plainfield plan commission may 1, 2017 7:00 p.m. … · plainfield plan commission may 1, 2017 ......

Plainfield Plan Commission 05-01-17 1

PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION

May 1, 2017

7:00 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER

Mr. Smith: It is 7:00 p.m., time for the Plainfield Plan Commission, May 1,

2017.

ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM

Mr. Smith: I would ask the board Secretary, Andrew Klinger to call the roll

please.

Mr. Klinger: Mr. Philip- here

Mr. McPhail- here

Mr. Brandgard- here

Mr. Smith- here

Mr. Kirchoff- here

Mr. Bahr

Mr. Slavens- here

We got a quorum all members are present Mr. Bahr contacted me earlier today

letting me know that he would not be able to make it tonight.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr. Smith: If you would stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES -April 6, 2017

Mr. Smith: Have we had an opportunity to review the minutes of the last

meeting April 6th, any corrections or changes?

Mr. Slavens: Make a motion to approve April 6th meeting minutes

Mr. Brandgard: Second.

Mr. Smith: I have a motion and a second to approve the April 6th minutes.

All in favor, thank you.

Mr. Philip: Let the record show that I abstained since I missed the last

meeting.

OATH OF TESTIMONY

Mr. Daniel conducted the Oath of Testimony.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

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

PETITIONS CONTINUED TO JUNE MEETING


Mr. Smith: Plan Director, Joe James CP-17-001.

Mr. James: Yes, good evening members of the Plan Commission. The 2017

Plainfield Park Impact Fee update needs to be continued to the June 5th

meeting. The Parks Director jumped the gun a little bit, still has to take

it to Town Council May 8th to get their approval before we bring it back to

the Plan Commission in June.

Mr. Kirchoff: So move.


Mr. Smith: I have a motion and a second to continue CP-17-001. All in

favor, thank you.

PETITIONS FOR PUBLIC HEARING

Mr. Smith: Next will be petitions for public hearing.

Mr. Berg: Good evening DP-17-006, Central Elementary seeking waivers to

allow metal panels as an exterior material on an existing building. The

school is here Main Street here, surrounded by all R4, religious use and town

center located at 110 Wabash. Kind of walk you through the color renderings

this is the main entry you will kind of notice kind of a blue canopy and blue

accents around the windows, that is kind of the theme you are going to see

throughout as you see on the north elevation as well, a view from Main and

over here kind of the gym entry with the larger kind of grayish silver metal

with the accents around the entries. Southeast kind of a combination of the

gym entry view and the main entry, where again you see silver with the blue

accents. At the DRC meeting the applicant did give them kind of a reason of

more contemporary and warming up the entry. Looking in from Main Street you

see this is the only area along that façade that is going to be changed other

than the gym entry here, again with the blue around the windows and the

silverish metal along over there. Going from 100% to about 70% brick on that

elevation. South elevation you see a little bit of the entry here with the

blue canopy, again the silver and the gym entry there, again still remaining

mostly brick. West elevation again you see a little bit of the accents.

Same thing with the east although again this is more of straight on shot that

allows you to see gym entry there with the blue accent and the silver. As

part of this project they are changing over to LED lights, I am assuming for

efficiency and a little bit better clarity with the white light instead of

the yellowish. At DRC, they asked for the rationale for the change, the

applicant is here to talk more about that if that is a question. The

durability and the color fastness of the material, the DRC did seem pleased

with the answers they got on that and 3-1 vote, one member got obviously

dissenting, they did recommend approval of the waivers. The applicant is

here to discuss the project if you have any questions.

Mr. McPhail: I have one question, when we are looking at the north façade

along Main Street, does the changes of this building conflict with our vision

of Main Street and the historic district with the façade improvement program

that we went through and trying to, it seems to me that by changing the

façade along Main Street is it far enough east out of the downtown area that

it doesn’t affect what we have done and invest on what we have made on the

façade program. I don’t know if anybody has discussed that?


Mr. Brandgard: I was going to say just as I understand Kent’s comments on

that, but I think the school is pretty far east of where we stopped on the

façade program. When I first saw that they were going to do this, if the

school still had a façade it had 50 years ago when I went there I would say

no I don’t want to do this but we have already modernized it once.

Mr. James: The façade program stopped at Vine Street. It is almost a block

and a half until you get to the school.

Mr. McPhail: I just wanted to bring that issue up. The building is not

unattractive to me and I think I it looks nice. We’ve spent a lot of money

on the downtown façade program.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Wolfe or someone else on behalf of the school system.

Mr. Wolfe: I think we will defer to Nick VanWieren he is the Architect with

CSO who has been working on this project, he probably has a much better

inside and out as anybody.

Mr. VanWieren: As he said I am Nate VanWieren and I am from CSO Architects

we are here on behalf of the school corporation. I would like to speak about

(inaudible) for this project. The intention is we looked at the gateway

corridor document and although we are not using an approved material, it is a

high quality material and then we are trying to meet the intent of the

corridor document with using, currently it is 100% brick and part of the

language within the corridor document says that there should be a secondary

material making up roughly 20% of each façade and this material should not

only make up the secondary nature of it, but it should be a different

texture, different color, and the whole idea is to add a variety, add some

visual interest, break up the façade, and keep all of these elements from

becoming monotonous big boxes. Unfortunately, I think a little bit right now

the school is that way and it also feels very cold, so we are trying to add

in a little bit of character to make it feel like an elementary school and we

are trying to be respectful by doing so. However, with how the school is and

what the project is we felt that this was a material that made sense for the

project itself, so that is why we are here. I also brought a sample so you

guys want to see it. There is also 2 colored chips that are clipped to the

top of it, the gray you’re seeing on the actual sample itself is not truly

representing of it, it will be the one on the color chip which is a little

bit of a warmer gray, then we chose a blue which is a little toned down from

a typical Plainfield school district blue, it is toned down just a little bit

just to try and be respectful of the neighborhood surrounding it as well.

Mr. Smith: This also illustrates the relief of the seams between the panels?

Mr. VanWieren: Yes, it is a typical half inch drawing and then roughly a

half inch maybe slightly more back into this face which will create a slight

shadow along.

Mr. Kirchoff: You are saying it is more this color.

Mr. VanWieren: Correct. The idea was to choose a warmer color and to tie it

in better with the color that is on the school.

Mr. Smith: What is the time frame on this work?


Mr. VanWieren: It would be this summer is the hope and it would encompass

just the summer to get the entry reopened for next year’s school to start.

Mr. Kirchoff: Do you have some history of this material; does it weather

well?

Mr. VanWieren: Yes actually we use the material a lot on a lot of projects.

It weathers very well; the grays are what they consider a very neutral tone.

The blue is what we consider an accent and then they do an extra coat to

ensure longevity so that you are not having any color fade or anything like

that.

Mr. Smith: It will stay for 50 years?

Mr. VanWieren: I would say at a minimum that would be a safe call.

Something also I think you are aware of this at the last meeting, if any

damage does occur to an individual panel it is able to be switched out and

replaced. It is unlikely that it will, however it is an elementary school so

you just never know.

Mr. McPhail: Well you know aluminum does corrode if it is not coated

properly.

Mr. Smith: This is like a sandwich coating inside and out?

Mr. VanWieren: Correct, it is a sandwich panel and so what they do is they

take 2 prefinished sheets of aluminum and they sandwich around the core and

the result is basically a wrapped finished product so it will weather inside

and out. It actually acts as a rain screen which does allow for moisture to

go behind it, they take that into account and it is made to allow for that.

Which is another reason why the product was chosen, it can go straight over

the brick, we can attach right over the top of it without extensive

renovations. Extensive renovations can breakdown, you are never sure what

you are going to find and how much you will have to fix. This way it will

not mess with the integrity of the building.

Mr. Brandgard: Are the finishes on there, is that hard anodize?

Mr. VanWieren: Actually you are really close on this, it is what is

considered an anodized finish.

Mr. Kirchoff: So being an elementary school how graffiti resistant is it?

Mr. VanWieren: It is pretty strong, let’s compare it to EIFS, material which

would be an approved material, it will stand up a lot better than that. The

EIFS you are going to run into where you are going to have to repaint to get

rid of it there is some chemicals that would take it off without, but most

likely you are going to have to repaint. With this they should be able to

work to save the panel and wash it off, there is actually some really good

technology on that and if you can’t, once again maybe go back to have a

portion that could be replaced if necessary.

Mr. Smith: Is there any other questions at this point before public hearing?

For the record, lets open the floor for a public hearing. If there are any

comments opposed or concerns about this petition? Hearing none are there

other comments in favor of this petition? Also, hearing none, we will close

the public hearing and move on, any further comments or questions from the


Commission? I think one of the observations we had at the DRC meeting was

the configuration of the steps and the area there with the over hang around

the doorway. This is the reconfigured a little bit. There is some

improvements in the handicap accessibility and that sort of thing.

Mr. VanWieren: That is correct, currently there is an old accessible ramp

kind of to the right of what is being pictured as the entry way, and that is

in conjunction with the one on the left that was added at a later point.

That is being reconfigured to update it again and make it even more

accessible to the other one to avoid any confusion it is being removed as it

is not complying in any sense of the word. Then also the stairs currently

don’t meet code, they are a little too tall the 7” max is not being met, so

we are going back in as a part of this and adding another step which will

bring them down into the code compliance. Then also the addition of the

canopy over the top will help immensely with ice control and concerns in

that, where before the stairs and the ramp fall outside of any overhang, now

they will be covered and protected as well. thank you for bringing that up.

Mr. Smith: There was a little concern by the DRC about the amount of space

available to the land in space if you will, if someone gets out of the car at

the curb, how much space do we have there?

Mr. VanWieren: Right at the corner which is closest to us and that main

entry elevation it is a matter of a couple of feet, so it is close. That was

part of the intention, not only to remove all the extra ramp but also in

updating what was there and bringing it up into code compliancy to bring the

safety of the area up as much as we feasibly could in this project and then

also as another point the school corporation takes great pride in how they

handle the student drop off and parent pick up. My understanding they have a

teacher that is very good at doing that so we are trying to aid her in that

process which is also while there is glass being added to that (inaudible)

which also right now is solid brick except for right where the doors are, so

it is allowing that visual connection from that office staff all the way

through that parking lot which I think is a great thing for the school.

Mr. Smith: Any other security upgrades with this exterior work or is that

primarily it.

Mr. VanWieren: I think that is primarily it at this point.

Mr. Smith: Their bus load is farther around to the right.

Mr. Brandgard: That is on the west side.

Mr. Smith: So you don’t have busses trying to get out on a 2’ sidewalk.

Mr. Brandgard: For the most the drop off is around the circle, it is not in

front of the gym.

Mr. Smith: How old is the building?

Mr. Brandgard: Part of that is 1888. There was a big remodel done in the

50’s on the west side when that wing was added on the west side. When I

moved here in 1955 that was the junior/senior high school. So, I went to

the 7th grade there went to the 8th grade at Van Buren when it opened, went

back to the 9th grade and then for the 10th grade they opened the new high

school which is now the middle school, that was 1959. I told Dr. Holifield


when we opened the new high school that is 50 years to the year of when we

opened what is now the middle school when we opened the new high school. One

of my grandsons started school there and the principal was giving us a walk

through and I was kind of giving him history on that.

Mr. Smith: So pretty much all of the work they were talking about today and

we are limited here on the exterior work. I think there is other work that

you previously done recently last year on the interior, so this is part of a

program on this building.

Mr. VanWieren: Correct.

Mr. Smith: Any other questions or concerns?

Mr. Philip: I move that the Plan Commission approve DP-17-006 as filed by

CSO Architects requesting Architectural and Site Design review of a waiver

from the building material standards of the S (School) District to allow

metal panels as primary and secondary exterior building materials on an

existing building.

1. The Development Plan complies with all applicable Development

Standards of the S: School District in which the site is located.

2. The Development Plan complies withal 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, regarding a waiver for building materials and percentages, the Plan

Commission finds that:

1. Represents an innovative and appropriate development of educational uses, including site design features, building materials, lighting

and landscaping which will enhance the use or value of area

properties and the safety and functionality of the educational uses.

2. The proposed development is consistent with and compatible with

other development located in the immediately surrounding area; and

3. The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.

And that such approval shall be subject to the following conditions;

1. Substantial compliance with the site plan, lighting plan, and

building elevations dated April 19, 2017.


Mr. Smith: I have a motion and second, would you call the roll please?

Mr. Klinger: Mr. Philip- yes

Mr. McPhail- yes

Mr. Brandgard- yes

Mr. Smith- yes

Mr. Kirchoff- yes

Mr. Slavens- yes

DP-17-006 is approved, 6-0.


OLD BUSINESS/NEW BUSINESS

Mr. Smith: Mr. James we have old business and new business.

Mr. James: Yes I guess this is considered old business. Back in March I

presented the work sheet for the justification for the Planning and Zoning

Fee update fee schedule. I did a cost of service analysis, place analysis,

and comparison analysis and fees were adjusted to better reflect the cost of

services which included direct and indirect cost and have 30 existing fees

increases or proposed for 27 fees and we did do a public notice for the

review tonight. I provided the new fee schedule, also proposed for 14 new

fees and those are in red. The new fees are mainly for amended plans, we

currently have to charge petitioners a full price on an amended plan so this

gives them some relief since it is not full petition or a new application,

also proposing some new fees for a fence permit, zoning verification letter,

and for annexations. Plainfield has never charged for annexation but other

communities do charge for them. There is a processing and staff time

involved with annexation. Hopefully you have had time to look these over and

I would like a favorable recommendation to take to the Town Council so we can

get these adopted.

Mr. Kirchoff: I have a few questions. The first one, Mel can you help me

from a standpoint, does the fees need to be cost based?

Mr. Daniel: Yes.

Mr. Kirchoff: So I have some questions in relationship to that. How close

does it need to be? I mean this 15 and 20 bucks I am not worrying about it

but I’ve got 5 of them that are, I’ll just bring them up. The first question

I have is on residential (inaudible) they look like cost based but we went

from less than 300 to 700?

Mr. James: These haven’t been updated since 2005. I have provided the

inflation adjustment.

Mr. Kirchoff: The next one is a PUD, the cost says $942.00 and we are over

$1,000.00 I’m looking on the spread sheet Mel, does that help you any? The

spread sheet says the cost base is $942.00 and we are proposing 1025, that is

like $80.00, not a problem?

Mr. Daniel: Not a concern.

Mr. Kirchoff: Then we got one down here on off premise ground sign our cost

says $411 and we are proposing $1,200. The next one is off premise full sign

pylon sign will cost of 411 and we are proposing 1,201.

Mr. James: Current fee is pretty close to the proposed fee.

Mr. Kirchoff: Our cost is only $411 and we are at $1,200?

Mr. Brandgard: I think if the old fee was 100.00 and the cost and your cost

base is $200 then we need to come up. But if you are saying our full size

our cost is $411 and we are charging 1,000, we should be coming down.

Mr. Kirchoff: That is what I am asking.


Mr. Brandgard: That is what I would think. To be fair you got to go both

ways with it.

Mr. Kirchoff: I understand too we are not going to be adjusting these for a

while, so are they going to go up over time so I can understand it doesn’t

have to be exact but that one just jumped out at me to be 3 times our cost

seems to be…

Mr. McPhail: Where do we allow off premise signs?

Mr. James: That is a billboard.

Mr. McPhail: We don’t allow them, do we?

Mr. James: Yes if they meet the spacing requirements it is possible. We may

not them now because they may not be able to meet the spacing and the zoning.

Mr. Klinger: So we don’t see too many applications in our future is what you

are saying.

Mr. James: Right.

Mr. Smith: Signs that might creep up along 70, those would not be in our

jurisdiction, it could be.

Mr. James: Again they are probably not meet the spacing requirement.

Mr. Kirchoff: We got 101, 201, 251, 351, why wouldn’t we just make those

even?

Mr. James: It is like 200 plus a dollar a square foot.

Mr. Kirchoff: Then I think to be 3 times our cost we should be reconsidering

that. I assume we will be looking at some time down the road (inaudible),

did you have (inaudible) implement these.

Mr. James: New fees? They have to get approved by Town Council first, we

could either do it July 1st or at the end of the year, beginning of the new

year.

Mr. Kirchoff: I think that probably makes more sense.

Mr. Brandgard: I would think there is a lot of planning been done based upon

what we’ve got, I would go to the first of the year with it, that way

everybody’s has notices.

Mr. Klinger: One thing that Bill and I discussed before the meeting is also

talking with Tim about having more comprehensive look at all of our

development related fees. The discussion we had is I don’t necessarily think

that is the reason to put a pause on this, I think we can move forward with

it with a January launch date, but in the mean time we want to look at all of

our development related fees and kind of get a measure of the total impact

from beginning to end from a petition all the way to a development being

built up. So, something that we are going to want to take a deeper dive into

as we go forward including looking at utility fees which is probably a more

formal study, we will take a little more time and effort to do so, but I

think that is something that we want to look at.


Mr. McPhail: Well I personally thing we ought to do it sooner than the first

of the year. We’ve kicked this thing down the road for 3 years now, we just

keep kicking it down the road. If we wait until the first of the year, that

is 8 more months.

Mr. Klinger: But you have builders and developers who put your current fees

into pro formas in terms of determining what they want to do and if they want

to change that on them or do you want to say next building season this is

what fees are going to be and this is what you can plan for, so that is the

issue I guess.

Mr. Kirchoff: What do we have planned for publicity and implementation?

Mr. James: Well I guess we could do that before it goes to Town Council, I

mean that is why I did the notice for tonight in case anybody saw it and they

wanted to come tonight.

Mr. Kirchoff: So this is supposed to be a public hearing tonight?

Mr. James: No a public hearing is not required; you’re just making a

recommendation.

Mr. Klinger: In terms of that timeframe deadline, you might want to consider

the November, maybe October 1st or November 1st so that development plans that

are coming in over the winter months, the late fall winter for a spring

construction, they fall under new fee structure. You might want to consider

that somewhere in the fall, late fall.

Mr. Brandgard: I’m okay with that November 1st.

Mr. McPhail: Six months.

Mr. Smith: I know we had a little discussion about the fence permit, at this

point am I correct, we do not have a permit?

Mr. James: That is correct.

Mr. Smith: This is a whole issue.

Mr. Brandgard: I will make it simple, we need to have that, so we know where

people are putting their fences, because 90% of the fences in town are in

easements and right of ways where they don’t belong.

Mr. Smith: I just had a fence go up in my backyard. Well if we are

establishing a fee here do we need more? Do we need the policy in writing or

do we need an ordinance?

Mr. James: I can bring it back again next month if you want me to, or I can

go ahead and take it to Town Council.

Mr. McPhail: I think if we are not going to implement this for 6 months

we’ve got plenty of time to get the ordinance amended for the fence permit.

Mr. James: We’ve already been working on application.


Mr. McPhail: So we just need to adopt that before the end of 6 months,

before November 1st.

Mr. Klinger: So all the ones that are in red are essentially new fees.

Mr. James: Yes that is correct, it would be new fees.

Mr. Klinger: We are not collecting any fees right now to go back and revise

and amend originally submitted plans.

Mr. James: We have to charge them like it is a new application.

Mr. Klinger: So it is a reduced cost rather than charging them a brand new…

Mr. James: That is correct.

Mr. Smith: Did we in the ordinance about the rooftop signs, the industrial

buildings, has that already included in another ordinance or does that need

to be on this list too?

Mr. James: It was included with the ordinance we passed.

Mr. Klinger: Yes it has already been adopted.

Mr. McPhail: Do we need to change this off premise?

Mr. Brandgard: The $411.00 cost (inaudible) that is a pretty big stretch

isn’t?

Mr. Daniel: Yes, it is a real big stretch.

Mr. Brandgard: I suggest rounding it to 500.

Mr. Klinger: 500 plus $1.00 per square foot.

Mr. James: These are 300 square foot signs too; they are not your normal 100

square foot sign.

Mr. McPhail: We changed that to 500, right?

Mr. Daniel: On both of them?

Mr. Brandgard: Yes because I think those folks there is no doubt they would

challenge us.

Mr. Daniel: Yes they would.

Mr. McPhail: I would move that we send this to the Town Council with a

favorable recommendation.

Mr. Philip: Second.

Mr. Smith: Do you want to include any amendment.

Mr. McPhail: Yes, as amended.

Mr. Smith: I have a motion and a second, all in favor, thank you.


PLAN COMMISSION INVITEES- None

ADJOURN

Mr. Smith: If there is nothing else.

Mr. McPhail: I would move for adjournment.

plainfield plan commission may 1, 2017 7:00 p.m. … · plainfield plan commission may 1, 2017 ......

Documents