this evening.

One of the things that I wanted to mention on the conceptual plan we have presented this evening is we have looked at the northeast corner up there to try to buffer the residential along Dan Jones Road. Here again, this is conceptual. This isn’t what the site is going to probably even look like. It is just to come up with an idea what it could look like. We have tried to show a lake or a pond on the northeast corner and landscaping that would then buffer the citizens that live across the street across Dan Jones Road.

One of the other things that is a change from the previous plan that you all have seen that was submitted is we have had discussions with St. Susanne’s and their property is over here. We had a discussion in meetings with them a couple of weeks ago. I think they have been through the Plan Commission recently or if they haven’t, they are going to be. One of the concerns with their project are several, drainage being one, which I think we can work with them on that. One was access to the site and then also from a public safety standpoint, fire department, police department, being able to get around the church itself. From a conceptual standpoint we have shifted our driveway to the west part of the property to help with their situation if the property would develop this way, that would help them out as well as our side. So, we have been working with them. We have had contact with Walgreen’s. We don’t have anything finalized by any means but we are trying to work with maybe getting some interior access. That has not been consummated but it is something that we have talked about and looked at.

One of the other things that Staff brought up as well is apparently there is a potential new site plan that has not been filed or at least not come to this commission yet on the east side of Dan Jones Road. We have been in contact with them as well to talk about access points on Dan Jones Road. We have had those conversations. So, we are trying to work with all the other issues that are going on in the vicinity.

With that I think what we will do unless somebody from our group wants to stand up and talk at this point we will probably open it up to any questions or comments or concerns and go from there.

Mr. Thibo asked, what are the plans for the daycare center?

Mr. Banning said the daycare center tentatively will probably come down. Here again there are no final plans but the daycare center is slated to move to the Avon area and most likely that building will come down unless we can find a reuse for it.

Mr. Haase asked, is there anyone in the audience who has any questions on this matter?

Mr. Rodney Brown at 1505 E. Main St. directly across from Walgreen’s said I have some concerns with Walgreen’s, which is a whole different issue. I’m just concerned to the fact of being bothered right now by Walgreen’s and with the addition of retail, if I’m to understand it right, this development that we are talking about is going to take place to the north of Walgreen’s.

Mr. Haase said yes.

Mr. Brown said right now where the daycare sits that we were talking about a minute ago.

Mr. Haase said those two yellow pads to the left of that spot is where the daycare is.

Mr. Brown said and the plans are for that to come down is that right?

Mr. Banning said yes.

Mr. Brown said with this new proposed retail, if it goes through, what are the plans of coming off of U.S. 40, like where the Walgreen’s entrance/exit are now? Are there any tentative plans to do anything different there off U.S. 40?

! 16

Mr. Haase said right now we will ask the floor to ask questions and then we will let the petitioner answer your questions. So, if you would, state all of your concerns and we will get to those.

Mr. Brown said my concerns, like I said, number one anything right now that is current with the Walgreen’s entrance off of U.S. 40, what revamping or what revisions are going to take place there? And, of course, I understand the daycare area could be slated for commercial use also, if I’m not mistaken. Living right across the street that is a big concern with a family. The Walgreen’s issue, like I said, I’m very disappointed with that whole situation by the lack of cooperation with Walgreen’s. I heard it mentioned earlier that the Town takes a lot of concern for zoning with neighborhoods and neighbors and I don’t think that was a concern with my house where I live as far as Walgreen’s when they built there. So, that is my concern. Those are some questions that I have. I know right now that it is just a concept but we all know something is going to happen sooner or later. As far as the commercial use, I just don’t want to be aggravated anymore than I have to be and I guess you just have to live in my house to understand that. When people leave Walgreen’s, their headlights shine right into my home. I don’t like that. If I go to sale my house one of these days, I’m sure being across from a strip center and things of that nature, will have an affect on my property resale value and additional traffic. Any additional traffic that may access the proposed retail site off of U.S. 40 is a big concern. There are not a whole lot of houses between Dan Jones and Carr Road residential-wise anymore but there are seven or eight of us, maybe 10, along that east Main Street corridor and I’m just curious what we are talking about. I’m sure as we have meetings down the road, we will find out but those are my initial concerns.

Mr. John Reel at 861 Highlander Dr. said I’m representing the Plainfield Optimist Club. This is only a general comment about the acknowledgement of the delay. We certainly agree with the proposed delay but that was not initiated by the Plainfield Optimist Club and we have an unofficial agreement with Cinergy. They will be our representative and our spokesperson. Things get out here and there but I want to clarify that we had nothing to do with that at all although we would like to see it extended to the year 2010 would be fine.

Ms. Brenda Elrod at 1509 E. Main St. said I have a concern with the new retail shop signs that are up saying that it is coming. I have two kids. I don’t have a bus route. My kids are considered walkers. I have one that will go to the Middle School and I have one that goes to Brentwood. Seven o’clock in the morning walking down U.S. 40 is not an ideal situation for me anyway. I take my kids now but if you are going to get retail, we have Walgreen’s now where we have traffic in and out all day. One and two o’clock in the morning you have them cleaning their parking lot. You have them emptying dumpsters in the middle of the night. They are 24 hours so you have people coming in and out with headlights. We have called Walgreen’s and they are saying to put up a privacy fence. You call the State, the State owns so much of that. They will say they will put up an eight-foot privacy fence. You are beautifying downtown Plainfield. I’m sure you want an eight-foot privacy fence along a section of U.S. 40 on Main Street. To me that would look tacky. Then again I want my privacy. I don’t want my kids in the front yard with some weirdo sitting at Walgreen’s watching them and taking a prime time to get them. That is today’s world. It’s not the way it was 20 years ago. I’ve lived there. I would love to have a brand new home but my house is going to be paid off. I don’t want to move. I don’t feel like I should. I know we have the traffic issue. I can’t keep my windows opened in the summer because of the traffic. This is just going to add more problems to that. I don’t want another entrance off of U.S. 40 off of Main Street because there is already traffic backing up there especially with St. Susanna because on Sunday mornings it’s terrible for them to get in and out. Walgreen’s has a pond out there and they have little trees but they never developed, they are nothing. They don’t block the lights and they don’t block the noise. Even though there is noise from U.S. 40 I don’t need the extra noise at one or two o’clock in the morning. I’ve got Box Office to deal with. They empty their dumpsters at 1:30 Sunday morning so I live in there, I’ve lived there 16 years and I know it is going to develop but I want you to take us into consideration. We don’t have the money the corporations and developers have so you need to think of us little people too.

Mr. Haase said we try to.

! 17

Ms. Elrod said when Walgreen’s went in, I got the first notice and I came to the meeting but the developer didn’t show up so it was canceled. I never got a second notice.

Mr. Haase said I apologize if that happened, but if a meeting gets noticed like for tonight and there is a continuation granted, there is no further notification by mail.

Ms. Elrod said he didn’t even get the first notice.

Mr. Haase said there are no other legal notices that would happen. Your notification that it was going to go to another meeting we would declare at this meeting here tonight or at that meeting and say that a continuance would be granted until May, if there was a continuance but there would be no further notices.

Ms. Elrod said it just seems like Walgreen’s went up without anybody really knowing what was going on there, where the parking lot was going to be and it wasn’t supposed to be a 24-hour store. It wasn’t for a while. I forget how it worked. It wasn’t, it was. There are a lot of things after it got going that changed.

Mr. Haase said but if there is ever any continuation at a public notice, there will be no further notification other than the agreed upon time at the meeting when it was continued.

Ms. Elrod said this is just rezoning but the sign that reads, “retail center coming soon” it’s pretty much going to happen because the signs are up. It says, “retail shops” or something like that. There are two big signs, one on Dan Jones and one on U.S. 40 saying that it is going to happen. So, there will be another meeting so that we will know what is going up and what they are going to do.

Mr. Haase said yes. It is just like the other hearing that we went through. This is just a rezoning request that gets a recommendation and goes to the Town Council. The Town Council has three readings and then if they want to come back and develop the site, they first have to work through all of the committees that the Town has and then it has to come back to a public hearing, which you would be noticed for that public notice just like you were tonight. We would go through that process of seeing what the development looks like, the buildings, landscaping, street entrances, if any, etc.

Mr. Banning said I hadn’t realized that there were issues with Walgreen’s. That is the first that I have heard of that. I think from the standpoint of landscaping, screening, access points on U.S. 40, etc. I believe we have developed a pretty good ordinance that will hopefully eliminate a lot of those issues. I think as we come through with a more detailed plan, that is something that we can definitely look at, headlights, issues that they are having, noise, etc. We don’t have specific uses planned so I really can’t address those from that standpoint from the specific use standpoint other than what we had submitted in our original packet for the rezoning that we will follow the Zoning Ordinance. Now that I know that there are some issues on the south side of U.S. 40, that is definitely something that we need to take into account and look into that and maybe meet with the neighbors and see how we can address those particular items. Access on U.S. 40 is a Town issue but it goes further than that. It is a State issue. We will have to get a permit from INDOT. We have some ideas on some things that we can do from that standpoint that will hopefully improve that issue. So, as we move forward, those are things that we will deal with from a platting standpoint and a site plan standpoint.

Mr. Kirchoff said presently there are not cuts from the west entrance of Walgreen’s to St. Susanna.

Mr. Banning said that is correct.

Mr. Kirchoff said so any additional ones would have to be a request with INDOT.

Mr. Banning said that is correct.

Mr. Kirchoff said for my clarification is this all of the ball diamonds and how much of Cinergy property are they selling?

Mr. Banning said there is approximately 38 acres. It is the fence line that is on the west end of the ball fields, the west side of

! 18

the soccer fields and then actually there is a little cutout area. This is the current driveway that goes over to Cinergy so this is actually the fence line right here along the east side. Baseball would be here, St. Susanne would be here. It is the existing fence that is currently out there. We have had discussions about drainage in TAC. We sat down with St. Susanne. One of the things that we are going to attempt to do is try to take the majority of the drainage to the northeast, the access road to Cinergy currently. That is kind of a breakpoint and we can work with that.

Mr. Kirchoff said I assume that access to Cinergy closes.

Mr. Banning said I think the access has to stay opened, maybe not in that alignment.

Mr. McPhail said the buffer on the residential along Dan Jones at the north I think that is an important part. I think we also need to be concerned about the pathway on the northern end of this property. That is planned to be a public pathway through there and whatever development goes in there we want to make sure it is not accessible for kids to get over there and get into things that they shouldn’t, etc. That is something that we will need to address, if this moves forward but that will be a paved pathway. I believe there is a drainage easement between the pathway and the property. Kids tend to go where they shouldn’t and be curious and get into things. There are a couple of things that we need to think about as it is developed.

Gentleman from the audience said we all know that developments happen but really it is a shame to see the ball fields taken away from the Plainfield youth. So, I hope every attempt is made to relocate and find facilities that have been so kind to the kids growing up over the years. It’s a shame that Cinergy has to sell that property.

Mr. Haase said I agree and I have lived here my whole life but Cinergy could have grown and needed more buildings just for their facilities and they could have overtaken that several years ago. They have been awful good to the Town of Plainfield that is for sure to the Optimist Club and all of the kids that played there and continues to be a great supporter of our youth.

Mr. Brandgard said we are working to obtain more land than what there was there to develop more fields. None of this easy but we are working to get that done.

Mr. Haase asked, is there anything the petitioner would like to close with?

Mr. Banning said we would just ask for a favorable recommendation to the Town Council. Thank you.

Mr. Haase said at this time we will close the public portion of this hearing. If there are no questions from the board members, we will accept a motion.

Mr. Brandgard said we all would like to see that developed as office area but the reality of it is we know where we have office areas designated and the demand for that type of use is not large at the moment. Looking at development out there if the owner wants to do something, this is probably the best use of the land at the moment. On the other hand I’m not exactly happy with it for a number of reasons.

Mr. Kirchoff asked, in your Staff Report number one Mr. Valanzano could you expand on your concerns for the possibility of limitations on the type of land uses? I’m still learning about this whole process.

Mr. Valanzano said what I was talking about as areas develop, if this goes the way of many typical commercial areas might, you might tend to see outlots form across here whether they are fast food restaurants or a tire service station, etc. Something like that could occur out there. A couple of different ways to provide buffering would be if outlots are developed here, to limit the uses that might occur in those. Either prohibit certain things or suggest that it be limited to office use or something of that nature. Again, the Comprehensive Plan calls for a mixed-use commercial/office. When I look at it, I see Beechwood coming across at approximately this location residential. I have to think that the Comprehensive Plan is suggesting a mixture on the site with what gets built through the whole area. Maybe it is first floor retail with offices on the second story or if not, maybe more

! 19

office on the north end where you start to get into residential and church property as you go north and residential as you go here. Whether the dividing line would be across here or whether the dividing line would simply be across the first 250 feet, which is the typical size of an outlot, things like that to provide limitations and controls on the uses that would be more than just the standard allowances of retail operations is kind of the point that I was trying to get to.

Mr. Kirchoff asked, do we do that now or do we wait until we see a plan?

Mr. Valanzano said if you wait until a plan comes in, your review is this use may be allowed under the ordinance. How do we best get this use to fit on the property in terms of architectural and site design? But if that use might have some objectionable characteristics, there may be no way to address those through site design alone. In which case maybe a limitation of that use is appropriate here no matter what we can do from a design perspective. It is a little better to address that at this point and time and ask for a commitment on a limitation use. It is stronger now than it would be later. I’m not saying that you can’t do it later but it would be stronger and more affective to do it now.

Mr. Kirchoff asked, how do you do that? As I see this, I would not be in favor of seeing a Home Depot type store on this site simply from where it sits across residential, etc. But how do you define that or how do you propose suggestive usage? With some of the concerns that I have heard tonight we need to be smart about what type of uses ought to go here.

Ms. Elrod said I don’t want to see fast food restaurants across the street either.

Mr. Daniel said take the uses that are allowed in that zoning and go through them one by one. If there is some in there that you don’t think are appropriate for this site, as the petitioner, see if they would be willing to enter into an agreement on the uses.

Mr. Haase said if we do what Mr. Daniel suggests, I think that probably means a continuation request so that we don’t review that hurriedly.

Mr. Kirchoff said I understand that but I think it has raised some questions in my mind and as I look at that site and where it fits into the Town, I agree with Mr. Brandgard. I think we need to be smart about what we allow to be put in there.

Mr. Carlucci said I put a note in here about nighttime operations, which will be a big issue around that site. How do we control that? Do we control it through this process here? How do we control the collection of the trash dumpsters?

Mr. Haase said I don’t think that just pertains to this site. I think that is an issue that needs to be addressed.

Mr. Carlucci said the other properties on the south side of U.S. 40 are at a lower level because their drives go down a little bit to their houses so the lights do hit them. Putting up eight-foot fences is probably the worst thing that they can do.

The other issue is it looks like Walgreen’s has been, when the previous developer was looking at the site, they were very difficult to deal with or non-responsive would be maybe a better term in terms of what they wanted them to do. There are other options that we can do to maybe combine those ingress points.

Mr. McPhail said I think there is another issue that we need to consider here and that is the western side of this property, the heavy industrial outdoor storage that they have in the Town. So, you go from residential to the extreme of outdoor storage. Whatever goes in there you are going to have to have a buffer in between there. Mr. Kirchoff mentioned Home Depot or a home improvement store and I think it is a Gateway Corridor so anything that goes in there is going to have to have the character of the building, the facades and those types of things. I personally think properly laid out and built and buffered that it would not be offensive to me. But I’m looking at the whole site. I’m not just looking at the east side because when I look at the west side, obviously we don’t want to put more residential in there and

! 20

buffer it up there. It is a unique site in itself because you have a beautiful office building on the highway but they have a lot of outside storage of poles and transformers, etc. that abut this property on the west so I think there has to be a balance there.

Mr. Kirchoff said as I look at this site, there is still buffering between that storage and this area. That is why I was asking where we are. There is still a buffering there. Personally I would like to ponder it and scratch our head a little bit about what we might be able to do here rather than trying to do it hurriedly tonight. I’m just speaking personally.

Mr. Haase said if we do that in a continuation, we are going to have to meet with Staff or relay to Staff what we are looking at so that they can relay to the developer. We are going to have to have some liaison to get to that point so that we don’t slow this down anymore and come to a decision.

Mr. Banning said we are acceptable with a continuance so that we have a process between now and the next meeting where we can sit down and discuss that.

Mr. Kirchoff asked, Mr. Valanzano can you help us through this?

Mr. Valanzano said yes.

Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to continue RZ-05-006 to May 2, 2005 to give us an opportunity to meet with Staff and perhaps fine-tune our recommendation. Second Ms. Whicker. Roll call vote called.

Mr. Thibo – yes Mr. Matrana – yes Mr. McPhail – yes Mr. Brandgard – yes Ms. Whicker – yes Mr. Kirchoff – yes Mr. Haase – yes

7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.

Mr. McPhail made a motion to suspend the rules to allow for the public hearings to continue past ten o’clock to complete the agenda. Second by Mr. Thibo. Motion carried.

Mr. Haase said the next public meeting is PP-05-001, Plainfield Community School Corporation.

Mr. Valanzano said the next petition that you have in front of you is a primary plat approval. I believe last month all of you, except for Mr. Matrana, heard quite a bit of discussion about the Plainfield High School and development and how that property is going to be developed and platted and broken into lots. What you have before you tonight is the primary plat request that goes along with that zoning from last month. Mr. Banning has portions of it. The site was so big that it was broken in pages so we don’t have one nice simple piece to show you. The site from Hadley Road coming north, Red Pride Drive, will be coming up on approximately two-thirds of the way. If you look on your base map about where the R-4 is it will come up and loop around past Reeves Road. Basically, the plat will break the property down from Lot 1, and this is facing north, to the right, will be Lot 1. Lot 2 will be for future school development. Lot 3 will be here and Lot 4 will be here. Lots 3 and 4 are part of the memorandum of understanding that would be deeded to the Town, at which time the Town as part of its greenway and trail way improvements, would develop a linear park through here. There would be a trail system. As a part of the proposal, Reeves Road would be dedicated as part of the plat for a relocated Reeves Road. The Town Council in a separate act will be looking at vacating Reeves Road through here. From Red Pride Drive to SR267 is part of the memorandum of understanding. It’s the school’s responsibility to acquire right-of-way and deed that right-of-way to the Town for roadway improvements necessary from Red Pride Drive out to SR267.

Sidewalks would be installed along the west side of Red Pride Drive and come around. You have a comment in the Staff Report about an alternate sidewalk plan. Sidewalks are not planned on the east side. In lieu of that a trail system would operate to provide for that and there is a comment in the report about providing for an alternate trail

! 21

system or an approval for an alternate trail system. Those are really the highlights of this plat. I would note for you again on the recommended motion that we include the recommendation about an alternate sidewalk approval and that trail system is what I was referring to. And the third item is the right-of-way of Reeves Road being provided and approved by the Town Engineer and recorded and cross-referenced on the secondary plat before those are approved for recording. With that I would be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. Banning said I don’t know that there is much more to add to that. As you all know, except for Mr. Matrana, we did go through this pretty extensively last month. Basically, we are just going through the process of creating right-of-way, creating easements, creating four tracts of ground. With that I will just ask that approval be granted on this particular plat.

Mr. Haase asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this matter?

Mr. Jim (inaudible) at 1416 Renee Dr. said I just had a couple of questions. Basically my house is where the northern part of the green area is up there. That is on the north side, that is where my house is. I didn’t know if that was scheduled for anything. I know the kindergarten center is scheduled a little bit towards SR267. I didn’t know if there was anything else planned up there or if it was just going to be a green area.

A couple of my neighbors wanted to know how tall the berm was going to be on Reeves Road as it curves around. They wanted to make sure it wasn’t going to be three foot tall. They wanted at least a five-foot or six-foot easement there, some kind of bank.

Thirdly, how long is Reeves Road going to be closed? I heard earlier tonight about fire safety. I’ve heard anywhere from three or four months up to a year and a half. I was just curious as to how long that is going to be?

Mr. McGillem said Reeves Road will be closed out approximately the first of May when the grading starts on the high school site. At that point the grading will be going on at the high school site. It will have to be all graded and the Reeves Road construction contract itself we hope to bid sometime in June and we are probably looking at mid 2006 before all of Reeves Road is opened or towards the end of the summer of 2006 before it is opened back up at SR267. There is the road around the north side, the two bridges across the creek, there is the four-lane divider section all the way out to SR267.

Mr. Belcher said to talk about the emergency issues that was a big thing that came up before. We have already talked to the school. We are going to keep an access point opened for emergency vehicles to come in from SR267 through the school’s construction site. We limited the emergency vehicles should they be needed in an area behind that. If Center Street would be blocked or something at Reeves, we would have two ways to get in throughout the construction. So, that is something that came up at our earlier meetings. We met with the school and they were very cooperative in trying to come up with a solution for that and it is in their construction plans and we have dealt with that. So, there will be emergency access throughout the project.

Mr. Banning said as far as the other questions brought up the green area to the north Mr. Wolfe is here with the school so I will let him address that.

Mr. Jud Wolfe, Assistant Superintendent of the School Corporation at 741 Willow Lane, Plainfield said the area, which would be up in the northwest part of the site, at this point and time we don’t have any idea. Future plans are going to be dependent on demographics, growth in the community. If the State ever does mandate full-day kindergarten, we will probably have to build a kindergarten center to house the children at that point and time. The status of the State and their finances right now I can’t see that happening for quite a few years.

Another factor we have to consider is that we currently own 40 acres of land out off of Moon Road. That could be a future site for the next elementary or kindergarten kids but that is going to be many, many years down the road. So, I think, unless we have a huge population explosion in the next five to 10 years that area will remain

! 22

green space. But there is enough room to add two elementary schools if we need to do so but that is many, many years down the road.

Mr. Banning said I think the other issue is the berming. We had talked about that at our last zoning meeting. If you would like, I can give you the details on that. I will give you a business card and you can come in the office and we can look at that, look at the height and what we are doing there, what landscaping, etc.

Mr. Haase asked, do you know what that height is?

Mr. Banning said it has changed. It is not 10 feet and it is not two. It is somewhere in between. We have had meetings with the neighbors, we have had several meetings. That has changed several times. I think I know what the height is but we actually had an expert in that has talked about safety with all of the 911 issues.

Gentleman from the audience said we met with all of the neighbors early on in the process. The one thing that we heard over and over again is that we don’t want headlights coming through our house as people come off of the new Reeves Road loop to go west on Reeves Road. I think the initial design of the berms they were probably seven or eight feet, they were pretty high. They have been lowered. I believe they are five or six feet tall. There is some slope, there is some cuts. We did hire a security consultant to look at the entire site. The one thing that did concern us is that a lot of high berms all the way around that site gave places for people to hide. So, there are some cuts in the berm areas. There really shouldn’t be any issues for the neighbors around the school site.

Mr. Haase said on top of the berm there will be landscaping.

Mr. Banning said yes.

Gentleman said the same way on the safety issues. We had a pre-bid meeting today with our apparent low bidder on the site package. We emphasized to this firm that the Town will have to have the ability to get through this site in an emergency situation. So, they understand that and plans are being made for it.

Mr. Gary Walls at 1346 Crest Ct. said I was just curious. I saw the plans but I wasn’t here for the initial meeting but I did go downstairs and looked at the plans. I was looking at what would be the northwest corner. I really can’t tell here exactly where we are. It was my understanding that the Dorthea Anderson property is still being maintained as the original house is and the existing carriage house up there. My property abuts against that. I’m trying to determine, I couldn’t quite tell from the plot map that I saw downstairs, where that exactly comes to there right now. I’m just curious to where Crest Court backs into that? I’m thinking I see it there.

Mr. Haase said Crest Ct. is to the north.

Mr. Banning said I don’t remember exactly where Crest Ct. is. The school owns this property.

Mr. Walls said that is the east/west street. Crest turns right off of Springcrest.

Mr. Banning asked, is that north/south street? Is it a cul-de-sac?

Mr. Walls said it is a cul-de-sac. Yes that does not show up on this particular map. The school ground is here, the Anderson ground is here and there was some swapping so it appears that doesn’t even line up with your property.

Mr. Walls said I knew there were some things going on with that but I just wanted to make sure.

Mr. Haase said being no one else coming forward we will close the public portion at this time and accept any discussion from board members or a motion to act on this public hearing.

Mr. McPhail made a motion that the plan Commission approve the Primary Plat PP-05-001 as filed by the Plainfield Community School Corporation requesting primary plat approval to divide 167.77 acres

! 23

into four lots to be known as PCSC High School including an alternate sidewalk plan approval subject to the following conditions:

1. Compliance with the Town Standards, including but not limited to: Plainfield Ordinance No. 1-96 regarding Floodplain Management; Plainfield Ordinance Nos. 4-94 and 3-86 regarding Sewage Works; Plainfield Ordinance No. 17-97 regarding Drainage; Plainfield Ordinance No. 19-97 regarding Municipal Waterworks and Plainfield Ordinance No. 18-97 regarding Access Permits.

2. Compliance with the standards and specifications of the Plainfield Subdivision Control Ordinance.

3. Right-of-way for Reeves Road from Red Pride Drive to SR267 shall be approved by the Town Engineer, recorded, and cross-referenced on the secondary plats submitted for final approval and recording.

Second by Mr. Thibo. Roll call vote called.

Mr. Thibo – yes Mr. Matrana – yes Mr. McPhail – yes Mr. Brandgard – yes Ms. Whicker – yes Mr. Kirchoff – yes Mr. Haase – yes

7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.

Mr. Haase said the next public hearing will be PP-05-002, Premier Properties.

Mr. Valanzano said the next petition is a request to add some ground to the Plainfield Commons II plat. I believe everything can be summarized if you look at the first page of the Staff Report at the picture on the front cover. The first parcel to the right hand side, the uppermost addition that the arrow is going to be about a 24-acre field that is east of Plainfield Commons, that was part of the primary plat. They want to incorporate that into the overall development for Plainfield Commons.

Secondly, the area to the south is two lots that were originally platted as Lots 2 and 3 of the Perry Road Business Park at Westcor. That is being re-platted through this process to add it to Plainfield Commons as well. That goes down to the south property line of the Galyan’s office building. So, the plat would accommodate the re-platting of the Galyan’s office building, another lot just east of that, which would be about six acres in size and this would provide for the right-of-way dedication and alignment of the road, which is shown on the drawings as Metropolis Parkway. We are going to work on the name of that later on. And that alignment from Perry Road to the east property line of Plainfield Commons, which would take us to the property with Airtech, as we work out the proper alignment, that road can continue through Airtech and out to eventually Ronald Reagan Parkway. All of that is wrapped up into this plat approval as an amendment and things that would be accommodated through that. It is an incremental plat, the area north of the Galyan’s building and north of that road. As with many commercial developments it is unknown at this time with what will happen there so it is incremental in that area. It could be broken up into possibly one to five lots in that particular area. We just have to see what happens there.

The major concern, if any, is that the final alignment of the east/west roadway from Perry Road to the east property line is subject to the Town Engineer’s approval so that we can assure that the alignment is properly done. There is a pond off the property to the east. We have to make sure everything is done right so we don’t end up stubbing this into a drainage facility. With that I would be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. Ryan Cronk with Premier Properties at 5252 E. 82nd St., Indianapolis said I will take any questions at this time.

Mr. Haase asked, is there anyone in the audience who has any questions about this public hearing? Being no one coming forward we will close the public portion of this hearing and the Chair will entertain a motion to act upon this measure.

! 24

Ms. Whicker made a motion that the Plan Commission approve the Primary Plat PP-05-002 as filed by Premier Properties USA, Inc. requesting approval to amend the primary plat for Plainfield Commons II to add 62.27 acres and a potential 4-9 additional lots subject to the following conditions:

1. Compliance with the Town Standards, including but not limited to: Plainfield Ordinance No. 1-96 regarding Floodplain Management; Plainfield Ordinance Nos. 4-94 and 3-86 regarding Sewage Works; Plainfield Ordinance No. 17-97 regarding Drainage; Plainfield Ordinance No. 19-97 regarding Municipal Waterworks; and Plainfield Ordinance No. 18-97 regarding Access Permits.

2. Compliance with the standards and specifications of the Plainfield Subdivision Control Ordinance.

3. Final alignment of the east/west street from Perry Road to the east property line shall be subject to the approval of the Town Engineer.

Second by Matrana. Roll call vote called.

Mr. Thibo – yes Mr. Matrana – yes Mr. McPhail – yes Mr. Brandgard – yes Ms. Whicker – yes Mr. Kirchoff – yes Mr. Haase – yes

7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.

Mr. Haase said the next item will be DP-05-005, Murphy Oil, USA.

Mr. Valanzano said the request that you have in front of you now is for the development of a Murphy Oil gas station facility. This is the outlot just off the main entrance to the Wal-Mart that is under construction now. In reviewing this and taking this project through the Design Review Committee Staff was quite concerned about the appearance that the facility would have, both the uses permitted by the ordinance. However, we looked at this site and the structure that was being proposed is probably one of the largest gas station canopies that you are going to see in Town. It is probably one of the highest visible locations in Town. So, we wanted to make every effort to work with the applicant and try to bring to you the best package that we could possibly put together.

The petitioners have been responsive to us. I believe the package that you see in front of you, that was distributed in your packets, represents the fourth iteration of the design on the proposal. They have substantially increased the size and girth of the support columns. They have added brick wraps around the brick that is going to be used. It is the quick brick that is to match the Wal-Mart facility. The columns are at least two feet and eight inches wide and four feet deep. We worked with them in terms of the light facilities that are up under the canopy. Those are going to be full cut-off recessed fixtures. It will be like some of the other high-quality canopies that we have worked with in Town. You won’t have hot spots or glares. We worked with them on the light fixtures on the building, the wrapping of the “C” store and everything. We have done a lot of work on the canopy design and their sign package as well. What you see in front of you, as the signs on this proposal, is significantly different than when we first had our initial discussions with the petitioner. It was over a variance that was submitted for signs. I believe the petitioner will tell you tonight that they are going to withdraw that request for the sign variance. What we see here on the colored elevation that you have is the sign package that they will be going forward with.

Most of the issues listed in the Staff Comments, Questions and Concerns have been addressed in terms of the column width notations, using the fixtures being metal halide instead of high pressure sodium on the “C” store light on the back side. They need to give us some details but that is just a permit type detail.

I would note on the recommended motion that they have revised the site plan just in terms of some of the notations on it. So, instead of March 22 of 2005 you can refer to the April 5, 2005 site plan. I will assure you that the changes that were made were extremely minimal and it really just deals with some notations that were on the plan.

! 25

The only thing on the canopy design that I noticed was changed is they submitted a new canopy design. They added that notation that I had asked for in the Staff Report for the minimum column width of the two foot and eight inches by four foot. That was the only change that I noticed on the canopy drawings so on item number two you can make that subject to the elevations file dated April 5, 2005 and delete the rest of the sentence.

The rest of the comments stay in place. Like I said, we have been working with the petitioner quite a while on this. I guess the question for you is have we worked with them far enough and hard enough to make it where it needs to be? Or do we still need to go back to the drawing board and, if so, please give us some direction so that we and the petitioner can work together to give you a better package yet. With that I would be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. Matt Price at 10 W. Market St., Indianapolis, IN said I wanted to first of all thank you for suspending the rules this evening and allowing us to be heard. It is important for us tonight because my clients, and I will introduce them, are Glen Wright with Murphy, USA who is coming to us tonight by Tennessee; Earl Smith, who is with us this evening also from Murphy, USA who is from Louisiana and our engineer, Brad Jackson who is also available to answer any questions for you tonight and is here in the way of Arkansas. They were nervously looking at their watches a little earlier in the proceedings. I also extend my thanks to Mr. Valanzano. We have worked very hard to enhance this proposal and to be cognoscente to the requirements of the Gateway Corridor ordinance. We think we have achieved the design that is attractive and uses high-quality material. We have been responsive to the desire of the Design Review Committee. With that I would simply open it up for any questions that you might have and I appreciate very much your consideration.

Mr. Thibo asked, what brand of gas will it be?

Mr. Price said it will be Murphy’s brand, Murphy’s, USA.

Mr. Thibo asked, not Shell?

Mr. Price said no. It is quality fuel.

Ms. Whicker said there is signage on the canopy fascia then there is no signage on the individual pumps is that correct?

Mr. Haase asked, will there be informational signage on the pumps?

Mr. Valanzano said there may be some notations about what credit cards it will take, etc. The only thing that they have given us in terms of the sign package so far is what you see here. There was a variance request that did deal with a bunch of other types of sign that would have been put down by the canopies as you are driving in. After talking to the petitioner that it really was probably not going to be well received by the Town I believe that is officially going to go away.

Mr. Price said our plan is to withdraw the variance request.

Mr. Valanzano said when you look at this from the side view, are there any signs on the pumps themselves or will we see what we have here, clean pumps and clean elevations?

Mr. Glen Wright with Murphy, USA at 141 Eagle Glens Dr., Franklin, TN said the pump doors, the bottom portion of the pumps, have Murphy, USA on them on either side. Our pump faces have, as Mr. Valanzano said, informational signs concerning the credit cards that we take and octane rating of each product required by the federal government. Other than that, other than the required signs, that’s it. I understand from talking to Mr. Valanzano the City does not allow pump droppers, signs on top of the pump and that was part of our variance request. As Mr. Valanzano said, we withdrew but other than the Murphy, USA on the pump doors and some informational signs on the pump faces that is it.

Mr. Kirchoff asked, as I am driving down U.S. 40 how am I going to know what your pricing is?

! 26

Mr. Wright said hopefully you will look on the canopy and see our price on that.

Mr. Kirchoff said I see the $2.08 but if you drive down there today, there are three different prices plus diesel, plus cigarettes.

Mr. Wright said our standard package is three price signs but we only advertise the unleaded price on that sign and we normally don’t use a pole type sign or a monument type sign, if we have good visibility.

Mr. Haase said I guess all of those signs on the pumps fits into their allowable signage.

Mr. Valanzano said yes. When I look at the elevation, the middle one on the right, I think the Murphy Oil is that little bit of white that you can see on the bottom half of that pump. What we are showing here we aren’t going to have any problems with compliance.

Mr. Haase asked, is there anyone in the audience who has any questions about this public hearing? From the DRC meeting that I sat on with these folks on the original concept that they had they were very workable. I think the canopy looks very nice. I think we have a good product and I would like to thank them and compliment them with working with the Town so congenially. It does look very nice and we welcome you to Town.

Mr. McPhail said I would like to echo that because the DRC meeting that I sat in I saw the final review and I think the DRC and the petitioner did a good job of bringing this project in.

Mr. Carlucci said I think this is much better looking than the one on U.S. 36.

Mr. Haase said with nobody coming forward we will close the public portion of this hearing and the Chair will entertain a motion on this. The only thing that I will ask on this motion is the date of April 5 just in two places, one and two and not three?

Mr. Valanzano said just in one and two.

Mr. Brandgard made a motion to approve DP-05-005 requesting Architectural and Site Design Review approval for commercial development of a Murphy Oil USA gasoline service station with a convenience store within 600 feet of a Gateway Corridor with a waiver of pedestrian connectivity requirements 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 with respect to the waiver of pedestrian connectivity, the Plan Commission finds that:

1. The proposed development represents an innovative use of site design features or landscaping which will enhance the use or value of area properties.

2. The proposed development is consistent with and compatible with other development located along the Gateway Corridor or within six hundred (600) feet of the Residential District.

3. The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of this ordinance.

And that the approval shall be subject to the following conditions:

! 27

1. Development shall be in substantial compliance with the site plan and landscape plan file dated April 5, 2005.

2. The canopy design and signs shall be in substantial compliance with the elevations file dated April 5, 2005 provided that the column supports shall be documented at a minimum dimension of 4’ x 2’-8”.

3. Canopy lighting shall be in substantial compliance with the lighting plans file dated March 4, 2005.

4. The wal-pac light for the convenience store shall be changed to a full cut-off, down shielded, metal halide light and a fully detailed cut-sheet shall be provided as part of the Improvement Location Permit application.

5. If wood gates are used on the trash enclosure, the wood shall be cedar.

Second by Mr. McPhail. Roll call vote called.

Mr. Thibo – yes Mr. Matrana – yes Mr. McPhail – yes Mr. Brandgard – yes Ms. Whicker – yes Mr. Kirchoff – yes Mr. Haase – yes

7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.

Mr. Haase said the next item is DP-05-006, Premier Properties USA, Inc.

Mr. Valanzano said what we have in front of us today is a sign program for Metropolis. As you know, the idea for the PUD is to provide for design flexibility for unique projects. Premier Properties has proposed a package of what they feel is appropriate for the project. In many of the cases what you have in front of you the signs really identify the Metropolis. In most cases, the signs do not identify a J.C. Penney or tenant “A” or tenant “B”. Really the signs around the perimeter of the project simply say Metropolis on them. If you look at the cover of the Staff Report, I tried to identify for you some highlights.

If you follow the color symbols, sign type “A” is the Metropolis sign that is floating in the pond, it is proposed to be floating in the drainage pond on Perry Road. That would be off the main entrance in from U.S. 40. It is the blue line. On my drawing it is represented on number 25.

Then we have sign type “B”, which is the Metropolis entrance sign. Those are represented by yellow dots and there is one each at the other major entrances. On this drawing the road that comes back in by Raves they are here, here and at these entrances on Perry Road.

Then we have the sign type “C”, which are directional signs. The Metropolis sign in the pond is proposed to be 10 feet tall and 113½ feet long for a 1,135 square foot sign. The Metropolis entrance signs that I just described there is the proposal as filed, which shows seven of those, eight foot tall by 20.5 feet wide for 164 square feet each. When you add all of those up together, that comes out to 1,148 square feet. Sign type “C” is in a different category. Those are directional signs. Those are proposed to be six feet wide and a little under 10 feet tall, 58 square feet each. Those are going to be located at critical turning points throughout the project. Those are the majority of ones that you see as you are coming in off the main road this sign would direct you to which uses are in this direction verses straight ahead. There are a series of those scattered around and they are at critical turning points. So, my personal opinion they have not overdone it in terms of the number of them. They have some of them on the way in like this drive. There is a directional sign at this location, which would tell what uses are straight and which ones you want to turn right or turn left. There are also directional signs on the way out, which will let you know which way to get to U.S. 40, which way to get to Perry Road or get down to Stafford Road or I-70. I think you have the packets itself, the drawings in your packets so that you can see what the text is going to look like. It didn’t have a lot of corporate logo. It was just simply the text telling you where the areas would be. Although those are 58 square feet in height the way they are distributed around the site and with the number of places that are going to be identified from DRC’s feeling on those particular signs

! 28

was that they were not oversized and with traffic moving they needed the size where they could be more easily seen. Typically a directional sign can only be allowed to be six square feet. With the pylon structure and embellishments they put on them they are more like 58 square feet each.

Sign type “D” is a roof sign that is proposed to be along the roof of this building in the middle of the Metropolis. This is a sign that lays flat on the roof and visible only from a parachute’s prospective. It would not be visible from anybody on the ground. That is fairly substantial in size, 12 x 271 feet.

The initial proposal is for three pylon signs along U.S. 40. I have identified those by the cone shapes on my drawing and they are located here, here and here on U.S. 40. This particular one is where the existing sign is now. It now says J.C. Penney and Metropolis on it. That is in there by variance. These other two signs are not within the bounds of the PUD or the plat so those would really be considered off-premise advertising signs. We had some discussions at DRC about really dropping those from the package and dealing with signage at those locations by other means. One of the discussions that we have had with this petitioner and other areas in Town is developing a program that could be used to identify major attractions in Town, Metropolis potentially being one of those and the recreation center being another and the high school another. And the Town Center, the downtown area be another. With that we think these two locations, as opposed to dealing with off-premise advertising signs and getting variances for those, it might be appropriate to deal with working with the petitioner and the Town in cooperation and maybe look at these locations way-finder type signs instead, in which case Metropolis can be identified by not the level that they are working initially but provide some direction into the site in those locations.

Also, with the signs on U.S. 40 there were two options that were shown in the drawing of the initial request. That sign was in the vicinity of almost 29 feet tall and 119 square feet in total area because of how the pylon was constructed from grade all the way up. They had a proposal that was more in the vicinity of 216 square feet. The DRC suggested going with the smaller sign. The larger sign also included an LED screen as part of that display. I believe Mr. Cronk is going to suggest something other than an LED screen. There were concerns about flashing signs and messages and traffic safety on U.S. 40. All the other signs are the simple metal signs with the indentations or the holes in it and the message of Metropolis. The thought was that this sign should be similar to those in terms of what is portrayed and not have the extra information on it.

Finally there was the proposal for a temporary construction sign that would have been 50 feet tall and had about 772 square feet of message area. If you counted the entire structure, it would have been about 1,400 square feet in area.

One of the reasons that I mention all of that is to let you know that it is quite a bit of signs but to be fair about it I think I need to mention to you if you look under the terms of the ordinance of what could be allowed, if you looked at this sign being established by a variance at 198 square feet and with frontages here, here and here of over 1,000 feet, the type of sign and the amount of signs you could have it would be 600 feet per frontage. The ordinance would allow that. It would allow for a retail center in the GC District that would be comparable to pole signs. What we have here is a proposal that has, what would have to be called, pylon signs because they are eight feet tall coming around here at 164 square feet. Those would easily fit within the guidelines. The thing that really throws the monkey wrench in here is this 1,300 square foot sign floating in the pond. Without that the rest of the signs your total square footage that would be allowed would be substantially within the guidelines that would be established by the ordinance. One of the things that the Design Review Committee was really concerned about is what we do here needs to be within the realm of consistency so that all projects in Town feel like they are being dealt with in the same way and being dealt with fairly. So, having said that if you take all of that and work it in, that leaves you with 634 square feet for the sign in the pond. If that sign was reduced to that size, we could say with what this sign has it is really no different than what the other signs would have. If you really want me to, I can go through all of the math that I went through to get there. If that was 634 square feet instead of the 1,100 square feet they are proposing, we could do the apples and apples comparison

! 29

in terms of the square footage. The distribution may be a little different based on the design but that is one of the unique aspects of the PUD in terms of the uniqueness of the design.

Looking at the temporary construction signs, they are doing the same thing based on the frontages. Even if you had four frontages like U.S. 40 and those other streets, 200 square feet per, you could end up with a total of 800 square feet. Maybe the solution on the temporary sign is to reduce that from the total area of 1,400 square feet, or whatever I said it was, up to 800 square feet including all of those design elements. Mr. Cronk suggested that it may end up being taken off the table in terms of the request at this time. I will let him clarify that for you.

The other concerns DRC had once you got past the consistency was the lighting for the roof sign. They really thought it was unique. The only concern I have is this project unique enough in your mind that considering all of the other large rooftops we have in Town that we are going to be setting a precedent where everybody else that has those large rooftops are going to want rooftop signs that are going to be lit up at night? What will be the accumulative affect of all of those being added up?

Again, the two signs at the far extreme we would suggest that those not be approved and we looked at some alternate way of working with the petitioner with a way-finder program for those instead. And that the sign type “E” at the main entrance off of U.S. 40 be downsized to the option that was indicated in the package and not use an LED display. With that I think that balances what we can do in the ordinance and still provide some of the flexibility and the uniqueness of the design that the petitioner has requested. I think that addresses a good deal of the DRC’s concerns. The representative of the Plan Commission at the DRC was Mr. McPhail at that particular day. He may have other comments that he may want to add from their point of view.

Mr. McPhail said I think you adequately covered everything.

Mr. Ryan Cronk with Premier Properties said I think Mr. Valanzano did a good job of, obviously, explaining everything we talked about at the Design Review Committee. We actually had some dialog about some of these sign packages last week with some of the various DRC members and Plan Commission members.

Before I touch on some other things I just want to mention a couple of clarifications with what Mr. Valanzano went through with some of the signs. On the sign type “A” that is going to be at the entry, the Metropolis sign, I think someone mentioned that is going to be in a reflecting pool now. We got rid of our storm water retention on the front of the site because we didn’t want that unsightliness. So, the proposal for the Metropolis sign is to be more of a reflecting, filtered, clean water, almost like a pool, shallow water. So, it is not going to be sticking in a pond. In terms of art, we have always had trouble maintaining ponds so I think this gets rid of that. Secondly, we do propose to have at least a minimum of a 60-foot setback for this sign off of the right-of-way. I don’t think that has been clarified.

The second sign, the ground sign, I think Mr. Valanzano hit those right on. That would be sign type “B”.

Sign type “C” I think DRC had obviously recommended approval of those. I don’t really have too many comments about those at this time.

Sign type “D”, the Metropolis roof sign those are a halo-lit letter. We talked about this previously. Those will not be internally lit. It is a background light so the letters are actually a solid color. In response to some of the things that DRC discussed with respect of setting a precedent in what happens if the roof sign goes on a billboard and all of the warehouses and whoever else might want them one of the concepts that we have developed, and you will see clearly in our proposal, is we are not promoting these tenants. We have talked to Mr. McPhail about this. We are clearly trying to brand this project so that people understand the experience that they are coming to. We are not promoting J.C. Penney. We are not promoting Raves Theater. We are promoting the Metropolis in Plainfield, Indiana. In order to make that excel our sign package has to clearly denote what the image is. Some of the things that we talked about in the DRC is the size of these things and how big they are. They are big but from our standpoint they

! 30

fit the scale of the project. People could drive out there right now and they see the steel going up and they see how big these buildings are. It is a large-scale project, it’s a hundred million dollar project and large big buildings. I know the warehouses are big buildings but just going back to the roof sign when people fly over the site seeing the Metropolis name, obviously it is going to give people on the north side and people in Terre Haute, Indiana, people are going to see that sign and say, “What is the Metropolis?” That is our objective is to get people’s interest and get them to the Metropolis. The more people that we can get sparked interest to get out there actually the better that this thing excels. From our standpoint we need this thing to excel. We believe the Town wants this to excel. Nothing against the warehouse users, they are distribution centers and if they put a sign that says Target on the roof, they are not selling a product in that building. They are not selling people coming to that product. It is a warehouse use. They are two different animals in terms of the precedent of putting a roof sign on a project verses something in the warehouse district or something in the Office District for that matter. We are trying to promote people from afar to come to Plainfield, Indiana and this is how we get their interest in doing it. This is how we get a further reach out.

Sign type “E”, as far as the two locations Mr. Valanzano mentioned that are off sight, I think I agree as far as those two locations, there is really not much that the Plan Commission can do tonight even if you wanted to get them approved. They would either require a variance or something of that nature. The sign where the J.C. Penney exists today we showed that with an LED graphic and I think we understand that having moving animation obviously it could probably be a traffic concern. We have taken that off. The signs, as they are shown or originally proposed, did have that graphic on it and the signs do show a J.C. Penney and a Dick’s on the graphic. We are not going to advertise tenants on these even though it said that. That was a commitment of ours. The objective of these signs is to promote events within the shopping center. What we are proposing to do is have an interchange panel on the LED that we can change and it doesn’t move that, which promotes our events. We have a safety festival every year in the Target parking lot but if it is something that the Metropolis has, Santa Claus, etc., that is the kind of stuff, whatever fundraising thing we want to do, are the events and/or promotions that we want to show on these signs. We are not going to sell this panel to Dick’s Sporting Goods, etc. This is only for promotions within our shopping center that involves events, etc.

Sign type “F” I think we are almost in May and actually I talked to Mr. McGillem and Mr. Belcher about this sign as well. As we work to figure out the construction of these intersections, it didn’t make sense to us where we are in the project and what our opening date is to move forward with this by the time we get the thing installed. We are taking sign type “F” off the proposal.

One of the reasons that we zoned this as a PUD is just that, it is a unique project. When we first presented this four or five years ago and started talking about this and figured out how we are going to do a lot of things that we are doing internally in the shopping center, Mr. Valanzano could probably red line our site plan all day and show you everything that doesn’t comply. It doesn’t mean that it doesn’t meet or exceed the Zoning Ordinance. I’m talking about little things in the ordinance that may or may not comply with the technicality of the ordinance. We sought the PUD zoning for that versatility to provide something greater than the commercial standards offer. We didn’t feel, as great as the ordinance is, some areas don’t reflect this kind of development or this kind of magnitude in terms of signage and in terms of some of the setback things, internal streets and even some of the landscape type technicalities. So, we sought the PUD zoning classification for that reason. When we talk about the comparison of our signs verses the ordinance, that is one of the reasons we are going for the PUD. We think this project seeks a little more attention than what is not required in the ordinance.

When we talk about the ordinance, I think we have to look above and beyond square footage numbers. Yes, we are exceeding the square footage. I want to point out that the DRC recommended on their approval something that less than what is allowed in General Commercial. So, as we talk about where we are and how much square footage we want, the recommendation that we got from DRC was less than what we were technically allowed by the General Commercial standards. These don’t all meet the ordinance but my point is just to clearly show

! 31

the difference what we are proposing in terms of the heights, the classiness, the style and the subtleness of what we are doing verses technically what could be done under the General Commercial ordinance. Again, that always can be done but I think my point is we could advertise tenants on these things and we could build them taller. The sign at the entrance, Metropolis, 1,000 square foot I know rings a bell but it is 10 feet high. People really aren’t going to see a 10-foot tall sign no matter how long it is until they get to the entrance of the shopping center. We think it is a great-looking sign. Those signs, on the other hand, which no matter where those things are, you will see them from far away and to us they are unattractive. So, I just wanted to point that out, again, we are not providing tenants, we are selling our brand, we are selling Metropolis.

The buildings that we are building, I think we have proved that we are going to build a first-class development. The materials on our project have no block. We are building a first-class project. We are using first-class materials and we are carrying that over in our sign package. Our architect, JPRA is out of Michigan and they are probably the premier architects in what I would call either outdoor and indoor shopping centers in this country. When they submitted this sign package, the sizes and everything else were not dictated by us. They said, “This is what we need for this project” and we listened. We think the scale and everything else needs this.

With that said I think we talked about a week or two ago we want to move forward. We feel confident about it. We want to deliver it but at the same time we want to make sure that everyone here is comfortable with it as well as the Design Review Committee members. One of the things that we talked about doing is showing everyone the scale of these things specifically the ones that seem to be of concern, i.e., the entry sign being 10 feet tall, 100-foot long. And showing maybe the Design Review Committee, showing the Plan Commission members on site a mockup of what it really looks like when you get out there so that there is a comfort level, if it is acceptable at that time. We want to do that, we want to deliver it, we want you to be happy, we want the Design Review Committee members to be happy. Like I said we are extremely happy with the sign package and we will do whatever on-sight samples or continue to work with Plainfield if they still feel this is unacceptable to create something that people are happy with. With that said I will take any questions.

Ms. Whicker said on the sign type “E” the LED screen my only question is maintenance of this. If something malfunctioned and the sign is on U.S. 40, how quickly is somebody able to fix it? You have a great sign but if the sign is only partially working.

Mr. Cronk said the entire sign package we are proposing to build with LED lights. Don’t confuse that with the LED panel. The nice thing about LED lights is they are more expensive but they last forever. You don’t have to change bulbs. A lot of retailers now, and we are going to require it of the shopping center for mall tenants, are staring to use LED lights in their storefront signs because they have longevity in the bulb life. You can drive by a retail center and you will see a bulb out because they use neon, etc. but LED has a lifespan ten times longer and it uses less energy. We get our money back after an upfront cost in terms of the energy savings but we save maintenance costs. I’m not having to fix bulbs all of the time.

Another thing on this project is we have on-site maintenance people, we have an on-site garage, we have full-time on-site maintenance. If there is bulb replacement or something damaged on the sign, if it is significant you have to get the sign contractor out.

Mr. Valanzano said I think you were referring to the LED display that was proposed on one of the signs. Mr. Cronk said he was going to do away with the LED display and put a solid panel in.

Ms. Whicker said I’m just thinking whether it is the pool, etc. but you have on-site maintenance and can take care of those things and you don’t have to wait on something coming in from a different location.

Mr. Cronk said unless it is a warranty issue that the maintenance people can’t handle or something of that nature. We want to react to those things fast.

Mr. Haase asked, do you have a copy of our suggested motion?

! 32

Mr. Cronk said I have one here.

Mr. Haase said page 5 of 5. Under 1.a., sign type “A” let’s ignore that for the moment. All the rest of those are you in agreement with everything else in there b.; c.; d.; and e.?

Mr. Cronk said b. yes.

Mr. Valanzano said you said you were going to delete b. is that correct?

Mr. Cronk said I’m sorry b. goes out, we aren’t doing it; c., sign type “E” is correct. On locations 030 and 031 I think the only clarification that I wanted to do there is we are going to pursue something at those entrances in connection with further work with the Town. It’s just not in the petition right now.

Mr. Haase said it’s really out.

Mr. Cronk said yes.

Mr. Haase said you would have to go for a variance.

Mr. Cronk said technically we would have to get a variance on that anyway because it’s off the limits of the PUD. We have kept it in our overall sign package because we wanted to present the overall package that we proposed but it is off-site. It’s not within the limits of the PUD as it is today. But it is something that we will want to discuss in the future.

Mr. Kirchoff said we better leave it in.

Mr. Cronk said and then the roof sign is correct.

Mr. Kirchoff asked, can we go back to “A”? Mr. Valanzano you threw so many numbers at me I’m befuddled. How far are we over what they proposed verses this number? What is the gap for the maximum square footage?

Mr. Haase said we are about half.

Mr. Valanzano said this 634 fills whatever was left if you went through the 1,000 feet here, 1,000 there, 1,000 there.

Mr. Haase said they were 1,135 verses our 634.

Mr. Valanzano said on that one particular sign.

Mr. Haase said a five hundred foot difference in that sign.

Mr. Valanzano said you might want to look at “B”, temporary construction sign is not approved, as the simplest way to do it. Then on “C”, Mr. Cronk correct me if I’m wrong, but you still wanted to use the size and style sign that you had with the panel except replace it with a non-electrical panel so that would still be the larger of the two signs. Ms. Whicker talked about the optional sign. It’s not the optional sign but it is still the sign that proposed with the LED panel on it except the display portion of it would be a fixed panel as opposed to an LED type panel. So, they are still looking at the larger one. If you wanted to get into that, that would play with the numbers a bit. On the other hand I do have to agree with Mr. Cronk. I have asked him several times to give me that setback off of Perry Road and tonight was the first time I heard that it is the minimum of 60 feet back. So, a 10-foot high ground sign 60 foot back from the road, if you look at it in terms of line of sight, if it was a 10 foot setback from the road, what would the visual impact be? You have a lot of other design factors to consider as well.

Mr. Cronk said it is a 10 foot tall sign and it is 100 foot long but there could be an outlot building there that is 20 feet tall and 100 feet long. I’m just saying we think that sign looks better than an outlot building.

One other thing that I want to show, this isn’t on the docket tonight, but these were some of the way-finding signs we had drawn up at Mr. Valanzano’s request just as a conceptual proposal to the Town for your way-finding system to review and brainstorm.

! 33

Mr. Haase said I think the 10-foot high sign that would be one that I would have to preview before I could sign off on it. I appreciate his desires to do maybe a mockup and let us see that, to visualize a sign of that size, 113½ feet long and 10 foot high but with space in between it to see through it.

Mr. Kirchoff asked, is it a solid sign or is it just block letters?

Mr. Haase said I think it is just individual letters isn’t it?

Mr. Cronk said it is a solid sign. It is not internally lit, it’s externally lit letters.

Mr. Valanzano said they are individual letters that you can see in between.

Mr. Cronk said yes they are individual letters.

Mr. Kirchoff said so it’s not a 113-foot solid space but it is 113 foot with lettering and you can see in between them so to speak.

Mr. McPhail said I might note the motion that Mr. Valanzano is proposing is a 50% increase over what the DRC recommended. DRC recommended of 400 square feet. On the ground signs DRC recommended that the eight-foot be reduced to six-foot and I don’t see that in the motion anyplace.

Mr. Kirchoff said this is new for the Town. It is going to be unique for us but how far do you stretch this?

Mr. Haase said the merchants within this complex are they going to have signs on their wall fronts? Will they just be internal or will they be on the backside also?

Mr. Cronk said most all of these tenants are pretty much internal signage. Dick’s has an exterior sign.

Mr. Haase said much like J.C. Penney does.

Mr. Cronk said yes. They have an internal sign, they have an external sign. This building right here, which is more of an external face, will have an external sign. This will have a double-sided sign but this is all surface so there isn’t going to be any sign. I think if you recall, we talked about how to protect all of rear of these buildings. So, the bulk of this tenant’s signage is going to be internal. Anything that has a dual facing door will have front and back signage.

Mr. Kirchoff said one of the issues that we discussed in depth at DRC is number one this is a PUD and there is some flexibility in what is happening. The number one issue with the Board of Zoning Appeals is signage. The number one complaint from businesses within our community is signage. Every business wants rules for everybody but them. I think DRC looked at this and said, “Let’s try to blend this thing in looking at the overall ordinance and try to fit it in.” That was the reason for some of the recommendations coming out of DRC. I think it is an issue that we really need to think about. This is unique. I do think there is some flexibility here but whatever you approve here you better be ready to defend it with the rest of the community.

Mr. David Zoba, President of Premier Properties at 5252 E. 82nd St. said I appreciate all of you and how hard you are working past eleven o’clock tonight. I’m not going to belabor the issue. I think Mr. Cronk and Mr. Valanzano really made a presentation of all of the points. I think the PUD is an important point. I believe what JPRA, the architects gave you was a very much above average and unique branding package of signage. I think the branding issue is critical and it is critical for every retailer. I think it is critical for a project like this where we are trying to make a statement to the community, as a whole, and that is the whole west side of Indianapolis and perhaps as far west as Terre Haute. We think those people will all come to know this project as the premier project on the west side. I’m very sensitive to what Mr. McPhail is saying about you having to face the music with other people in the go-around, this is a bit of a unique project. It is one hundred and twenty-five million dollars. If you want to make it simple, just cut off projects at one hundred million

! 34

dollars and anything above that there is a little special consideration. I also think it is unique in the sense this package of signage is bringing an element of art to Plainfield just like, and I hope I don’t have people in here who hate it, but just like the fish. When Plainfield is photographed and in the paper, it was often that fish. I think this tasteful sign washed in light will be a unique and tasteful presentation. But I appreciate your consideration. We are anxious to move this forward. We would love to mock it up and show it to people because this project is scheduled to open in the fall and the signage is an important part of it.

Mr. Haase said there is a sign out here. I would like to take this front board off here, if we could. I don’t know if it is on the backside of it.

Mr. Valanzano asked, which one are you looking for?

Mr. Haase asked, is there a backside to that?

Mr. Valanzano said yes.

Mr. Haase said yes this upper right hand corner here. Where is that sign?

Mr. Valanzano said those are the six or seven signs that are identified that would be with the yellow dots scattered around at the end of the driveway entrances.

Mr. Haase asked, what size are those?

Mr. Valanzano said eight-foot tall by approximately 20½ feet wide.

Mr. Haase said those are the ones that you said they recommended at six feet is that correct?

Mr. Valanzano said the petitioners have identified that as a ground sign. Ground signs are limited to six feet but the ordinance would allow pylon signs so if they simply said it was a pylon sign, we might not have gotten into that same conversation.

Mr. Haase asked, what are the setbacks on those proposed to be?

Mr. Valanzano said there would have to be the minimum 10 feet. You could do a pylon sign up to 20-foot tall with a 10-foot setback with the changes we made last summer.

Mr. Haase asked, how wide?

Mr. Valanzano said whatever it takes to get to the square footage that you would be allowed. The square footage area of 164 square feet for that is within the range of what you would see and not quite as big as you could get. Each one of those frontages you can have up to 600 square feet. You could have a 200 square foot and a 400 square foot on each frontage by the ordinance. That is how I came up with the calculations.

Ms. Whicker said when I see the sign type “A”, I think of the total circumference or the total area of the letters and maybe not the whole length of the empty space. If you don’t have a backing, are you still going to count that square feet that is empty space as signage?

Mr. Haase said initially yes. That is how the Town counts because you really can’t take that out of the equation. It just became a calculating nightmare.

Mr. Cronk said if you look at our sign package, even on the eight-foot signs and the Metropolis sign with the space between them, how the square footage is calculated, it sounds like a lot of square footage. But look how much of that square footage is signage verses, even on the eight-foot sign, what I would call more an aesthetic monument verses an actual sign that is on that piece. The bulk of that sign is metal, it is not a selling flashing sign. Something like this you would count this all square footage and it all has tenant signage on it. On that sign you counted all of the square footage and it’s got a small identification on it. So, I just wanted to elaborate on that point one more time as we look at these square footages and when we

! 35

compare apples to apples and signage verses the Plainfield calculations of square footage.

Mr. Haase said the sign on the lower left-hand column or picture is there any difference, in the DRC’s opinion, of what that should be?

Mr. McPhail asked, those are the way-finding signs aren’t they? Mr. Haase said internally yes.

Mr. McPhail said DRC didn’t have any problems with those.

Mr. Haase said with the height of those.

Mr. McPhail said we talked about a way-finding sign ordinance that we have been working on and we think that will blend in.

Mr. Haase said those are internal.

Mr. McPhail said yes. Once you make the turn in past this entrance sign, once you turn in, then they will have these way-finding signs that says J.C. Penney’s or Dick’s or whatever. I think those are important because once you get in there you will want to know where to find them. I think they have done an excellent job with that part of the package because it does tell you where to go without having these huge signs like Mr. Cronk brought you the ugly ones to look at. That is what has really driven our sign ordinances to have all of those kinds of things all over Town and look like Pigeon Fords when you get a bunch of those.

Mr. Haase asked, is there anyone in the audience who has a question or comment on this public hearing? My stance on this is really I don’t know what to do with the rooftop sign. I probably don’t have any problem if you don’t see it. If you can’t see it, it’s not there I suppose.

The way-finding signs I think they are fine internally both coming and going.

The entrance signs that he has yellow dots all around the area it’s slighting dependent upon how far the setback is. I don’t have any trouble with the size of those myself.

The large sign I have to see to believe it. That’s all. I would have to reserve judgment on that but the rest of the package personally I’m fine with. That’s my stance on that so everybody knows where I’m coming from.

Mr. Cronk said we are going to cut foam letters and stick them out there for you to see. We are going to do that whether you approve that tonight or not because we want to make sure it is the right thing as well. The setback maybe needs to be eighty feet when it is all said and done or maybe sixty. And the width we want to make sure that there is enough width and the letters aren’t too skinny and it doesn’t look like a flat letter. We are going to do it and we will have it here and we would be glad to bring it back at the next hearing and have it placed so that you could drive by before the hearing.

Mr. Kirchoff said so we could approve the limit tonight and come back later and revise that.

Mr. Haase said that is not what they are asking for. They are asking for the eleven thirty-five.

Mr. McPhail said I would give him a continuance on that part of it, can we do that? You don’t want to have to refile and all of that stuff.

Mr. Haase said I know I need to see it.

Mr. McPhail said it’s hard for me to tell the next person coming down the road you can have a four hundred square foot sign and we just approved a 1,200 square foot sign for somebody else.

Mr. Haase said but if he did a development of this size as compared to 20 acres, there is a big difference there.

Mr. Cronk said I will communicate with Mr. Carlucci when it is ready, if that is what you would like to do.

! 36

Mr. Haase said on top of that I’m sure you will be taking photographs putting something in the background of a dimension so that we know what the scale is and what it could look like. Being no one else coming up from the floor does the petitioner have anything that you would like to close with. The motion direction is getting approval for the sign package. It is going to be a little different than what the motion is stated here. And then there is going to be a continuance granted on the Metropolis reflecting pond sign. Would that throw you guys off if we just continued the whole thing?

Mr. Cronk said if the rest of the package is acceptable to the commission, I would rather get part of it approved at least and hold off on the one just because of our timing to get those things fabricated.

Mr. Haase said 30 days could be a lot right now.

Mr. Cronk said right now yes so if most of it is satisfactory, I would appreciate your consideration for approval of that and then continue the one sign.

Mr. Kirchoff said so if next month we decide not to do it at all, you had 30 days to work on the rest of the package.

Mr. Cronk said correct.

Mr. Haase said sign type “C” is not reflected in our motion.

Mr. McPhail said it is approved.

Mr. Valanzano said based on your comments Mr. Haase I suggest that paragraph “A” would come out and paragraph “B” would just refer to the temporary construction sign is not approved. Paragraph “C” would be the sign type “E” sign 028 along U.S. 40 shall not include the LED display. I think that would refer back to what they asked for initially. The last two paragraphs would stay the same and then the final addition would be sign type “A” is continued to the May 2, 2005 Plan Commission meeting.

Mr. Haase said at this time we will close the public portion of this hearing and take a motion to act on this measure.

Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to approve DP-05-006 as filed by Premier Properties USA, Inc. requesting final detailed plan approval for a freestanding sign program within the Metropolis PUD finding that:

1. The Final Detailed Plan satisfies the development requirements and development standards specified in the PUD District ordinance establishing such district.

2. The Final Detailed Plan accomplishes the intent set forth in Article VI of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.

3. The Final Detailed Plan provides for the protection or provision of the site features and amenities outlined in Article 6,C.,2. of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.

And that such approval be subject to the following conditions:

1. Substantial compliance with the Metropolis Signage Package submittal file dated March 4, 2005 subject to the following revisions or limitations:

a. The temporary construction sign is not approved. b. Sign type “E” – Sign 028 along U.S. 40 shall not

include the LED display. c. Sign type “E” – (the “off-premise signs”) – Signs 030

and 031 are not approved. d. Roof sign – illumination shall be from a soft blue

backlight source that will not cause glare in the night sky.

e. Sign type “A” – the Metropolis sign in the pond shall be continued to May 2, 2005.

Second by Ms. Whicker. Roll call vote called.

Mr. Thibo – yes Mr. Matrana – yes Mr. McPhail – yes

! 37

Mr. Brandgard – yes Ms. Whicker – yes Mr. Kirchoff – yes Mr. Haase – yes

7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.

Mr. Haase said the next hearing would be DP-05-007, Saratoga Associates, LLC.

Mr. Valanzano said this is detailed plan approval under a PUD for a 20,300 square foot retail center on an outlot in Saratoga in the commercial portion of the project at Moon Road and Saratoga Parkway and U.S. 40 across from the police station. Although this is being developed as a PUD it was developed under the old ordinance. There have been agreements that the project would be reviewed under the Gateway Corridor standards. The comments in the Staff Report are based upon compliance with the Gateway Corridor standards. The project that has been presented does for the most part comply with the standards. It is primarily a brick building with stone accents. You can see from the building elevations that are there that there are stone accents on the columns and primarily brick facades. There are one-inch inlay areas where sign elements would be for the individual tenants as they would develop on the property. I think DRC felt that it was a unique and pleasing design the way that they combined the roof elements and the awnings and the archways, etc.

I would note for you that the landscape plan that they have proposed for this project is superior in terms of perimeter yard requirements with what is required in the ordinance. They are a little bit short on a couple of areas in terms of foundation plantings and the parking lot screening. But considering the amount they are over in everything else it is acceptable in terms of an alternate landscape plan. I believe the Staff Report mentions it as an alternate landscape plan approval.

I would note for you that they have provided revised plans file dated April 1 after the DRC comments and they have provided for a complete brick wrap and EIFS corner around the back side of the building on the north side, which was block initially. So, the new plans and the motion were referencing the April 1 plans.

Really the only concern, if there is one remaining with this project, is the question on the screening of the HVAC units on the roof. As you know, the ordinance was clarified within the last year or two, codified and it is DRC’s position that the HVAC units should be screened in the elevation view. If you recall, St. Susanne is another recent project of late. The idea is that the parapet wall be brought up to screen the height of the highest point of the HVAC units. Their proposal is looking at in terms of more of a line of site of the property line, which is the standard that we use in the Industrial Districts and not the Commercial Districts. So, the only alteration really that we see to this plan, other than what is listed in the Staff Report, is just we would recommend an increase to the height of the parapet in order to provide the elevation view screening of the rooftop HVAC units. Other than that I believe the Staff Report speaks for itself and I would answer any questions that you might have.

Mr. Haase said on the parapet wall that you are talking about are you just wanting to screen it from which side, the south view?

Mr. Valanzano said actually the north view as you are heading south of Saratoga Parkway. You would be looking at this view, which would actually be looking this way on this cross-section of the drawing. So, the backsides of these HVAC units would be seen as you get farther away.

Mr. Haase said so you are talking about raising the parapet wall on that side.

Mr. Valanzano said yes, a parapet wall around here in order to block that view.

Mr. Haase asked, do these drawings show that raised parapet wall?

Mr. Valanzano said no. They show a parapet wall but it doesn’t get up high enough to provide the screening in the elevation view,

! 38

which is two-dimensional straight on that we require in commercial districts.

Mr. Mac McNaught said thank you for working so hard and staying. I’m representing Saratoga Associates. It’s a new one on me in terms of this elevation view. In other words you would have to have a person on a ladder or a crane to look straight ahead. I think the top right view and the middle left hand view shows a person standing and what they would see. Mr. Valanzano is correct if you would go back 400-500 feet in Saratoga Parkway, theoretically if you were focused in on that roof, you could see the top of those units. It’s not a huge thing but we do have a parapet wall around all sides but in the rear section, the north section, Mr. Valanzano is making a distinction is it line of sight or is it elevation? The rooftop units are in the middle of the roof, they are not toward the rear so maybe I’m being too practical here.

The architect recommended a pre-cast rear facade and DRC asked if we would consider extending the EIFS and the brick wrap all the away around and we readily agreed with that.

I think that Mr. Valanzano has commented on the landscaping.

The pedestrian connectivity is extended and we think it is a wonderful building. We want to make a strong statement with the first commercial out in this area. We want to make a strong design statement so I’m not trying to cut corners because that is the last thing that we want to do. I’m just reacting to the practicalities of how and when someone driving southbound on Saratoga Parkway would ever see or perceive those rooftop units but I’m willing to be educated. Some of you sit on DRC and Mr. Valanzano has certainly provided the background. Are we talking 400-600 feet?

Mr. Valanzano said the ordinance reads that all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened based on an elevation view of the building on all sides. It’s cut and dry. It’s like if I slump down a little bit, I can’t see Mr. Daniel’s nameplate but the idea of looking at an elevation view right at the level of Mr. Daniel’s nameplate it sticks up above the roofline of your tabletop. That is the way the ordinance was written in Commercial Districts, to screen, based on that line of sight, not a line of sight down on the floor at a given distance. That was the distinction that was drawn in the Commercial Districts verses the Industrial Districts.

Mr. McNaught said there must have been a bad precedent or ugly looking rooftop units. Were they toward the rear of the building.

Mr. Haase said there was Staples and BP at the interstate just to name a couple.

Mr. McNaught said that were highly visible. It certainly isn’t our intent to have anything that is visible.

Mr. Haase said they can do some kind of architectural feature on the roof to hide them as opposed to raising the parapet wall.

Mr. McNaught said I don’t want to get hung up on this. You can sense the skepticism about how you would ever see it. If you were on a concrete truck or a semi tractor sitting up on Saratoga Parkway going south, you might have a bird eyes view looking at it.

Mr. Valanzano asked, does Saratoga Parkway go down to a lower grade as it goes north or does it go up or does it stay constant? All of those things are variables.

Mr. McNaught said it’s pretty level but the drainage is to the north so it lowers, it goes down.

Mr. Valanzano said we took it from the elevation view. We have held all of the other commercial projects to that standard but with this being a PUD I needed to point it out to you.

Mr. McNaught said I would like to figure out how it ever becomes visible but maybe that takes it to an extreme. When you say an architectural feature, is this like a short wall, fence type thing?

Mr. Haase said yes.

Mr. McPhail said we have really had some ugly ones.

! 39

Mr. McNaught said there must have been something that really happened. Again, I look at this and I try to visualize here how you ever see the thing.

Mr. Haase said I understand where you are coming from.

Mr. McPhail said if you can’t see it, you are okay.

Mr. McNaught said so if it is visible from Saratoga Parkway, then we need to erect something.

Mr. Haase said that’s not what Mr. Valanzano is saying no. He is saying in the strictest compliance of the ordinance.

Mr. Valanzano said that is all that I can tell you. If you want to do something different, that is your call.

Mr. Haase said since it is a PUD it has certain flexibilities.

Mr. McNaught said we want it to be superior. Our goal here is to create something that will attract and retain tenants long-term. You know unconsciously when you go to a pleasant place and there is nice landscaping and you feel good………

Mr. Haase said it’s what you notice and not what you don’t notice.

Mr. McNaught said exactly. We want that for this. On the site plan there are areas for benches and outdoor seating realizing that is U.S. 40 but hopefully people will still find it attractive. We are not trying to diminish the quality whatsoever. I do refer to your guidance. If this creates a superior design, we will extend a parapet wall at the elevation view if we all really believe this is a spirit of design, I’m with you.

Ms. Whicker asked, would this still be in compliance that in number two of the motion, substantial compliance with preliminary elevations including dumpster details file dated April 1 with an amendment to provide a full screening of all visible roof mounted HVAC equipment without stating “elevation view”? We could say “screening of all visible roof mounted HVAC equipment.” Would that still be in compliance because it would not be visible?

Mr. Kirchoff asked, how do you define visible?

Mr. Haase said PUDs can set their own standards with the approval of the Plan Commission and this is a PUD. With that said is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this matter? Being no one coming forward we will close the public portion of this hearing and the Chair will entertain a motion to act on this measure.

Mr. Kirchoff asked, can anybody give me any more background on the HVAC units. I understand we have had some bad cases. Were they just blatant is that what drove this?

Mr. Haase said yes. Staples and BP is a perfect example but then it has to do with outlots and what you see from Main Street Crossing and what you would see at Wendy’s or the BP Gas Station or the new product that is going up in front of the Target. That is what spurred it more than anything. It just wasn’t a pleasant feature. Nobody could determine at what distance away it became pleasing. At 400 feet you can see six inches of it is that okay? I think that is why we just said we have to hide the whole thing.

Mr. Valanzano said then you also get into a very complicated elevation when you try to do line of site. At what point do you do the line of site and how far away?

Ms. Whicker made a motion to approve DP-05-007 as filed by Saratoga Associates, LLC requesting final detailed plan approval for commercial development within the Saratoga PUD finding that:

1. The Final Detailed Plan satisfies the Development Requirements and Development Standards specified in the PUD District ordinance establishing such district.

2. The Final Detailed Plan accomplishes the intent set forth in Article VI of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.

! 40

3. The Final Detailed Plan provides for the protection or provision of the site features and amenities outlined in Article 6.,C.,2., of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.

And that such approval be subject to the following conditions:

1. Substantial compliance with the Preliminary Site Plan file dated April 1, 2005 with the amendment to add a handicap ramp to the curb detail east of the drive from U.S. 40.

2. Substantial compliance with the Preliminary Elevations, including dumpster details, file dated April 1, 2005 with an amendment to provide for full screening of all visible roof mounted HVAC equipment.

3. Wall signs shall be approved as individual letter signs, which may be illuminated by either the proposed gooseneck lights or be internally illuminated or both.

4. Dumpster enclosure shall match the building with a stone base brick walls and a cornice.

5. Substantial compliance with the Landscape Plan file dated April 1, 2005 with approval being of an “Alternate Landscape Plan” regarding the relocation of foundation plantings and the spacing of parking lot screening materials being offset by perimeter yard landscaping.

6. The final cut-sheets for the decorative wall lights and perimeter parking lot lights shall be submitted to Staff for final approval. Ornamental pole lights adjoining the building are acceptable provided they are shielded.

7. Freestanding signs shall not include any pole or pylon sign. A ground sign which reflects building materials and styles would be acceptable.

Second by Mr. Thibo. Roll call vote called.

Mr. Thibo – yes Mr. Matrana – yes Mr. McPhail – yes Mr. Brandgard – yes Ms. Whicker – yes Mr. Kirchoff – yes Mr. Haase – yes

7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.

Mr. Haase said the next item will be DP-05-008, KDS Real Estate, LLC.

Mr. Valanzano said the next case in front of you is for a 20,000 square foot warehouse office building at Andico Park located within 600 feet of a Residential District. As you are all aware, the Residential District to the west was put in after Andico started on their construction. This is to represent the development of one of the last remaining lots in Andico Park. You will notice in the Staff Report that there are some references to waivers of the building materials and the pedestrian connectivity. The desire of the petitioner is to be consistent with the remainder of Andico Park in terms of the developments. A lot of the developments are metal. They brought in some samples of the material and color to give you a feel of it. It is going to be a two-toned building, if you grant the waiver. The lower part would be dark and then the lighter color up higher on the building.

There is a waiver of the pedestrian connectivity being requested since there are no sidewalks along Andico and there would be nothing to connect to. None of the other sites out there have it.

There was on issue in terms of the overall site design that has to do with drainage that the Town Engineer has not seen yet. There are some issues in this area so the Staff Report reflects a motion in terms of the compliance with the Town Standards for drainage. So, that the facility can be reviewed and made sure that there are no problems.

I would also note in the Staff Report that I listed some conditions and changes to be made that had to do with the setback of some parking spaces from the Andico Drive right-of-way. The petitioner took those comments to heart and they submitted today revised plans. So, in the motion conditions one and two can read substantial compliance with the Site plan file dated April 5, 2005. Condition number two would reference the landscape plan file dated today as well.

! 41

Conditions three and four would stay as proposed. Again, the two issues that make this a little bit are the waivers because they are trying to comply with existing development that surrounds Andico Park. They have some pictures to show you of the existing development in the area. With that I would be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. Banning said Mr. Valanzano did a pretty good job of representing what we are trying to accomplish. I must say that I’m very intimately knowledgeable of this site since the drainage, which is one of the issues. It actually drains onto our office property so we are very much aware of that. I know Phil Cole. I hope he is going to come up and speak. He has been waiting patiently through this meeting since he is the neighbor to the west as well and Banning Engineering’s neighbor to the north. We are very much aware of the drainage. That is something that we are in the process of designing. We talked about it at the TAC meeting. We will be bringing that forward prior to the ILP, etc. Mr. Valanzano has pretty much laid out everything we are asking for the waivers that was requested in the motion section. Mr. Cole and I both know there are drainage issues so we propose to work on that. With that I will be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. Haase asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this matter?

Mr. McPhail said I was at the DRC meeting when this project came through. Everything they are proposing fits in with the current park there. It blends in and I think it is compatible and I don’t see any problem with it.

Mr. Haase said being no other comments from the floor we will close the public portion of this hearing and the Chair would accept a motion.

Ms. Whicker made a motion to approve DP-05-008 requesting Architectural & Site Design Review approval for industrial development of an office/warehouse building within 600 feet of a Residential District with a waiver of building materials and pedestrian connectivity requirements 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 with respect to the waiver of building materials and pedestrian connectivity, the Plan Commission finds that:

1. The proposed development represents an innovative use of building materials and site design features which will enhance the use or value of area properties.

2. The proposed development is consistent with and compatible with other development located within six hundred (600) feet of the Residential District.

3. The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of this ordinance.

And that the approval shall be subject to the following conditions:

1. Substantial compliance with the Site Plan file dated April 5, 2005.

2. Substantial compliance with the Landscape Plan file dated April 5, 2005.

3. Substantial compliance with the building elevations, sign elevations and lighting details set forth in the Architectural Design Booklet file dated March 21, 2005 including the “Standards Colors” sheet depicting the building colors.

! 42

4. Compliance with the Town Standards including but not limited to Plainfield Ordinance No. 17-97 regarding drainage.

Second by Mr. Brandgard. Roll call vote called.

Mr. Thibo – yes Mr. Matrana – yes Mr. McPhail – yes Mr. Brandgard – yes Ms. Whicker – yes Mr. Kirchoff – yes Mr. Haase – yes

7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.

Mr. Haase said the next item is DP-05-009, Larry Good Homes, Inc.

Mr. Valanzano said the next request is for a 6,232 square foot office building to be located along a Gateway Corridor at Hadley Road and Clarks Creek Road at the southwest corner. The initial tenant is for the Indiana Institute of Technology, which would occupy about 4,000 square feet of the 6,232 square feet. You can see the site plan shows the development of the site. The simplest way to describe the proposal is it is a very nice brick building that complies with virtually all of our architectural standards. The only concern that was raised at DRC was the line of site in looking at the building. If you look at the rear elevations in your folders in your packets, the back of the building was quite plain. It was brick but still quite plain. We talked to the petitioner about making some kind of revision. We just received some revised elevations that put a herringbone matter that was discussed at DRC as part of the brickwork to help break up the facade. DRC also suggested that since we are going to have ground mounted HVAC units on the backside of the building that they be screened by taller evergreen trees. That would help break up the back of the building and help provide screening for the HVAC units. I have talked to Mr. Kruse about that and he has indicated that he would be revising the plans to accommodate that. It was a combination of me being on vacation and Mr. Kruse being on vacation and having to get the Staff Reports out to you. We didn’t quite coordinate getting all of the final plans to give you a neat package so that is why we have some of these changes going on.

One of the reasons that the landscaping is as high as it is around the building and on the perimeter of the property there is an easement that uses this yard. That was approved as part of the development of the Re-Max plan so that, in essence, kicked in a development incentive on this property as well. So, those two are being reviewed together to make sure they ducktail together properly. We have worked with them adding pedestrian connectivity.

The ordinance puts a hierarchy in terms of wall signs. They are basically supposed to be individual letters for new buildings or raceway is the second choice or box signs and then painted wall signs. The proposal that this petitioner has is a high-density urethane panel. This is basically a type of painted sign. It is really not an individual but I needed to point this out to you and show you that this is a material and this is the type of routing that would be done. I don’t know if this coloring is actually going to be done but these are the materials and it is this style of sign that they are proposing for the wall signs. I don’t have any problem with it. I don’t think DRC has any problem with it but since it is not an individual letter sign I need to bring this to your attention. That is why there is a reference in the Staff Report or the recommended motion talks about the high-density urethane wall sign structure and how it would be put on the building. With that I would be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. Kruse with Butterworth Consulting at 180 N. SR267, Suite 240, Avon, Indiana said I don’t have anything to add other than to thank you for hearing this petition. It is vitally important for small projects like as well as the big ones to not get delayed another 30 days. So, we do appreciate it.

Mr. Kirchoff asked, is this the one with the shared entrance?

Mr. Valanzano said yes.

Mr. Haase asked, is there anyone in the audience who has anything regarding this matter? Being no one coming forward we will close the public portion of this hearing and the Chair would accept a motion.

! 43

Ms. Whicker made a motion to approve DP-05-009 requesting Architectural & Site Design Review approval for commercial development of an office building within 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 bee 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 file dated April 1, 2005 with the inclusion of a hammerhead turn-around for the north parking area and the extension of curbing around the pedestrian connection to Clarks Creek Road.

2. The building shall be in substantial compliance with the building elevations and colored renderings file dated March 4, 2005 as amended by the revised rear elevation file dated April 1, 2005.

3. HVAC shall be provided by ground mounted units located at the rear of the building and screened with blue spruce trees or other large evergreen trees, not shrubs, to screen the HVAC units and help break up the view of the back of the building.

4. Landscaping shall be in substantial compliance with the plan file dated April 1, 2005 with revisions as necessary to provide for screening of the HVAC units and to meet ordinance requirements for foundation plantings.

5. The trash enclosure shall be substantially as shown on the detail plan file dated March 4, 2005 with the brick to match the building and with cedar plank gates painted to match the building.

6. Substantial compliance with the ground sign elevation file dated April 1, 2005.

7. Wall signs shall be high-density urethane, stub mounted to the wall. Painted plywood board shall not be acceptable.

8. Site lighting shall be in substantial compliance with the photometric plan and cut-sheets file dated March 4, 2005.

9. Wall sign and ground sign up-lighting fixtures shall match the cut-sheet file dated April 1, 2005 provided the TFMFV – “Full Visor” option shall be added to provide full shielding of the light element.

10. Ingress/egress easement and a drainage and utility easement shall be submitted to and approved by the Town Engineer and recorded prior to the issuance of an Improvement Location Permit for the construction of the proposed building.

Second by Mr. McPhail. Roll call vote called.

Mr. Thibo – yes Mr. Matrana – yes Mr. McPhail – yes Mr. Brandgard – yes Ms. Whicker – yes Mr. Kirchoff – yes Mr. Haase – yes

7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried. Mr. McPhail said the tenant in this building I worked with for

almost a year to find a location so I’m glad you found a site.

OLD BUSINESS/NEW BUSINESS

Mr. Haase said we are going to skip over the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance so that we can get to ILP-05-012.

! 44

Mr. Valanzano said the situation here is they have gone through and renovated the sod of a building. I provided you photographs of the building to give you an idea of the signs that are there in the center and gives you an overview of it. Basically we have to treat all signs the same way. When you take down a sign that is not conforming and if you put up a sign, it has to comply, that hierarchy that I referred to on the signage earlier it applies here in this case. The predominate type of sign and at this center was a box sign. What they did is they took down a painted sign. They want to put a painted sign back up with the predominate sign being a box sign I can’t approve that administratively. But considering the situation and the history where a painted sign had been taken down and was allowed to go back up and that this was part of a renovation as opposed to denying this request and having the petitioner file an appeal of that situation I thought I would defer the question to the Plan Commission in this case. And say under the circumstances of renovation, the taking down and putting back up, is it appropriate on this site to allow painted signs to go back up for tenants when they have been taken down or should we strictly go by the hierarchy?

Mr. Haase asked, did she have to get a permit?

Mr. Valanzano said I haven’t found the approval on it but Ms. Sprague has told me that it was approved, the renovation did come through. I didn’t know if there was anything on that approval specific to sign at that time. It was just a permit for the facade renovation.

Mr. Haase said I think we are doing a renovation, obviously it is an improvement, it is a win win situation for the Town and everybody that rents and the landlord and all of that stuff. Is there anyway we can coordinate this so that it gets done at the time the permit is pulled to do the renovation?

Mr. Valanzano said theoretically that would have been the time to say, as part of the renovation, what are you doing with your signs? Are you going to comply with the ordinance? Or if you want something else, we need to go to the Plan Commission.

Mr. Haase said I would like to figure out someway that when they pull the permit to do the renovation, we go out there and go over it with them. Not that you can’t put that back up but here is what you are going to have to do and we will work with you on that.

Mr. Valanzano said the question should have been asked last summer.

Mr. Haase said I don’t know what we can do to get that clearer in our ordinances or our procedures.

Mr. Valanzano said it is just a person talking to a person and you raise the next question. I put two options in the motion for you either to allow a painted sign to be the standard for this center or to allow a painted sign that has been taken down to go back up. The only ending is the last few words on the motion.

Mr. Haase said I would prefer option one.

Mr. Valanzano said I believe Pedigree One is the only one that has a sign in this situation, which is why we have this request.

Mr. Haase said the Primerica is back up.

Mr. Valanzano said that was somehow approved last year outside the hierarchy. There was a lot of history and that is why I’m bringing it to you to make a recommendation.

Ms. Wilcox said when we applied for the building permit, we were told that when the signs came down, they may not comply with the ordinance. We were given the ordinance and told the amount of square footage. That is all we were told. So, some of our tenants did not meet those ordinances. We had to have them redo their signs and this is one of them. They had to make it smaller to meet the compliance of 28 square feet so that is what they did but there was no mention of materials, nothing other than the square footage.

Mr. Haase said it’s a very difficult issue to understand. Thank you for your patience with the Town.

! 45

Ms. Wilcox said I appreciate your consideration. We submitted five signs under that ordinance and they were approved. Two of those are laminated and now I have this one.

Mr. McPhail made a motion that the Plan Commission direct the Staff to approve the re-installation of painted signs for individual tenants in the integrated center located at 1601 E. Main St. who previously had painted signs. Second by Mr. Matrana. Motion carried.

Mr. Haase said it would seem to me when we do renovations like this, and maybe I’m wrong, but the removal and re-installation of whatever they had we are still better off in the Town than if they hadn’t the improvement of the renovation. To force any merchant to put up a new sign just because he got a better facility I have trouble with that. I think we need to look at that so that we can allow for renovations and improvements because you can’t pay it all at once sometimes. I don’t know what that takes or how we can get that done but to keep somebody from improving it because if they take the sign down, they can’t redo it and then they have to buy a new sign and they can’t afford to do the improvements and put up a new sign, we lost.

Mr. McPhail said in some instances putting the sign back up distracts from the renovation.

Mr. Kirchoff said I think it should be compatible.

Mr. Haase said if it detracts from the renovation, you have the renovation, you have an improvement. I hate to say it but when you get the improvements, even it isn’t 100%, you still have improvements. I would like for it to match too but it is a cost of money and our local merchants like your mom and pops are a dying breed and that is why they are a dying breed is the cost of business. I think we need to do a little something for them. With that said we will go back to the public hearing, Ordinance No. 21-97, Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.

ORDINANCE NO. 21-97, PLAINFIELD ZONING ORDINANCE

Mr. Valanzano said what we have here is a series of amendments that were prepared last year related to the Town Center update that updated the Town Center Ordinance, sign regulations, added some districts and changed some of the approval procedures so that some projects can be approved administratively as opposed to having all projects come through to the Plan Commission. Those changes are consistent with the changes we made along the Gateway Corridors so those minor additions and what have you can be approved without having to go through the full notice and hearing process. If you recall, Floor Fashions from last month or so that type of renovation could have been approved administratively. These were put on hold. There was apparently some concern was raised from some members from the Town Center business group. I know Mr. Banning is still here so I’m going to rely on him. When I started looking through to see whether these had been approved or not, I found that Mr. Banning was our contact. I went to him and asked him to contact the Town Center business folks and find out what their comments were, if any. We need to either move these forward as is or we need to make changes necessary to accommodate their concerns. I believe there was a meeting held a week or two ago where the question was raised whether to go forward with these or make changes, if needed. To my knowledge no comments have been received providing any changes or suggested revisions to any of the drafts. At this point I would suggest we move forward and we eliminate some of the conflicts we have. We changed so many other sections and we have these hanging out. This will clean up the package and put everything on the same Town Center review process, the same as the Gateway Corridor review process. These changes reflect recommendations from the Town Center Plan. We put the majority of the changes into the design element portion of the review process. If somebody doesn’t want to comply with all of the design guidelines, there is a waiver. They can come to you and show you this is our design, this is what I want to do. They don’t have to go through a Board of Zoning Appeals. We did make a few changes to the Town Center standards themselves. They are relatively minor in scope.

Mr. Kirchoff said we approved everything but we held these out because we wanted to make sure people were comfortable.

Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to forward Ordinance No. 21-97, Plainfield Zoning Ordinance to the Plainfield Town Council with a

! 46

favorable recommendation. Second by Mr. McPhail. Roll call vote called.

Mr. Thibo – yes Mr. Matrana – yes Mr. McPhail – yes Mr. Brandgard – yes Ms. Whicker – yes Mr. Kirchoff – yes Mr. Haase – yes

7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.

APPOINTMENTS TO THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE

Mr. Valanzano said the next item has to do with a relatively permanent appointment to the Design Review Committee for a Plan Commission member.

Mr. Haase said I will take that as long as I can.

Mr. McPhail made a motion to appoint Mr. Haase to the Design Review Committee as a representative from the Plan Commission. Second by Mr. Brandgard. Motion carried.

There was discussion on recommendations for a member among the citizens. It was concluded that Mr. Carlucci would contact Mr. Greg Miller to see if he was interested.

RESOLUTION REGARDING INTERPRETATION OF RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES

Mr. Valanzano said Mr. Haase had requested some sort of interpretation guideline. The next item I put together is a resolution for the Plan Commission in terms of the direction of how to interpret the residential design guidelines with respect to hardy plank siding, etc. That they not be considered masonry but they are clearly an acceptable siding product. The other thing that was asked to be clarified that plain block is not an architectural feature so that we don’t get into any splitting of hairs. So, the resolution that is drafted attempts to codify what Mr. Haase had suggested as what we will provide as an interpretation and guidance to applicants and look at the design guidelines.

Mr. McPhail made a motion to approve Resolution No. 01-2005. A resolution regarding the interpretation of residential design guidelines. Second by Ms. Whicker. Motion carried.

RESOLUTION REGARDING RELIGIOUS USE DIRECTIONAL SIGNS

Mr. McPhail made a recommendation to forward the resolution regarding religious use directional signs to the Plainfield Town Council with a favorable recommendation. Second by Mr. Thibo. Motion carried.

ZONING COMPLIANCE

Mr. Haase said I got a letter that we sent a letter to the Ready Mix people. I don’t need an update on that other then did we receive a response?

Mr. Daniel said we got a letter from his lawyer.

OTHER COMMENTS

Mr. Brandgard said I’m probably one of the major instigators on the ten o’clock cut-off but the reason for that is so that we don’t get into a mold like the County, all hours of the morning. You get to the point where you aren’t thinking clearly and neither are the petitioners. I would request that when we get to an agenda that is this long that obviously we are going to go over, that we split it into two meetings. I don’t like meetings but I would rather go two meetings than go this late and make everybody wait.

Mr. McPhail said I think we ought to authorize the Planning Director when he knows he is going to have a long agenda, to schedule a meeting the following week or something.

Mr. Haase asked, what does May look like does anybody know?

! 47

Mr. Valanzano said there are really three issues, the Whitmore, the Duke with several things rolled in and St. Francis and several things rolled in. And the Metropolis sign that was continued from tonight. ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Brandgard made a motion to adjourn. Second by Mr. Kirchoff. Motion carried.

Meeting adjourned.

________________________________________ Mr. Mitchell P. Haase, President

! 48