Plan Commission (PC)

ZIONSVILLE PLAN COMMISSION MEETING RESULTS Monday, November 16, 2020 7:00 PM (Local Time) THIS PUBLIC MEETING WAS CONDUCTED ELECTRONICALLY PURSUANT TO GOVERNOR ERIC J. HOLCOMB’S EXECUTIVE ORDER 20-47 AND GOVERNOR HOLCOMB’S EXERCISE OF HIS POWERS UNDER INDIANA’S EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND DISASTER LAW, IND. CODE 10-14-3, et seq. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE MEETING WAS PROVIDED IN THE ANNEX PUBLISHED WITH THIS NOTICE. Members of the public shall have the right to attend Plan Commission Public Meetings via the following forms of electronic communication: Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86439866409 Or iPhone one-tap : US: +13017158592,,86439866409# or +13126266799,,86439866409# Or Telephone: Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 646 558 8656 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 669 900 9128 Webinar ID: 864 3986 6409 International numbers available: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/keEHQJqeWH Or an H.323/SIP room system: H.323: 162.255.37.11 (US West) 162.255.36.11 (US East) 115.114.131.7 (India Mumbai) 115.114.115.7 (India Hyderabad) 213.19.144.110 (Amsterdam Netherlands) 213.244.140.110 (Germany) 103.122.166.55 (Australia) 149.137.40.110 (Singapore) 64.211.144.160 (Brazil) 69.174.57.160 (Canada) 207.226.132.110 (Japan) Meeting ID: 864 3986 6409 SIP: 86439866409@zoomcrc.com The following items are scheduled for consideration: I. Pledge of Allegiance II. Attendance III. Approval of the October 19, 2020 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes IV. Continuance Requests V. Continued Business Docket Name Address of Project Item to be Considered Number None at this time VI. New Business Docket Name Address of Project Item to be Considered Number Given a Favorable Recommendation to the Town Council 7 in Favor 0 Opposed Petition for a Zone Map Change to: Appaloosa 1) Rezone 1.5+/- acres, identified as Outlot "I" within the proposed Crossing - 10901 E. 300 S & Secondary Plat of Appaloosa Crossing, from the Rural Professional 2020-47-Z Outlots “I” & 3201 S. US 421 Business District (PB) to the Rural General Business District (GB); “J” and 2) Rezone 1.17+/- acres, identified as Outlot "J" within the proposed Secondary Plat of Appaloosa Crossing, from the Rural General Business District (GB) to the Rural Professional Business District (PB). Waiver of Architecture and Building Materials 6 in Favor 1 Opposed Appaloosa Development Plan Crossing - Approved with Conditions 2020-43-DP Outlot “J” 3295 S. U.S. 421 6 in Favor Multi-tenant 1 Opposed Building Petition for Development Plan Approval of a 10,800+/- sq. ft. multi- tenant building on Outlot “J” (1.17+/- acres) within the Appaloosa Crossing Development; zoned Rural Professional Business (PB) and within the Michigan Road Overlay (MRO) Continued to the December 21, 2020 Plan Commission Meeting Appaloosa 7 in Favor Crossing - 0 Opposed 2020-44-DP Master 3295 S. U.S. 421 Petition for Development Plan Approval of a Master Signage Program Signage for the Appaloosa Crossing Commercial Development; zoned Rural Program Professional Business (PB) and Rural General Business (GB) and within the Michigan Road Overlay (MRO) Approved with Conditions 7 in Favor 0 Opposed Petition for Development Plan Amendment Approval to allow for 10615 Zionsville 2020-45-DPA Hotel Tango modification of the pergola, and for the addition of up to 210 square Road feet of screened outdoor storage, with the waiver request of Architectural Design requirements in the (B-2) Urban General Business Zoning District VII: Other Matters to be considered Docket Name Address of Project Item to be Considered Number Discussion of 2021 Filing Schedule Administrative Review of Development Plan Respectfully Submitted: Wayne DeLong, AICP, CPM Director of Planning and Economic Development November 17, 2020 ANNEX TO PUBLIC NOTICE FOR THE NOVEMBER 16, 2020 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZIONSVILLE PLAN COMMISSION In his Executive Orders 20-47 Governor Eric J. Holcomb has ordered all political subdivisions of the State of Indiana to limit public gatherings and to implement the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s and the Indiana State Department of Health’s recommended virus mitigation strategies. The Executive Orders suspend certain requirements for Essential Governmental Functions that facilitate Essential Infrastructure with respect to public meetings and open door laws, including suspending physical participation requirements by members of public agency governing bodies and permitting public attendance through electronic means of communications. As a political subdivision of the State of Indiana, the Zionsville Town Council must comply with the Executive Orders throughout the duration of the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency. Members of the public shall have the right to attend Plan Commission Public Meetings via the following forms of electronic communication: Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86439866409 Or iPhone one-tap : US: +13017158592,,86439866409# or +13126266799,,86439866409# Or Telephone: Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 646 558 8656 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 669 900 9128 Webinar ID: 864 3986 6409 International numbers available: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/keEHQJqeWH Or an H.323/SIP room system: H.323: 162.255.37.11 (US West) 162.255.36.11 (US East) 115.114.131.7 (India Mumbai) 115.114.115.7 (India Hyderabad) 213.19.144.110 (Amsterdam Netherlands) 213.244.140.110 (Germany) 103.122.166.55 (Australia) 149.137.40.110 (Singapore) 64.211.144.160 (Brazil) 69.174.57.160 (Canada) 207.226.132.110 (Japan) Meeting ID: 864 3986 6409 SIP: 86439866409@zoomcrc.com Members of the public shall have the option of recording their attendance at Plan Commission Public Meetings via electronic roll call at the start of the meeting or via e-mail at wdelong@zionsville-in.gov. 1. If a member of the public would like to attend a Plan Commission Public Meeting, but cannot utilize any of the access methods described above, please contact Wayne DeLong at 317-873-5108 or wdelong@zionsville-in.gov. 2. The Plan Commission will continually revisit and refine the procedures in this Annex to address public accessibility to Plan Commission Public Meetings during the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency. 3. If you need technical assistance in logging into Zoom for this webinar, please contact: Roger Kilmer, rkilmer@zionsville-in.gov, or 317-690-6539. Zionsville Plan Commission November 16, 2020 In Attendance: David Franz, Mary Grabianowski, Jeff Papa, George Lewis, Larry Jones, Josh Fedor, Sharon Walker. Staff attending: Wayne DeLong, Roger Kilmer, Dan Taylor, attorney. A quorum is present. Franz The Plan Commission meeting of November 16, 2020. Start with the Pledge of Allegiance. All Pledge of Allegiance. Franz All right, Wayne, would you please take roll? DeLong Yes, sir. Mrs. Grabianowski? Grabianowski Present. DeLong Mr.— Franz Who was that for? DeLong Josh, Mr. Fedor, are you there? Fedor Present. DeLong Excellent. Mr. Lewis? Lewis Present. DeLong Mr. Jones? Jones Present. DeLong Miss Walker? Walker Present. DeLong Mr. Papa? Papa Present. Franz Did you call my name? I’m present too. DeLong Mr. Franz? Franz All right. DeLong Thank you. Page 1 of 33 Zionsville Plan Commission November 16, 2020 Franz All right. So, we’ve got a little lag. All right. So, we have seven people. Vote for any matter will take four votes. In your packet was a set of minutes from the October meeting. I noticed there was a couple blanks in there on page 2 where it says Rich Meyer, that should be the Fritz Minor plat. On page 5, I believe it was, first class mail for legal notice in the space for legal. Then, on Page 7, minor plat approval for the approval of, minor plat for the approval of two lots. Fill in those blanks if you didn’t have those. Are there any other comments? Jones Jeff Papa pointed out that there might be some comments on pages 6 and 7 that could have been attributed to him or me. I don’t see any. I don’t have any concern with who they got responded to or attributed to. They both generally, I think, move the conversation forward and they’re fine. Franz Okay. With that, I’ll take a motion to approve the minutes. Grabianowski I move that we approve the minutes as corrected by Dave. Franz Is there a second? Jones Second. Franz All right. All in favor signify by aye. All Aye. Franz Oppose by nay. Motion carries 7-0. Dan, you know, we’ve got these—on each one of these items, they’ve all used first-class mail for legal notice. Can we do a motion for all four of those at once to accept first-class mail? Taylor Yes, you may. Franz All right. So, I would entertain a motion to approve the use of first-class mail for legal notice of public hearing for Docket items #2020-47-Z, Docket #2020-43- DD, Docket #2020-44-DP, and Docket #2020-45-DPA. Papa So moved. Franz Is there a second? Grabianowski Second. Franz All right. All in favor signify by aye. All Aye. Franz Oppose by nay? Okay. Motion carries 7-0. On the agenda, first item up is under new business, #2020-47-Z, Appaloosa Crossing Outlots I & J 10901 East 300 South and 3201 South U.S. 421. Petition for a zone map change to rezone 1.5 +/- acres identified as Outlot I within the proposed secondary plat of Appaloosa Crossing from the rural professional business district PB to the rural general business district GB and to rezone 1.17 +/- acres that identifies Outlot J within Page 2 of 33 Zionsville Plan Commission November 16, 2020 the proposed secondary plat of Appaloosa Crossing from the rural general business district GB to the rural professional district PB. What I was thinking, we would handle this one first and then do the two development plans, read those together and just deal with both of those together if that’s fine with everybody. DeLong That sounds fine, Mr. Franz. We do want to create a moment here to ask any of our audience attendees too if they desire to have their name read into the record. This would be a good time to handle that. Roger, do you see any hands raised? Give people a moment here. Franz You’d think I’d remember that by now, Wayne. Kilmer We are having a few hands raised. We’ll wait just a moment or two more. Hands raised, we have Rick Green, Sr., Adam DeAngelo, Allison Bash, William Culpepper, Jared and Mary Freeman, and Debbie _______05:38. Franz Thank you. Kilmer Maria Fennel. Franz All right, thanks. Petitioner present and ready to make a presentation? Price Yes, Mr. President and members of the commission, my name is Matt Price. I’m an attorney at Denton’s in Indianapolis, Indiana with an address of 10 W. Market Street. It’s very good to see everyone this evening. Here tonight on behalf of Harris FLP and Bob Harris. I’ve got two colleagues with me to answer questions about each one of our pending petitions. Those are Greg Snelling who is our civil engineer and Rick Green who you heard raise his hand to be acknowledged with Access Architects. If I may ask the host, I could, I’d like to just share my screen briefly with regard to a PowerPoint I have that explains and take this first matter up very quickly. Then, we can move to the development plans. DeLong Roger, do you have that? Can you make that switch for us, please? Price If not, then I’ll improvise as well. DeLong Is there an icon at the bottom of your screen? Take your space bar across, or your mouse across and find the green highlighted share screen. Price Yes. DeLong Okay. Let’s go with that. Price Do you see that okay? Franz Yep. Price Thank you for that. I’ve got each one of these presentations in a very short PowerPoint. The first petition as was noted is the #2020-47-Z which has been called corrective rezoning. I think that is the correct terminology for what we’re trying to accomplish here this evening. You may recall that back at the little over Page 3 of 33 Zionsville Plan Commission November 16, 2020 a year ago in 2019 we rezoned what you can see on the slide as Outlot I, the first outlot south of Hanovarian Drive in the development to GB to permit a liquor store use. That was approved by the council back in November of 2019. When we made application and actually had a TAC meeting relative to Outlot J which is the office building which is the second petition here this evening, it was discovered that the legal description for Outlot I actually misdescribed or described the property further south effectively rezoning Outlot J to GB at least according to the legal description. So, I think, we’ve been working very closely with staff and believe that the clear intent from all the materials submitted in support of the rezoning was to rezone Outlot I and not Outlot J. So, this would just return the rezoning to what was actually reflected in the documents but for the Scribner’s error in the legal description that was used which described the property a little further south. So, the result of this rezoning would be to make Outlot I GB and to restore Outlot J to its PB designation. Franz Okay. Are there any members of the public that have any comments on this? Are you getting any raised hands, Roger? You’re on mute. Kilmer I have to stop the sharing for a moment so I can see if any hands are raised. There are no hands raised. Franz All right. Wayne, can I have the staff report, please? DeLong Certainly. Staff is supportive of the petition as it’s been filed as indicated by the petitioner, this matter in essence works to clean up a minor issue in legal description and certainly moves the lot line in a manner that facilitates the project as it was originally intended. Again, staff is supportive of the reasoning as it’s been filed. Happy to answer any questions and would note that action tonight by the Plan Commission would be heard at the town council’s next available meeting. Franz Okay, thank you. At this point, I’ll open it up for any questions from any of the members of the Plan Commission. Jones I’ve got a quick question. You’ve also got a plan put together for Outlot J, but you’re saying you’re moving that back to being professional business, correct? Price That’s correct. Jones It looks more like a retail establishment. What’s the intent for the use of that building? Price It’s a professional office building. The first user is a dentist office. Jones Then, the other two uses are also going to be office? Price Yes, that’s correct. Jones Okay. Franz Any other questions? If there are none, is there a motion? Page 4 of 33 Zionsville Plan Commission November 16, 2020 Grabianowski I’ll make the motion. Franz All right. Grabianowski I move that Docket #2020-47-Z to (1) rezone 1.5 +/- acres identified as Outlot I within the proposed secondary plat of Appaloosa Crossing from the rural professional business district PB to the rural general business district GB and (2) rezone 1.17 +/- acres identified as Outlot J within the proposed secondary plat of Appaloosa Crossing from the rural general business district GB to the rural professional business district PB receive a favorable recommendation based upon the findings in the staff report as presented with this recommendation being certified to the town council for adoption or rejection. Franz Is there a second? Papa Second. Franz Who second it? Papa Papa. Franz Thanks. Any further discussion? If there are none, Wayne, can we have a roll call, please? DeLong Mrs. Grabianowski? Grabianowski Aye. DeLong Mr. Fedor? Franz He’s muted. DeLong Mr. Fedor? Fedor Aye. I’m sorry. DeLong Miss Walker? Walker Aye. DeLong Mr. Jones? Jones Aye. DeLong Mr. Papa? Papa Aye. DeLong Mr. Lewis? Page 5 of 33 Zionsville Plan Commission November 16, 2020 Lewis Aye. DeLong Mr. Franz? Franz Aye. The motion passes 7-0. So we’ll send that forward to the town council with a favorable recommendation. Then, on to the next two matters which we’ll just deal with on a combined basis. So next two items are Docket #2020-43-DP Appaloosa Crossing Outlot J multi-tenant building 3295 South U.S. 421 and #2020-44-DP Appaloosa Crossing master signage program 3295 South U.S. 421. 43 is a petition for development plan approval of a 10,800 square foot +/- multi- tenant building on Outlot J 1.17 +/- acres within the Appaloosa Crossing development zoned rural professional business and within the Michigan Road overlay MRO and 44-DP petition for development plan approval of a master signage program for the Appaloosa Crossing commercial development zoned rural professional business PB and rural general business GB and within the Michigan Road overlay MRO. Mr. Price, please proceed. Price Yes, thank you, Mr. President. I believe we are sharing my screen again and I’m showing the site plan for Outlot J which is the outlot that will be returned following council approval to the professional business designation. As I mentioned, this is an office building. Our first tenant is a dentist user. I want to point out just a couple of aspects of how the property will be accessed. It will be accessed off of the internal street running on the east side of the property. Michigan Road is to the top of the drawing. So, it will not have direct access onto 421 be connected for internal circulation with Outlot I to the north. This may hopefully look familiar to you as far as the proposed architecture for the building. You may recall that back in April, we received approval for the multi-tenant retail shops located further north immediately south of kind of the corner piece. We park into the architectural design that borrowed from some of the history associated from the property. Mr. Harris’s family has owned the real estate for many years. At one point, had a white barn on the property. Bob’s vision for the development is to continue to incorporate that architectural style, kind of a modern interpretation of some historical barns. So, we’ve chose the exact same color palette, building materials, and architectural design as was done with the shops previously approved back in April as I mentioned. The dentist office tenant will be, as I mentioned, is our first user and they’ll be located in the space where you see the gabled roof borrowing from the same architectural design elements that were done for the shops. I would like to note a couple of things that are called out in the staff report, just address them up front which is with regard to our landscaping plan for our parking area. It was noted that we needed to add some shade trees. We look back at our plan and we understand that requirement and have no problem complying with it. I think there was some difference in terminology between the type of trees we were proposing whether they constituted shade trees or not. We have no trouble or problem making that adjustment to the planning schedule for the landscaping plan and will do so, and are agreeable to a condition on the development plan approval that would require that to be done as an element of the approval. Then, picking up on the next development plan. We had submitted a master signage plan for the property and included both a representation of what a multi- tenant monument sign would look like as well as a single-tenant monument sign Page 6 of 33 Zionsville Plan Commission November 16, 2020 together with the proposed landscaping treatments at the base of each one of those signs. Then, we show the anticipated location for each ones of those signs. As highlighted in the staff report, the original rezoning for this property which dates back some time included a delineation of a master signage plan and also limitations on that signage. We’ve worked with staff to come up with this proposal which we believe is compliant with both the overlay zone as well as our zoning commitments for the site. With that, I’d be happy to answer any questions that you have. Franz All right. Thank you, Matt. At this point, is there anybody in the public who’d like to make a comment on this matter? Kilmer We do have at this time, two hands raised. Franz All right. Kilmer First one is Lisa Antonacci. Moving her up so she will be able to speak. Franz Lisa, you are muted. Please state your name and address. Antonacci Hi. Lisa Antonacci, 3220 Autumn Ash Drive. Franz Okay. Please proceed, thanks. Antonacci Yeah, we had a question for the last issue. Just want to confirm, where that liquor store exactly is going to be. Price So, if I may— Franz Go ahead, Matt. Price Mrs. Antonacci, so that is the Outlot I which is the first outlot immediately south of the first access drive off of Michigan Road. So, it’s the lot immediately south of that drive on the, if you will, the southwest portion of the property. Antonacci Okay. So the last outlot is going to be the dentist office and the liquor store will be next to the dentist office? Price Yes. Antonacci Okay. Price So, the outlot immediately south of the proposed liquor store is where the dentist office would be located. Then, immediately south of that is another outlot that is Outlot K. Antonacci Okay. Great, thank you. Price Yes. Franz Thank you. Roger, would you please recognize the next person? Page 7 of 33 Zionsville Plan Commission November 16, 2020 Kilmer Yes. The next is William Culpepper. Whoops, excuse me. Franz If you want to take Mr. Angelo now, we’ll get back to Mr. Culpepper. Oh, you’ve got both of them up, now, so. Mr. Culpepper, you’re on, so let’s go ahead with you first, please. Mr. Culpepper? If you can hear me, Mr. Culpepper, you might—if you would, probably—you might—okay, there he is. All right. We can see you now. Can’t hear you. Still can’t hear you. The one thing you can do is, in the—there’s a chat feature. Can you hear us? There’s a chat feature in this. If you click on the chat, you can type your comments and we can see them there if you can hear me. I mean, if you can hear us, you might try to log off and then log back in and see if that makes a difference. All right, why don’t you take DeAngelo and we’ll see if Mr. Culpepper can get back on. Kilmer Mr. DeAngelo did not have his hand raised for this case. Franz Oh, okay. All right. So, is there anybody else with their hand raised? Kilmer Not at this time. Franz all right. If Mr. Culpepper rejoins us, we’ll jump him back in. At this point, Wayne, staff report, please? DeLong Yes, thank you. I did just send a message to Mr. Culpepper in the chat with a phone number he could also dial here. The two matters as covered, staff is supportive of those matters as they have been filed and certainly as commented on by the staff. Certainly glad and certainly appreciate the petitioner providing additional clarification on a few of the comments that we had. Certainly, the architectural waiver is something that we look to have addressed. This board recalls and certainly actions of the BZA speak to this that the theming of this center is a high priority topic and certainly the waivers themselves as long as they’re adhering to a very similar theme that’s something to be paid attention to and certainly as Mr. Price indicated, the buildings themselves are calling out to other facilities that have been approved or considered previously. As proposed, the signage package is in conformance with the written commitments as associated with this project. The uses as described and I’d be happy to answer any questions related to these matters. Franz All right. Thank you, Wayne. At this point in time, I’ll open it up to members of the Plan Commission for any questions. Jones As usual, we’ve discussed this earlier. Are these signs internally lit or externally lit? Price They’re internally illuminated. Jones So is Appaloosa Crossing lit as well as the tenant names? Then, the lower one, the single-family tenant, how are those—is each letter lit? Page 8 of 33 Zionsville Plan Commission November 16, 2020 Price That’s a good question, Mr. Jones. I do not know the answer to that. I think our representative of Access may know the answer to that question if I could defer to Mr. Green. Green The intent is for each individual letter to be back illuminated with that. Franz Would you please state your name and address, please? Green My name is Rick Green, Sr. 618 East Market Street, Indianapolis. Franz All right, thank you. Price Rick, could you say that again? Green Yeah, the intention for each individual letter to be back illuminated with that. Jones Okay. So, on the multi-tenant sign, everything you have listed as tenant would be a plastic panel with their logo on it and then back lit. Is that what I’m understanding? Green That is correct. Jones Then, Appaloosa Crossing across the top, would be lit how? Green That’s also internally lit with a white light. You’ll just see the words Appaloosa Crossing at the top. Jones So, they’re just basically cut into whatever panels up there? Green That is correct. Jones Is that the same thing that goes on with the tenant signs down below? Green That is correct. Jones So then, how do we address like on lot, oh what is that H, you’ve got it appears two signs. You’ve got the multi-tenant and the tenant. Then, will the individual tenants have any signage? You show no signage on any of the facades of any of the buildings you proposed. Well, you did on the first multi-tenant one if I remember correctly. Green Yes. Jones The one you’re currently proposing has no signage on it. So, the buildings themselves will have no signage? Green That is correct. Jones Is that correct, Matt? Price Correct. Page 9 of 33 Zionsville Plan Commission November 16, 2020 Jones The liquor store will have no signage on it? Price I’m sorry. I talked over the top of you there. Jones What? Price I think I may have spoken while you were asking the question. I apologize. I wanted to make sure I understood you correctly. Jones Okay. The signage that we are seeing is the only signage for the development? There will be no signage on the individual buildings? Price I do not believe we can say that. This was—this plan is just for the monument signage to the extent there’s any wall— Jones Right, but you packaged this request with the request for the architectural waivers for the building. So, it’s one—am I understanding what we’re doing? Price That’s correct. Jones Which is correct, that the buildings will have no signage on them? Price I cannot commit or say that the buildings will have no signage on them, no. Jones So, we don’t really know what we’re approving from a signage standpoint. Grabianowski I would hope that the buildings, that the businesses would be able to have some kind of sign. I wouldn’t want to take my kid, to thinking I’m taking them to the dentist and I go into the liquor store. I mean, you kind of have to. Jones That’s kind of what happens when you establish kind of a comprehensive signage package for a development. It should call all that out. Currently, we are seeing buildings with no signage. Price Yes— Jones My only question, do we typically allow monument signage as well as building signage? DeLong Correct. That is something that’s routinely supported throughout Zionsville both urban and rural. Jones What happens when they propose projects without it? DeLong The signage package is a commitment topic that’s being discussed. The individual buildings, as long as the individual tenants conform to the zoning standards, the staff would be compelled to approve those sign permit requests. Jones I’m just going off the basis. City of Indianapolis, I had to put together a master signage plan for a half mile long building. They can be kind of picky. Once your Page 10 of 33 Zionsville Plan Commission November 16, 2020 committed to it, you’re committed to it but I pass along in leases to all my tenants, all 150 of them. So, I kind of expect that we would have the same level of comprehensive planning for something like this. Don’t we usually have some rulings about whether signs are internally lit or externally lit? DeLong There are all different types of signs in the zoning ordinance in the rural district. Those standards are more lenient than in your urban area. Jones Oh. Price As I recall for the shops, I do not believe that we showed signage. I know we did not in the sense that we don’t—we did not know who the tenants would be to provide an actual depiction of what the signs would look like. So when, for example, we did South Village, we came through with individual sign packages as we knew what those signs looked like and their specific design, etc… Franz So, if we take a look at the Engineering 8201 in Exhibit 4, the elevations, which by earlier conversation I think Larry pointed out these are probably reversed. You’ve got the east elevation as what would appear to be the front of the building. We’re assuming that is going to be facing Michigan. If there was signage, I mean, where would that end up being? Would it be on the windows? Would it be, you know, above—I’m just—any idea of where that’s going to end up? Green I’m sorry, Matt. I’ll go ahead and answer that if you don’t mind. Price Yeah. Green If building signage is planned by individual tenants, it will be on that EIFS band which is the dark band above the awning. Franz Okay. Jones I think with the previous building, we discussed that. Once you’re in the parking spaces, it kind of goes away, so you’ll have to do both. You’ll have to do glass and above, not that people forget but people forget. Sorry, but that’s people. Franz All right. Jones So, does that mean it would also be on the stone over the barn, so to speak? Green Depending upon what the dentist would want, it’s possible that some of that signage would be contained over that stone. That’s correct. Jones Those would be internally lit? Green Yes. Jones Words or letters or whatever, as well? Green Yes. Page 11 of 33 Zionsville Plan Commission November 16, 2020 Franz Anybody else have questions, comments? Jones Last question, would there be signage on the north and south facades as well? Green No. Jones Matt, the tenant signage, where does that actually go out in the yard, out in the— is that going to end up in these little kind of cut out lawn areas either in the center or the corners or what are we—none of the landscape plans you’ve shown show any kind of signage locations other than the special plans we’ve been given and those are kind of general. Price Rick, can you—can you explain exactly where those would go as well? Green If you could roll back to your overall site plan, Matt. Price Yes. Sorry. Is that the right one for you, Rick? Green Yeah, that’s correct. The tenant signs, the multi-tenant sign would more than likely be in this particular building in the center parking lot space divider, if you will, that fronts Michigan Road. Jones I’m thinking on the overall plan you’re not asking for multi-tenant sign there. Is that correct? Rick That’s correct. Yeah, you are correct because this will be a medical office building. So, you’re single-tenant signage would be in that location, though. Jones The single-tenant sign only has a single tenant on it, correct? Rick That’s correct. Jones Okay. So, where does the multi-tenant signs go, then? Price So if you look at—let me see. So, the M-1 designation is along 146th Street is the sign kind of in the midpoint there to the west of the main entrance off of 146th at the south end of our shops location. Then, we show another one on the outlot north of the Hanovarian Drive access. Green In essence, the multi-tenant signs will be at the entrance locations to those outlot areas from Michigan Road and then 146th Street. Jones So basically, the multiple tenant, professional business tenant for having, the liquor store in this building on the south end while currently we’re showing the proposed four businesses, we only have room for three signs. Green On the lot in question, there will be one single-tenant sign. They’ll be one single- tenant sign to the lot south of that. The liquor store will only have one single- tenant sign. Across the entrance is where we would have the multiple tenant entrance sign. Page 12 of 33 Zionsville Plan Commission November 16, 2020 Jones I guess my concern is, if I was a tenant in the lot, what is that, Lot J? I’d want my name on a sign. It’s for professional business use, correct? Price That’s correct. That’s correct. If—I had this same discussion leading up to this evening’s hearing myself and discussed it with my client. If we need to move that multi-tenant sign that’s located on the lot immediately north of Hanovarian down to our professional business office building lot, we’re prepared to make that change this evening. I think that— Jones So what ever happened to the businesses behind all this? I mean, it’s supposed to be a mixed-use development behind it but still mixed use means there’ll be some commercial uses. How do they get signed? Price In this area in here that’s part of the development? Jones Correct. Price Right now, the plan is and it’s contemplated to be filed either next month, December, or the following month, that area would be entirely residential. So, there’s currently no contemplation of any signage in the behind of any of these buildings. That’s the senior housing, single-family detached senior housing project that we’ve talked about from time to time. Franz So, I’m trying to figure out which lot that is. If we go to the—I got to find it. It’s easier when you have paper. I have to scroll through everything now. Price Yeah. Franz I think it’s the two—the buildings that we approved are the—yeah, so it would be between Outlot A and F, you know, facing Michigan. Right now, you’ve got a multi-tenant sign there but then no single-tenant signs in front of those buildings. So, is that the intent and then each one of these down here single-tenant, multi- tenant? I’m just—I guess, that’s a break from what every other one appears to have. Price Well, the—yeah, I see what you’re saying. The change that I was, I had discussed with my client and I think that Larry was mentioning was relocating the multi- tenant sign on Outlot H down to the multi-tenant office building on Outlot J. Franz No, I’m looking up north of that. Right south of the corner, you’ve got the two buildings there. Price Yes. Franz There’s just one multi-tenant is—I mean, that—it just—all the other ones, I’m just—is that how it’s going to end up? There’s going to be no single-tenant signs in that situation. So if there’s like six or seven tenants, it will just be one signage, one sign on that plus whatever is on the buildings? Page 13 of 33 Zionsville Plan Commission November 16, 2020 Price Yes. We’re only permitted by the commitments to have that number of total signs. Franz Oh, okay. Price Including multi-tenant signs. Franz All right. Is there any possible way you’re going to reduce the number of signs? I’m just kind of curious, and just go with multi-tenant and signage on the buildings? Price I’m not in a position to make that change this evening? Franz I’m just curious. I mean, I’m just—you know, I was just wondering what, how that’s going to end up. I mean, I guess the sign—I mean, the signage, I’m looking at it, it just kind of looks, you know, it just kind of looks odd. I don’t know. It’s not, I mean, it’s not consistent is how I would look at it. Price The, uh, you mean the location of the signage around the development? Franz Yeah, the placement with buildings. Price Placement? Franz I mean, you know, it’s, you know, less is more, I think, maybe. I don’t know. Jones Also, one of the benefits of, you know, operating from home is the copious stack of Zionsville Plan Commission and BZA dockets, meetings, notes, I can actually go get. I went back and I’m looking at the building that’s up there at 146th, the multi-shop one that we previously approved. It’s nice to see that that one actually had the full—I’m talking about the architectural building, had the full roofs on the ends and actually show kind of true board and batten kind of detail on them with the stone. They also then individually at each tenant sleeve made allowances for signage on the building over the front of them. Now, the plan also doesn’t show any kind of signage along Michigan Road. I guess, my two questions are, why did we go away from some of the architectural details on those with this building, i.e. the full roof and a true kind of board and batten detail and a little bit of awning? If the intent is to have signage for each tenant space, well then put it on the plan. Price Rick, can you take that, then I can comment as well. Green We took the same building elements or in other words the materials that we did for what I’m going to call the B shops that’s at the northwest corner of the development to emulate the Lot J building or the dentist building, medical office building. The building footprint does not allow us to do the full roof like we’ve done in the B shops. It’s just the layout of this lot that made sense that the north side of that building would be more of a two-story structure. Then, the remaining part of that would emulate the B shop or the smaller anchor stores, if you will, that were associated with the building on the northwest side of the property. Page 14 of 33 Zionsville Plan Commission November 16, 2020 Jones What’s the footprint have anything to do with the roof? Green To emulate the architectural style, the footprint means everything. Jones Yeah, but structurally you’ve got the same considerations with the roof on the building on the multi-unit which supports the back edge of the roof and you’re still going to have to do it here to a point. I’m kind of struggling. Green Well— Jones I’m struggling to buy what you’re saying is the polite way of saying it is what I mean. Green If I had the gable roof across the entire area of that, it’ll be difficult to locate rooftop equipment and everything else. I do need a flat area that’s got some sort of appear put on that to hide equipment. This particular layout allows me to do that. Jones You do know I’m looking at the first-floor construction plan for the building up north and if what you’re saying is correct, you’re going to have the same issue. You’re going to have the issue up there. Green Well, we do have flat areas up there to hide the equipment. Jones Right, but they’re adjoining one of your tenant bays which means you’re bringing equipment of one tenant over the roof of another. I’m just looking at your drawings. My concern is that this building, some of the detail that we previously approved which you got variance for architecturally is getting downgraded on this one. If you’re going to be consistent, be consistent. Matt, you’ve heard this out of me every single time. The water features have gotten turned into retainage ponds, you know. We can add some signage. Let’s get some consistency between the street scape and what we’re doing on the building. Understand what I’m saying and I understand how it gets heard and it’s with intent. Come on, if you’re going to do this. Franz I got a question. Jones Would you like to ask for a continuance and go get some of this stuff resolved. Am I on mute? Price No, I’m thinking. Jones That’s fine. Price I would ask this, certainly, I’m hearing some definite feedback on the sign plan and I’m certainly willing to go back and discuss that with my client. I do feel like we’ve worked with the staff with regard to the architectural treatments for this building and believe that we had achieved both thematically and with regard to the building materials, a good match with the original building particularly given the office use for it and would prefer to go forward if possible. Certainly, if it’s the Plan Commission’s desire that we continue that, we can do that as well but Page 15 of 33 Zionsville Plan Commission November 16, 2020 we’ve worked very hard to get to this point and had not—believed that we had struck a good balance for this building with regard to what we had proposed and matching it very closely with the original shops. Franz Let me ask a question relative to the signage. Price Yes. Franz You know, you’ve got the plan here. This is kind of the Wayne and I guess the Plan Commission in general, if there is a change to the signage that’s approved here, how would, I mean, how would we view this? Would that be someone that, you know, would be something that the planning department could handle or is that something that the Plan Commission would want to come back in front of the commission. I’m looking at this and it sounds like you guys are still kind of bouncing around where these signs may end up on the property. I just want to understand, you know, if that does change, how we think about that relative to coming back to the Plan Commission or is that something that we would trust Wayne to handle? DeLong Your zoning ordinance speaks to major and minor amendments. Franz Right. DeLong This group has heard this from time to time where the staff has approved a minor amendment and brought that to you all. Many times that conversation has been very smooth. There have been a few cases where the board has said, “Now, what a minute, that’s not exactly our intention.” So, that’s certainly items that we’re cognizant of. So, you’re answer is, you do have the minor amendment process that would address changes that happen, potential changes that happen in the future. Franz I appreciate that. I guess, I’m trying to figure out, does the Plan Commission feel that this is a minor amendment or is this a major amendment? I mean, that’s what I’m trying to figure out. Jones Are we talking about the signage plan being a minor or a major? Franz If they—we’ve got the plan here. If they change it, is that something that we would consider minor and trust Wayne to handle or is that something you would want to have come back to the Plan Commission to be dealt with? Jones Well, the question is, as long as they’re confident—as long as the developer is confident that he’s going to accept limiting himself to these type of signs in these locations. That’s my point, it’s like, well, if he’s going to have some multi-tenant users on the Lot J, well then I’m thinking they would want a multi-tenant sign. Then the other big question is, you know, are you going to have signage on the building. I’ve scrolled back through the architectural plans and the floor plan shows a larger tenant space on the north end and then a medium-sized and a smaller as it progresses south which one kind of defeats the comment that was made about the gable roof not being taken all the way to the back because you’ve still got flat roof area to hide all sorts of mechanicals. Two, you know, with the Page 16 of 33 Zionsville Plan Commission November 16, 2020 previous drawing that we approved for the other building, there was more architectural detail provided on it whether there was awnings over the large windows or the board and batten detail as well as it showed where they were going to have signage, a little more complete idea. That’s, once again, all I’m asking is come to us with kind of a complete plan you’re willing to commit to and we keep getting pieces and keep getting variances, you know? With this latest building elevation, we’re being asked to approve, it’s actually got less detail than the previous one we approved. If there’s going to be continuity and design in the development, then keep them equal. Whatever, it’s just me. Price We’ve made certain the exact building materials, the same color palette. It’s an office building so our focus was certainly not on wall signage. That’s why you don’t see additional signage with regard to the retail users. You’re asking me to commit that I would say there would be no additional signage. I couldn’t make that commitment but certainly not our intent. What I am prepared to do though, is to agree to relocate the multi-tenant sign to that parcel for the points you’ve raised in the same way I’ve discussed with my client. I think that makes sense. Jones So, you’re putting the 12-foot tall sign out in front of this building? Price It would be up, yes. Jones I mean, we did the stuff with Stonegate that was the big concern was about mass of signage out in front of that development. At least there we had, what, St. Vincent Hospital going in and doing something and some other stuff. Did that come before the Plan Commission or was that a BZA? Price BZA. Jones Was that a BZA issue? Price I believe so. DeLong Correct. Papa Mr. Price, just for the sake of clarity, you said that you would move the—you would want to relocate the monument sign. Just for the sake of clarity, could you say where to where on the record so we capture that? Price Yes. Yes, thank you Council. It’s from the location shown on Outlot H to and in lieu of the single tenant sign on Outlot J. Jones Matt, with that, you’re moving the, you know, the naming of the subdivision, the naming of the development, Appaloosa Crossing, down there and away from your entries. Price Understand. It’s been the subject of some internal discussion. Jones Do we want to take some time to sort this out? Grabianowski Is it possible for us to separate these out again? Page 17 of 33 Zionsville Plan Commission November 16, 2020 Franz Well, they’re two issues. They’re two separate matters. Grabianowski Exactly. So, could we have them go back and look at the signs but go ahead and approve the basic architectural plan or disapprove it. Franz We’ll entertain a motion on 43 and, you know, request a continuance on 44. Yeah, that’s a distinct possibility. Jones Again, my concern with the architecture is it’s not the same package of architecture that we’ve previously approved. It also doesn’t address the signage on the building. It’s not complete. Franz Mary, I don’t have the previous—so is that, you’re saying that the picture, I mean, the drawings and materials provided was a lot greater detail than the— Jones Correct. The core pieces on the previous multi-tenant building we approved, the gable roof detail goes from front to back would be number one. Number two is while they call out in their verbal description of this project, the previous elevations and details did clearly show kind of a board and batten detail done with what I’m assuming would be the hardy board siding. Franz Larry, did you—Roger, can you let Larry share his screen if he’s got those documents there? Jones No, that would be— Franz Oh, you’ve got a piece—it’s on paper, never mind, never mind. Jones Is this going to work? Good Lord. This is bad. This is tight, but my concern is— all right. When we look at the elevations, what’s not happening on this building that we’re approving is that kind of full roof detail which is really that substantial impact if you’re describing the decoration of a barn-type structure. We also had the signage over each of the tenant bays. Regarding Mr. Green’s concern about no room for mechanicals, the one they’re proposing has a larger unit that will still benefit from some flat roof area up there. Anyways, my general concern is when you look through the drawings we previously approved, they had a lot more detail architecturally, architectural interest that what we’re getting ready to approve and that is a concern. Franz Okay. Lewis If this is approved as shown, would they not be allowed to put signs on the individual buildings over each tenant space? DeLong The zoning ordinance supports that type of installation. Lewis It what? DeLong Yes, they would be allowed to install those. As you described it, that’s something that’s supported by the zoning ordinance. Page 18 of 33 Zionsville Plan Commission November 16, 2020 Lewis Okay. So even though it doesn’t show any signs on the rendering, they would still be allowed to put the signs up there as long as they complied with whatever other requirements there were written in the zoning ordinance? DeLong Correct. Lewis Okay. Franz Matt, on the buildings, is this building going to be exactly the same as the previous buildings or is it going to be substantially the same, I mean, in materials and finish, appearance? I think that’s what Larry’s getting to. We can’t tell. Jones Yeah. What we’re being provided isn’t, it’s the same, it’s emulating. Price Yeah, I can certainly ask Rick to amplify on this but my understanding in discussing this with the architects is that it is the same with regard to the building materials, the accents and features of the development. Certainly, when Larry held up that picture and when you look at this picture, there may be some differences between those two as far as what they, you know, they’re overall appearance but the same architectural features that were, you know, the use of the columns, the awning, the gabled roof, the limestone base materials, the EIFS, as I’ve said the color palette. All of those are exactly the same. The idea was to match them exactly which I think is a different issue than whether our representations are exactly the same as the way the material was represented. Rick, could you— Green If the questions is whether—if the question is whether we’re going to provide a board and batten gable front façade like we did on the B shops, the intent is that that will be the same detail. It’s a hardy plank. Okay, we don’t have some linework shown on the elevation, but we will provide the board and batten type siding that matches what you previously approved with the B shops. If we’re asking for the roof line to continue front to back, I can’t make that commitment this evening due to the inherent cost that would be associated with extending that roof front to back. That would be something that Mr. Price and I would have to talk to our client with to see if they would be willing to commit to that. Jones I understand. Green The other thing that comes into play with that is with the development of the lot to the north, we’re not going to be seeing much of that roofline on that particular edge of the building. Jones Hopefully, when they develop the rest of the, uh—I guess, that’s my question. You know, if you’re emulating the look of the large white barn that stood on the property for decades, it should be the dominant feature over the adjoining property. Am I missing something? Green That emulation and that throwback to the historic nature of the Harris Family property is done at the B Shops. Page 19 of 33 Zionsville Plan Commission November 16, 2020 Franz So if we—whatever gets built here—I guess, this is—I want to go back, I mean, I want consistency in appearance. So aside from the roof line relative to the barn structure, if these buildings were sitting side by side, we would say aside from that, they’re identical, I mean, from appearance, I mean from material, finish, gable, I mean, all of that stuff. I mean, I’m just trying to get—we have an intent to make it the same but the question is, is it going to be the same except for the barn structure? I mean, that’s the question I’ve got. Green I can answer that question, that’s a definitive yes that those buildings will be identical to each other, other than the roof line. Franz All right. Okay. Then, relative to the signs, you know that we’ve noted where the switching of the signs is going to be, so now you’re replacing a tenant sign with the monument sign. Are you going to move that other tenant sign someplace else or are you just not going to have that one, so you’re going to be one short of what’s allowed under the commitments? Price It would be in lieu of. Franz Okay. Anybody else have any comments, questions? Papa Did we get the question from the chat? Franz Roger, did we get a question from the chat, from Mr.— Kilmer Mr. Culpepper was able to relay his question through a neighbor. Jared and Mary Layman are the neighbors of Mr. Culpepper. He asked to share his question, he’d like to know the distance from his entrance to the entrance that has been mentioned for safety if nothing else, it could be further distanced based on the drawings. Now learning a liquor store will be right there as well, Mr. Culpepper has a concern of property values. His address is 3290 South U.S. Highway 421. Franz So, he’s across Michigan Avenue, Michigan Road, I mean? Kilmer He would be located on the west side of Michigan, yes. Franz Then, so if I’m looking at the one map which is, it’s Exhibit 4 on the strong box which has the, um, it’s basically the top is heading west. So, is his—do you know if his entrance is the one south or the one just north of outlot, of the entrance by Outlot H? Do you know which one he lives at? Kilmer I do not know. Price I believe it is the driveway north. Franz Okay. Price Greg, if I could call on Greg Snelling if he knows, if he could give us an approximate distance. I’ve been out there several times but I don’t know that distance offhand. Page 20 of 33 Zionsville Plan Commission November 16, 2020 Lewis I only see the one driveway on the west side of Michigan Road. I’m looking at aerial photo that goes along the front edge of the property. Price Yeah. Correct. Snelling This is Greg Snelling if you can hear me. Franz Yes. What’s your address, please? Snelling My address is 13295 Illinois Street, Suite 142 Carmel, Indiana. Franz Okay, thanks. Snelling The approximate distance from Mr. Culpepper’s driveways and the center line of the Appaloosa Drive, I believe it is, I mean, Hanovarian Street which is the entrance we’re talking about north of the future liquor store. That is approximately 160 feet. It’s been approved by INDOT incidentally. The plans for the improvements on Michigan Road have been reviewed and permitted by INDOT and construction, I believe, is ongoing. Franz Is there going to be a divider? Is there going to be a divider on Michigan there or not? Is that just going to be—will it end up being four lanes? Snelling It is four lanes for the majority of the property frontage. INDOT, I believe, has a plan to make it five lanes. The current plan that we’ve designed to their specifications has no median except at the right-in, right-out entrance, the next one to the north is a right-in, right-out and we have a center curb which is a barrier. Franz Right, okay. Snelling That’s only about a hundred feet long. So, the majority of it is not—there’s no physical barrier in the middle, no median. Franz Okay. All right. Does anybody have any other, anything else, comments, questions? All right. Since there isn’t any, I guess we’ll move on to motions. On 43-DP, would anybody like to make a motion on that one? Lewis I can’t find it. Franz Before we make a motion, let me ask a question on this. Whatever motion we make, can we put language in there subject to the planning department being satisfied as to the consistency of the buildings with the exception of the roof line, you know, for the materials and look to, you know, address the issue that the detail that we’ve got in these materials is not as detailed as the other materials that were previously approved? Taylor I think you can. Since there are waivers requested, I think that you could express that intent that whatever is submitted permitting is consistent with Mr. Green’s representations that they’ll be the same. I think you can do that. Page 21 of 33 Zionsville Plan Commission November 16, 2020 Franz With the exception of the roof line. Taylor Well, correct, yes. Franz Yeah. All right. Kilmer Mr. Franz, I know you called for motion but you have a hand raised, Mary Beck. Fedor Contact was killing me. Franz Okay. Roger, let’s go ahead, let her talk. Beck My name is Mary Beck. My address is 3415 South U.S. Highway 421 Zionsville. We live adjacent to the Appaloosa Crossing site. We were concerned when we heard in the earlier comments about the water feature now just being an additional retention pond. We are also concerned about the safety and the additional traffic that will be going on and the widening of the road, where it widens just at the Appaloosa Crossing portion of it and then narrows when it comes down to our property. Franz All right. Beck Also, the liquor store, you know, concerned about that as well, and the property value. Franz Okay. All right. Thank you. Beck Thank you. Franz Matt, do you want to comment on those? Price Yes. The Plan Commission may recall that last, well, earlier this year—2020 has been a long year. Earlier this year, we received approval to relocate a water feature further south along 421. So it’s actually the south over an acre parcel that provides additional buffering from the properties to the south. That was actually a land acquisition that was added to another project back in the winter and spring last year. So, we think that actually is a positive feature of the development and creates additional buffering and separation from the project moving south to north. So, we think that’s positive. Certainly, we are making the transportation 9mprovents that adjoin our property. That’s the requirements under the ordinance. Those access points as Mr. Snelling mentioned earlier, were approved through INDOT and that work is commencing now in accordance with their specifications. Franz All right. Thanks. All right. I guess, I’ll go back to the motions. Would anyone like to make a motion on 2020-43-DP? We have to address both of the waivers as individual items and then the motion for approval or disapproval, whatever the motion may be relative to the development plan itself. Jones Like I said, I’m struggling with both of them with just kind of the open- endedness of what’s transcribing or going on. Matt, a quick question, so we talk Page 22 of 33 Zionsville Plan Commission November 16, 2020 about the other B stores up there and then we’ve got the gas station going in there at the corner of 146th and 421. So, they’ll have in addition to the other signage, their own requests. Like I said, my concern is we’re approving a signage plan that keeps kind of shifting. I’d feel more comfortable with a completed plan. That’s why I keep poking around at the idea of getting a continuance so some of this stuff can actually get sorted out. Price With regard to the signage plan, you know, if the commission would desire to continue that, we can continue that and come back and I can show the change that we’ve discussed here this evening. With regard to the development plan, I believe that we are agreeable entirely with making the condition that Mr. Franz explored and believe that the architectural submittal that we made and was reviewed by staff and vetted through our TAC process is consistent with what was previously approved for the shops, and would like to move forward with that component of the project. We are agreeable to continuing the sign plan and can come back with further refinements to it. Jones Sounds better. Franz All right. So, on the— Fedor I’ll make a motion. Franz Okay. How about taking the continuance first? Fedor A motion to continue the signage plan? Franz Yeah, 2020-44-DP. Fedor Okay. I’ll make a motion that we continue 2020-44-DP, the signage plan to the next Plan Commission meeting. Grabianowski Second. Franz Which is—what’s the date, December what? 21st. Grabianowski 21st. Franz Okay, yeah, 21st. Fedor December 21st. Franz We have a second. Do we need a roll on this, Dan, or can we do this by— Taylor I’d prefer we do a roll call just because it’s impossible to know. Franz All right. Okay. So Wayne, would you please take a roll? DeLong Mr. Fedor? Fedor Aye. Page 23 of 33 Zionsville Plan Commission November 16, 2020 DeLong Miss Walker? Walker Aye. DeLong Mr. Jones? Jones Aye. DeLong Mr. Papa? Papa Aye. DeLong Mr. Lewis? Lewis Aye. DeLong Mr. Franz? Franz Aye. DeLong Mrs. Grabianowski? Grabianowski Aye. DeLong All right. The motion passes 7-0. So that takes care of that one. So now, back to 2020-43-DP, and the motions required for that one. Lewis Okay. I move that the waiver of architectural building design requirements as discussed and committed to in the discussion in the meeting be approved as discussed. I also move that the waiver of building materials be approved as discussed and committed to in the discussion at the meeting. I move that Docket #2020-43-DP to allow for development plan approval of a 10,800 +/- square foot multi-tenant building in Outlot J within the Appaloosa Crossing development zoned rural professional business PB pending and within the Michigan Road overlay be conditionally approved based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the rezoning of the PB classification and associated variance process, staff recommendations, submitted finding of fact and subject to the resolution of outstanding review items identified in the town engineer in Exhibit 5 of the staff report as presented. I think I got it all. Franz All right. So, we have three motions. I’m going to deal with each one separately. So, Dan, where should we put the language in there subject to architectural drawings presented, or final architectural drawings are consistent with what has previously been approved in whatever that docket number in April was? Where would we put that? Would that be in the main, the approval of the full development plan or would it be in one of the waivers? Taylor It’s probably whatever your staff would like to see. I’d like it in the waiver and the motion. Page 24 of 33 Zionsville Plan Commission November 16, 2020 Franz Okay. Taylor I think that the way you articulate it would be that all materials and architectural design would be reviewed administratively and would need to be satisfactory to your staff. That’s the way I heard it. Franz Okay. Taylor If you just added that to the three motions he made, then that would make me feel comfortable. Then, I think staff knows how to administer it. Franz All right. So, Mr. Lewis, are you—do you accept those recommendations? Lewis Yes. Franz All right. So, with that, is there a second on the waiver for architectural building design requirements? Walker Second. Franz All right. Is there any further discussion? Wayne, would you please take roll? DeLong Yes. Miss Walker? Walker Aye. DeLong Mr. Jones? Jones Nay. DeLong Mr. Papa? Papa Aye. DeLong Mr. Lewis? Lewis Aye. DeLong Mr. Franz? Franz Aye. DeLong Mrs. Grabianowski? Grabianowski Aye. DeLong Mr. Fedor? Grabianowski Josh, you’re muted. Fedor Aye. Page 25 of 33 Zionsville Plan Commission November 16, 2020 Franz All right. Motion carries, 6-1. So the waiver’s granted subject to as stated. On the second motion, is there a second for the waiver of building materials? Fedor Second. Franz Any further discussion? Wayne, would you please take roll? DeLong Yes. Mr. Jones? Jones Nay. DeLong Mr. Papa? Papa Aye. DeLong Mr. Lewis? Lewis Aye. DeLong Mr. Franz? Franz Aye. DeLong Mrs. Grabianowski? Grabianowski Aye. DeLong Mr. Fedor? Fedor Aye. DeLong Mrs. Walker? Walker Aye. Franz That motion carries 6-1, so that waiver is granted. Then, on the approval of the development plan, is there a second? Walker Second. Franz All right. We have a second. Any further discussion? Wayne, would you please take roll? DeLong Mr. Papa? Papa Aye. DeLong Mr. Lewis? Lewis Aye. Page 26 of 33 Zionsville Plan Commission November 16, 2020 DeLong Mr. Franz? Franz Aye. DeLong Mrs. Grabianowski? Grabianowski Aye. DeLong Mr. Fedor? Fedor Aye. DeLong Mrs. Walker? Walker Aye. DeLong Mr. Jones? Jones Nay. DeLong Mr. Papa? Papa Aye. DeLong There we go, thank you. Franz That motion also carries, passes 6-1, so you have those subject to the conditions and we will see you next month for the signage plan. Price Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Franz All right. Next item on the Docket #2020-45-DPA Hotel Tango 10615 Zionsville Road, petition for development plan amendment approval to allow for modification of a pergola and for the addition of up to 210 square feet of screened outdoor storage with the waiver request of architectural design requirements in the B2 urban general business zoning district. Is the petitioner present? Lese Yes. Franz All right. Please proceed. State your name and address please. Lese Joseph Lese with Progress Studio. Our address is 5915 North College Avenue, Suite 213 Indianapolis, Indiana. Franz All right. Thank you. Please proceed. Lese So, we are filing an amendment to our original approved set of plans which show a revised canopy designed to reflect what has been constructed on site as well as requesting approval for a future walk-in cooler that would be added to the outside Page 27 of 33 Zionsville Plan Commission November 16, 2020 of the structure which would be screened to match the building’s architecture and style. On specifically to quickly see what this would look like, on page A-102 of our design documents the original structure was proposed to be a smart pergola and that proved to be an expensive venture. So, we are here today to catch up what was constructed in the field with the design. The actual covered seating area has not changed in square footage or area, so that has remained the same. You will see also that we have shifted away the outdoor woodburning fireplace structure from the wood canopy itself to give it a little bit more clearance. Before it was non-combustible structure was all metal and steel. This is now a wood structure with a metal roof, so we’ve pulled that back away from the canopy structure. Then, on the right side of the plan, you can see a hatched, cross- hatched, area that shows an extent of concrete which will be utilized for a future outdoor cooler. The outdoor cooler will be screened with vertical but jointed fencing to match the rustic feel of the property itself. After some staff comments, we originally were asking for 210 square feet of outdoor cooler area. We’ve reduced that to 180 square feet after pulling back the west face of the proposed cooler to make the clean outs more accessible to anyone servicing from the outside, not inside the building. As such, we’ve also shifted the east accessible route from what it was originally to ensure that the egress from the backside of the building could access the parking lot. On the next page, on A-41, we’ve included updated renderings to reflect the new design basically what you would see today if you drove be the building. Then, also on the upper left corner, you can see what we’re proposing as far as the appearance of that screened walk out cooler. So, the cooler itself will be completely encapsulated by the screening so you won’t see the refrigerator panels, if you will. So, that’s a quick rundown. I’ll be happy to answer any questions that any of you may have. Franz All right. At this point, is there anybody from the public that would like to speak on this matter? Kilmer Mr. Franz, at this time, there are no hands raised. Franz All right. Thank you. At this point, I’ll open it up to questions from the members of the Plan Commission—no, staff report first, Wayne. Sorry about that. DeLong Certainly. Staff is supportive of the petition as it’s been amended this evening. Certainly, this matter as described by petitioner, came up due to field changes related to a deviation from the original proposal hence the conversation this evening. Staff concentrates its thoughts on if my commission had not seen the smart pergola would you have supported this, or staff supported the petition as it’s been filed. The answer is, yes, this is a feature that does fit the motif, the plan, the rustic imagery, if you will. Certainly, this shed roof is reminiscent of that thought process. Certainly, staff is supportive of putting edge related to the outdoor storage specifically for the walk-in cooler. Again, staff is supportive of the petition as it’s been presented this evening. I’m happy to answer any questions. Franz All right. Thank you, Wayne. At this point in time, I’ll open it up to members of the Plan Commission. Page 28 of 33 Zionsville Plan Commission November 16, 2020 Grabianowski I actually thought the idea of a roof rather than a pergola fit right in in these COVID-19 days we have more outdoor seating. I kind of thought that might have been one of the things driving it. It makes sense. Lese Yes, I think that’s a great point. Papa I agree with that, but is that typical changes would be made and then come back and ask after the fact? Franz I think that’s one of the little things, I guess, I’m a little bit disappointed in too. It’s, you know, kind of asking forgiveness for after the fact. Jones You know, as a development and building owner, and contractor all on occasion, I might have deviated from things that I once got approved and then figured out how much it really costs and came back and made a change. So, I can appreciate that they actually came back and asked. I don’t think it really has any material— it’s not a material change to the building. Yeah, it’s something we try not to have happen, but it happens. Franz Is the original drawing to have any sort of awning that would roll out underneath the pergola for rain or was it just always going to be open? If it rained, it just wasn’t going to be seated? Lese The original design included clear vinyl or plastic windows, if you will, panels that are made by awning companies. It’s just a aluminum frame. It’s collapsible. Those were originally proposed, however with this design, it would be impractical for that. So, it is primarily just going to be this open-air structure that you see. Franz No, I was thinking on the pergola structure because that’s open air, was there going to be like an awning that would pull out from that to protect from the weather. I’m just curious, I can’t remember if that was discussed or if it’s raining, is it just not going to be seated then? Lese You’re talking about like wind-driven rain for anybody that’s seated outside? Franz Wasn’t the original structure open or am I missing something? Lese It is open, yes. Franz No, I’m talking—all right. I seem to recall. No, I don’t have those documents with me. Oh, whatever. Lese The original one had provision for putting up clear panels to enclose the smart pergola. It also had provisions for egress because we would be creating a room in that instance. This design basically takes away those doors and enclosure, and just is an open-air canopy. Franz All right. All right. Are there any further questions, comments? Page 29 of 33 Zionsville Plan Commission November 16, 2020 Fedor On your screening for your outdoor cooling, is that screening going to be high enough to cover your rooftop coolant on top of that unit or is it going to be something that’s going to be exposed from—it’s just going to go wall height or it’s just going to cover the mechanical for it as well? Lese what we’ve done in the past is we’ve had the decorative portions up to the top of the cooler panels and then determined whatever ends up being the condensing unit on top would be screened with metal, brake metal to finish off the look so you don’t have that exposed mechanical look but keeps the height of the overall structure only to the cooler panel so it’s stepped back a little bit, so it’s a little bit from a masking standpoint, a little bit more subdued than it would be otherwise. Fedor So, the photo I’m looking at right now would have on it on top of it some boxed off unit for the air conditioning or for the cooling mechanical. Is that correct? Lese That would be correct, yes. Fedor. Okay. Lese If you’d like to add any context to that, as part of any approval, what we’re seeking tonight is just approval for a future cooler. Hotel Tango is not sure exactly when they will have the need but they have foreseen the need based on basically the excitement building around their arrival. So, what we may want to offer up perhaps is some kind of language where it would have to go through permitting anyway, the future cooler that is, and to have a stipulation that any of the condensing units would be screened fully from view. Franz All right. All right, is there any further questions? If there are none, is there a motion? Papa I can do that. I move that Docket #2020-45-DPA development plan amendment approval to allow for modification of the pergola for the addition of up to 180 square feet of screened outdoor storage associated with the placement of a cooler in the future with waiver request of architectural design requirements in the B2 urban general business zoning district be approved based on the findings of the staff report, staff recommendation, and submitted findings of the fact. Franz Is there a second? Grabianowski Second. Franz Any further discussion? Wayne, would you please take roll? DeLong Certainly. Mr. Lewis? Lewis Aye. DeLong Mr. Franz? Franz Aye. Page 30 of 33 Zionsville Plan Commission November 16, 2020 DeLong Mrs. Grabianowski? Grabianowski Aye. DeLong Mr. Fedor? Fedor Aye. DeLong Mrs. Walker? Walker Aye. DeLong Mr. Jones? Jones Aye. DeLong Mr. Papa? Papa Aye. Franz All right. Motion carries 7-0. You have your amendment. Thank you very much. Lese Thank you very much. Have a good evening. Franz All right. That’s it for the docketed items. Wayne, I believe you wanted to discuss something. DeLong Yeah. Just ever so briefly, just this is that time of year when we’re into housekeeping for the next year. So, we’re focused on the 2021 filing schedule. I do not believe we have a draft copy of that in your packet. I know with the Board of Zoning Appeals, we’re looking to extend the filing deadline a few extra days. It’s just we’ve made an adjustment previously to their meeting date but did not adjust the filing schedule. So, we’re looking to clean that up. I’ll look for Roger to jump in if there’s anything specific we need to share on the schedule itself such as a change to sort of that 30-day cycle. Kilmer The challenge that staff was being faced with was quite often a filing deadline was falling if not on the same day, definitely within the same week as when staff reports were being required to be generated and get out to you. That created quite a bit of overlap of duties. What we’re requesting is to back the filing deadline up a few days where we give staff a little bit more lead time to intake new projects, give a couple extra days for review before we actually get together for TAC review. This would also allow a couple extra days for the petitioners to be able to respond to staff’s comments following TAC. So, the timeframe which has typically been about 35 days would be now closer to 43-44 days. DeLong So with all that in mind, if there’s any amendments to rules and procedure or an ordinance, pieces like that, we’ll be looking at those pieces of the puzzle to bring those all up when we have that conversation. Thank you Roger for that detail and certainly bringing first bringing this to your attention but, you know, we’ll be bringing this to the leadership mayor’s office, her attention, here soon. This is Page 31 of 33 Zionsville Plan Commission November 16, 2020 just a conversation where we’re working through, again, just for tonight it’s just for your update for you. Another item very quickly, is the Board of Zoning Appeals last, in their last session approved a project, it’s a residential garage in Rolston. The property was zoned commercially though. Part of your zoning ordinance mandates the development plan filing of that garage. So that would be a petition that would be heard by the plan commission on top of the variance that the petitioner had gone through. However, they did secure a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals for, to allow the project to deviate from that standard. So given that it was a residential garage, it’s going to just move through permitting and then let staff sign off on the development plan. Maybe not for a conversation for tonight, but certainly want to bring that to your attention. This was a deviation from what you typically see but again, this was a garage for residential use on a commercial property zoning ordinance mandated had it would have come to the Plan Commission except for the variance that the Board of Zoning Appeals granted streamlines the process, enhances the experience, all good things. Again, not for discussion necessarily tonight but wanted to maybe have a future conversation on how that process could work. Also, two very quick just plugs if you will, the airport, the Zionsville Hamilton County Airport Authority joint meeting related to the land use study is 6 p.m. on Zoom this Thursday, again 6 p.m. The project’s been listed and noticed. Also, out there for conversation is the RFP specific to our wastewater treatment plant looking to study capacity and just learn more about the nuances. It’s been a number of years since the plan was previously studied. So, just an idea to put this on your radar for now. Responses come in the 26th. We’ll just see who the respondents are. Certainly, we’ll be looking to see what projects file in the meantime for projects that are on your wastewater treatment plant system as the two is also studying the capacity of it’s own plant. So, just some food for thought for another day. Those are some quick items for update. Happy to take any questions if anybody has any on those topics. Certainly, appreciate your time. Franz So, on the filing schedule, you’re going to—I mean, um, so are we—we recently had—I guess it was a while ago. We recently had a request to extend the number of days. Are we—how many days would we be adding to it? DeLong The typical filing schedule we would be adding anywhere from 8-10 days. Franz Okay. DeLong 8-10 calendar days. Lewis I guess my question would be how does that line up with other planning jurisdictions in the area? Kilmer That’s an important question. Having worked with a number of different jurisdictions here in Central Indiana, most jurisdictions for development plan approvals are right around the 45-day time frame. So we would be very—we would be right competitive with them. Franz Okay. All right. I don’t have anything else. Is there any—any other questions, comments? Page 32 of 33 Zionsville Plan Commission November 16, 2020 Papa Wayne or Roger, do we have the—maybe I missed it. Do we have the meeting dates for 2021 for Plan Commission and BZA? Franz It’s the third Monday of each month except for January and February because of federal holidays if I’m not mistaken. Is that correct, Wayne? DeLong Correct. Your own rules and procedure would call out your meeting dates. The town has, you know, it has the obligation to publish that whole schedule prior to December 31 for all bodies of the town to enjoy having those meetings all declared prior to the end of the year. Certainly, there’s no mandate that we do that but it’s certainly a convenience for constituents and others to have that posted. Yes, rules and procedure for Plan Commission is the third Monday of the month except as mentioned because of holidays. Papa BZA stay on Monday? DeLong The first Wednesday of the month? Papa No, BZA. DeLong BZA, yes. BZA falls on the first Wednesday of the month. Papa Monday? It’s not the first Monday? Franz Roger, you’re on mute. Kilmer No, BZA is meeting on the first Wednesday of every month. Papa You’re right, right. So this is Monday, right. You confused me on both, sorry. I’m trying to avoid a conflict. Franz Okay, anything else? Is there a motion to adjourn, then? Fedor So moved. Franz Second. All in favor, aye. All Aye. Franz All right. Thanks a lot everybody. Night. Page 33 of 33