PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION
For October 3, 2011, 7:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Mr. Gibbs:
I’d like to
October 3, 2011 to order.
call
the
Planning
Commission
meeting
for
ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM
Mr. Gibbs:
quorum?
Mr.
Carlucci
would
you
poll
the
board
to
determine
a
Mr. Carlucci:
Mr. Satterfield- here
Mr. McPhail- here
Mr. Brandgard- here
Mr. Dunkin- here
Mr. Kirchoff- here
Mr. Gibbs- here
Six members present, none absent, we have a quorum for the purpose of
conducting business.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mr. Gibbs:
If you would please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES- September 8, 2011
Mr. Gibbs: I assume that all of the board members have had chance to
review the minutes from the previous meeting. If so, I will entertain
a motion.
Mr. Dunkin:
Mr. Kirchoff:
So move.
Second.
Mr. Gibbs: I have a motion and a second, all those in favor signify by
saying aye, opposed, motion carries.
OATH OF TESTIMONY
Mr. Daniel conducted the oath of testimony.
Mr. Daniel: I will also note at this time, we have a couple of people
in the back with video cameras, the Commission allows that, allows both
audio and video taping of their meetings so long as you are willing to
provide the Commission with a duplicate tape after the meeting here,
would you be willing to do that?
(Inaudible)
Mr. Daniel:
tape?
You are not willing to provide us with a copy of your
(Inaudible)
Mr. Daniel:
I understand.
(Inaudible)
Mr. Daniel: It is up to the Commission whether you want to go forward
with tonight under these circumstances.
Mr. Brandgard: This is a public meeting but we do have rules of order
and they have been explained, if people don’t want to follow the rules
of order, we have a choice.
(Inaudible)
Mr. Gibbs:
I will have to ask you to hold your comments at this
particular time, this is a board decision.
Mr. Kirchoff:
What are our rules, I mean predicated on what Mel?
Plainfield Plan Commission
10-3-11
1
Mr. Daniel:
The reason is we have a record here that we take and we
transcribe everything and what the Town has always been concerned about
is we don’t want someone to record either audio or visual and then do
something with that that is inappropriate as far as making that
incomplete and that sort of thing. So as long as they are willing to
give us a copy so that we can see whatever they have to the extent they
want to use it, that what was actually recorded and hasn’t been
modified in any way, so the Town has an opportunity to have an accurate
record that they took as well as we took, and not to give someone an
opportunity to misuse that equipment. Obviously if there is no misuse
involved, I can’t understand why anybody would be unwilling to provide
duplicate copies.
We provide copies of our minutes of these meetings
for anybody who requests them after they have been approved.
Mr. McPhail: I would question the motive of anybody that would not be
willing to share that information, I question the motive of why you
would want the video and record a meeting and not share that with
everybody.
Mr. Gibbs:
Please come to the podium and speak.
Mr. Benson:
My name is Adam Benson; I’m from 446 North County Road
1050 East, Indianapolis, Indiana.
I guess I will leave it to the
people, you know you talk amongst yourselves with is obvious is meant
for me as to say why would someone not be willing, he must have
nefarious purposes; I could say the same thing to you, why do you have
to have a copy of it? I have gone through public minutes before, and
there are a lot of inaudible moments where it is a crucial moment in
the proceeding and I want to know what the answer is when it says
inaudible. I want to make sure that everything is on the record here.
If the people are willing, I will let them vote, if they say that they
want me to give it to you I will.
Mr. Daniel:
Well really it is not a voting issue; it is a policy of
the Commission.
Mr. Daniel: But you are under the jurisdiction of the United States of
America, it may be a rule, you can still do your public policy here
without us providing a tape, I’m not saying I’m totally against it, I’m
just saying it depends on the circumstances.
Mr. Brandgard:
Mr. Benson:
I think I we are not saying you can’t tape.
I understand.
Mr. Brandgard:
So then what you say is your rights to do that.
Mr. Benson:
There has to be a reasonable time, manner, and place
restriction, and I would think that if you don’t conduct business
because you don’t get a copy of the tape, that seems unreasonable to
me. I guess I am willing to proceed along; I will give you a copy.
Mr. Daniel: Thank you. The other gentleman back there, what about you
sir? You will provide a copy also, thank you for your cooperation.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mr. Gibbs
hearings.
reviewed
the
guidelines
governing
the
conduct
of
public
PETITIONS REQUESTING CONTINUANCE TO THE NOVEMBER 7TH PUBLIC
HEARING
Mr. James:
Good evening Mr. President and members of the Plan
Commission. Our first order of business is to continue a petition to
the November 7th meeting. They have requested a continuance; they are
not ready to proceed forward tonight.
It is the primary plat PP-11001, the petitioner is Jerry D. Wiggins.
Mr. McPhail:
I move we continue PP-11-001 to the November 7th meeting.
Mr. Satterfield:
Mr. Gibbs:
the board?
Second.
I have a motion and a second, Mr. Carlucci would you poll
Plainfield Plan Commission
10-3-11
2
Mr. Carlucci:
Mr. Satterfield- yes
Mr. McPhail- yes
Mr. Brandgard- yes
Mr. Dunkin- yes
Mr. Kirchoff- yes
Mr. Gibbs- yes
Six ayes, none opposed, the motion is approved.
PREVIOUSLY CONTINUED PETITIONS FOR PUBLIC HEARING
Mr. James:
Our first petition tonight for a public hearing is RZ-11002; petitioner is Denison Properties, LLC.
This is a request to
rezone about 4.4 acres from Agricultural to General Commercial which is
already in the Town and then 48.2 acres once it is annexed from Ag to
I-2, light industrial warehouse distribution on the property that is
southwest of the I-70/267 interchange.
The 4.4 acres is already in
Plainfield and the 48.2 has to be annexed, it is currently zoned
highway business in Hendricks County, it is going through the
annexation process. The property is currently undeveloped farmland on
the smaller track and the 4.4 acre site is a church that’s still
operational.
In 2005, 21 acres to the south of the property was
annexed and zoned general commercial by the petitioner.
The 40 acre
piece wraps around Sycamore Estates to the north and to the west which
is zoned RB single family in the County.
The property also has
frontage on I-70 and 267 to the north and to the east. The Plainfield
Comprehensive Plan recommends interstate commercial node for this
interchange quadrant. Development pattern would be similar to what you
see on the north side of I-70, it would be hotels, restaurants, and gas
stations.
A traffic impact study has been provided to staff, it
determines the traffic impacts based on the proposed lane uses and then
makes recommendations to keep the street network at adequate level of
service. This is the property, this is 267 and I-70, County Road 700
South, and then 825 East, this is the 4.4 acres that is already in the
Town, all this that in beige is already in the Town, then the dark red
is the 48 acres that is not in the Town and is still in the County and
it is zoned again, highway business, in the County, here is the zoning
map, everything in white is not in the Town, it is under Hendricks
County jurisdiction.
This is the 21 acres that was rezoned south of
the subject property, by the petitioner and all of this is State Road
267 frontage. Here is the 4.4 acre piece, and all of this is zoned Ag,
all this in the red is zoned general commercial.
Someone said they
wanted to see everything that was in the Town south of I-70, so
everything in the beige is in the Town and here is I-70, so all of this
is in the Town. Here is the comprehensive plan map; all of this is the
interstate
commercial
mode
recommendation,
which
circles
the
interchange and this is the subject property, approximately right in
here.
This is our updated transportation plan map, everything in the
orange is a road that got a classification of a collector or above, and
that is a recommended improvement right there, so as you can see there
is no recommended road improvements for this quadrant of the
interchange and also, we don’t anticipate any redesign of the
interchange that would impact this property. I’m going to go over the
development standards, all the property within 600’ will be the gateway
corridor, or residential use, I-70 and 267 are the gateway corridors,
so anything within 600 feet will have to comply with the gateway
corridor development standards, that is our specific design and site
development standards, but we are getting ready to amend the ordinance
to require a gateway corridor standards next to a residential use.
Currently the ordinance reads yet to do gateway corridor development
within 600’ of a residential district, this means a Plainfield district
that is a residential district, with Sycamore Estates not being in
Plainfield,
technically
that
wouldn’t
require
gateway
corridor
development standards, but we are going to amend the ordinance to
require that regardless if the residential use is in Plainfield or not
and also the petitioner has committed to do gateway corridor standards.
If it is zoned I-2, they would have to do a 50’ buffer yard next to the
residential property line, so along the south side of the property up
by I-70 and then along west property line they will have to do a 50’
buffer yard, that means that no development can be within the first
50’, they would have to do the required landscaping within that buffer
yard, required landscaping would be a level 3, perennial landscaping
and that would be about 6, 6’ tall evergreens every one hundred feet,
and they could also use berms to supplement that.
I’m going to show
you the concept plan, the building setback from the west is at least
250’ from the west property line, and then the setback from the north
end is at least 120’ from the property line, and then the access drives
Plainfield Plan Commission
10-3-11
3
cannot be in the buffer yard, so they show them out of the buffer
yards, so that complies with that requirement, utilities, water is
available for Sycamore Estates, or 700 South, but the petitioner would
have to extend water service and a sanitary sewer would have to be
extended further from the west across the creek, then all drainage
would have to be contained on the property.
Before any development
could occur, the petitioner would have to submit a master drainage plan
that shows how drainage is going to be controlled on all of the
property. They can’t have runoff to an adjacent property. Flood plain
does not impact the development, I will show you where that is, and
then there are some existing trees along the west property line and on
the property that could be saved.
Here is the proposed concept plan,
this isn’t the scale but I just wanted to show you, this is where the
50’ buffer yard would have to go, as you can see no development is
shown within the 50’ buffer yard and then it shows the 250’ setback
from the west property line and then the 120’ setback from the north
property line.
The 48 acre track is currently zoned highway business
in Hendricks County.
It could be developed today with interstate
support uses, which includes a truck stop, annexation gives Plainfield
control over the land uses and services just for the 48 acres.
The
petitioner has met with Sycamore Estate homeowners and with the
Guilford Township Civic Associations which resulted in some proposed
commitments and I will go over those. Traffic impact study was revised
will address potential impacts to 825 East and it was also shared with
the Hendricks County Highway Engineer, this resulted in some additional
proposals and commitments to litigate impacts to 825 East, and then
when should road improvements occur, what parties are responsible, and
what are the scope of improvements needed to make sure that this
proposal and these developments do not have adverse impacts to the
transportation system down there.
Then the same can be said for the
sanitary sewer and water, who is responsible for extending that when
should it be extended, so staff recommends that a commitment to work
with the Town Council in Hendricks County to create a Memorandum of
Understanding
to
address
these
issues.
Hearing
the
proposed
commitments, this is just summarized commitments these are not the
actual commitments, all development shall comply with the gateway
corridor development standards, preserve the existing tree line in the
buffer yard on the west and south property lines, and keep sanitary
sewer out of the buffer yard, except where it has to cross the buffer
yard.
Install a curbing left turn only signs and weight limit
restrictions etcetera to prevent or reduce truck impacts on 825 East.
Maximum single building size cannot be more that 270,000 square feet,
and then the total building square footage for all buildings could not
be more than 500,000 square feet, and then the center line of the
western curb cut from those on 700 South would have to be at least 140’
from the west property line, and then no truck stop or alcoholic
beverage distributer would be allowed as a primary use on the subject
property and then also commit to create a Memorandum of Understanding
to Town Council and Hendricks County to address road and info structure
improvements based on the development and when the improvements should
occur. So I hope I have given you a good summary of what this request
proposal is about and how it impacts the surrounding area, so with
that, I will have a seat and Mr. McNaught is here, he is the petitioner
and I am sure he will be glad to answer any questions you might have.
Mr. Brandgard: Joe, before you leave, item 4, maximum single building
size 270,000 square feet, total building square foot is 500,000?
Mr. James:
Yes, that
270,000 square feet.
Mr. Brandgard:
is
correct;
no
single
building
can
be
over
What do you mean by total square feet?
Mr. James: All buildings combined cannot be larger than 500,000 square
feet, so if they do have one building that is 270,000, that means the
other buildings are going to be pretty small.
Mr. Brandgard:
Ok, just wanted to make sure.
Mr. McPhail:
My development plan shows a building of 260,000, and a
building with 210,000.
Mr. James:
It has been changed from the concept map.
Mr. Gibbs:
Thank you Joe.
Plainfield Plan Commission
Would the petitioner like to come forward?
10-3-11
4
Mr. McNaught:
Chairman Gibbs, and members of the Commission, for the
record, my name is Mac McNaught, I am one of the principals of Denison
Partners, LLC, the office address is 36 South Pennsylvania Suite 200,
Indianapolis, Indiana.
Thank you for hearing this proposal this
evening, Mr. James has very nicely given you all of the details. Let
me try to put in context and give you an idea of why we are here, why
we brought this.
You can see the site plan, I shared copies in two
different meetings, we met in July 18th, and then we met again about a
month ago, with many of the neighbors of Sycamore Estates and Guilford
Township, and the most recent meeting was hosted by the Guilford
Township Civic Association, and we mailed it to everybody who was
entitled to a public notice, so I think it has been out there pretty
significantly.
Different from what Mr. McPhail showed you, the
property owner to the east here is, Mr. Strange, decided not to
participate in the rezoning, so that is why there is a green sloth and
about 12 acres and that one building was pulled back to a much smaller
footprint.
In terms of the context, we have here approximately 66
total acres, if you looked at the southwest quadrant, north of 700, as
you heard the southern 21 acres were rezoned in 2005, in addition at
that same time, an acre and a half at that very corner that we own was
rezone retail and when you look at this intersection as a interstate
interchange, you’ve got hotels restaurants other retail uses on the
northern quadrants, I know Joe Williamson on the southeast quadrant is
very anxious to see a strip of ground between the County Road that
parallels 267 over 267 to be developed for retail uses, and so I
started adding up and you get over 120-130 acres of highway serving
business uses, and I just don’t see that ever happening, I don’t see
that ever being feasible or maybe desirable, how many gas stations, how
many quick service restaurants can you have and how many people will
actually go to that? And that of course doesn’t take into account what
happens at Ronald Reagan Parkway, and Stafford with that intersection
where you have general commercial on the southwest corner and then as
you go up 267 you’ve got Stafford Crossing which has best I can tell
about 80% are empty, and then as you all know with the Metropolis
development you have this huge concentration of retail development as
is appropriate and that scale has helped it succeed, but I can attest
as you look around the rest of the community, whether it is at US 40
and Saratoga Parkway, or at Stafford and 267, or you come down here
competing for retail is a difficult task, so as I looked at your comp
plan and saw that it allowed for one industrial on a quadrant, I began
looking, if you look at the northern side and you proceed east on
Hadley pretty soon you run into the Duke buildings and the Prologic
buildings, and once you get to Primo’s.
The difficulty with the
southwest quadrant the Trammel Crow building, it shares a common
commercial drive with other retail uses; you don’t have that separation
of use.
That is what is different from this plan, the right of way
whether it is public or private right of way, the MOU I’m sure will
address that, but the right of way that you see is accessing the light
industrial buildings will be separate from and will not allow access
that is coming this way from the hotel or the two out lots right at the
corner at the south side of the development or on the north side of
700.
So you avoid that mixing of people who are in a mode of
distribution or light manufacturing, industrial type of traffic from
the occasional visitor, seeker of a restaurant or hotel.
So it was
really that context of looking at the uses allowed in the area, uses
already implemented, and in the empty spaces.
The other thing that
struck me is, there are two ways to look at this property, you can
stand at the intersection at 70 and 267 and look at it, and that gives
you one perspective, and then you stand in the backyard of one of the
residents in Sycamore Estates, and that gives you a much different
perspective.
What I tried to do from day one in the meetings and in
the commitments you have and in this plan, is to strike a balance,
ultimately that is your decision and the Town Council’s decision, but
instead of starting at some 800,000 square foot, pack everything in,
which I think would bring a lot of distress, we started at the very
beginning with recognizing that we have two sets of power lines across
the property, not typically conducive to either residential uses or
retail uses, and then you got upwards of 60,000 to 70,000 cars a day on
I-70, but abut the property, you’ve got about 1,800 cars a day on 267,
and then if you started looking at the airport influences, the airport
of course got had the noise abatement demonstration house just south of
(inaudible), if you just look at Federal Express, you’ve got a hundred
flights a day and then you got the rest of the flights, so this is not
a quite pristine area, but yet we’ve got at least eight homes in
Sycamore Estates and then a meets and bounds parcel at the far corner,
and then you’ve got 148 some homes mainly to the south, so you got to
Plainfield Plan Commission
10-3-11
5
strike a balance and that is what we have tried to do with the
commitments and Joe James did a fine job in outlining them, but from
our advantage point what we heard day one, was traffic, very concerned
about what would happen on County Road 700, because when you’ve got
18,000 cars out there and you are making that left turn it is pretty
hard during the AM peak, and the PM peak.
I think the traffic study
did a good job saying day one, you put the first building up, and then
you are going to need a traffic signal there.
The other thing that
interested me, they said upon full build out, you will need two left
turn lanes, and I challenged them a little with that because you go
Hadley and you’ve got the eastbound movement approaching, and they got
one, I don’t know how we got two, but that was the recommendation and I
presume that Mr. McGillem and others will review it and maybe
ultimately adopt it, that would cause a second lane to be built on 267
to accept that second left turn lane, which would obviously take
INDOT’s approval and that is on full build out of not only what we
propose, but the general commercial of Mr. Pratt’s property where the
church is, and then the 21 or 22 acres to the south that we own. The
other thing that we heard was not only the volume of traffic and the
left turn movement at 267, but also what about trucks on 700, and
obviously we would have to upgrade 700 to what you see on Reeves Road,
or Stanley Road or any of the roads that you have seen improved over
the last 15-20 years. But critically we agreed to pull the curb cut,
any curb cut at this far western corner to be brought back at least
140’ in addition, we would commit to that would be a left turn that is
east bound movement only, they cannot physically even if the GPS said
you got to go west or turn right, physically you would impede that
movement and cause them to go east bound. If further improvements are
required at the very intersection, unfortunately we own, there is a
house and sort of a run down property on the very corner that we bought
in the old 405 time frame, so we could write a right of way for example
and create the kind of impediments and traffic controls that both the
County would probably like to see as well as the neighbors. The other
thing we heard of course was creating a transition, there is a dense
stand of trees that maybe more than 50’, but at least 50’ we committed
to the buffer, there is another large stand of trees, in addition we
heard comments about potential headlights and so in the latest round of
commitments we added a 5’ berm, where ever there would be a driveway,
that 5’ berm would be beyond the 50’ buffer, and so you’ve got a 50’
buffer that preserves the existing trees, and extent the gaps will be
filled in, I think the only gaps are really along the north. Then the
sewer based on the tack, meaning the would follow that dog leg and my
guess is that if Mr. Belcher wouldn’t want to see a berm up on top of a
sewer, so then the berm would be beyond that, so you are really only
talking 70’ or 80’ of green space and then you will begin to having a
parking, driveways, and then of course the building that is proposed.
One suggestion came to us that this should be I-1, and we thought about
that and discussed it, I-1 limits you to in the industrial world,
limits you to research laboratories, engineering laboratories, and flex
space, flex space being over where Banning Engineering is for example,
and metro air for example, that would be another example of flex space.
I think the three buildings to the north would be examples of buildings
that could be flex in the sense, they could be multi tenant buildings,
it could have walls that divide the office from the show room, bulk
supply or whatever other uses they might have, it is hard to predict
and very restrictive.
If you look at the development of Airwest,
Airtech, and Metroair, those buildings obviously are much much larger
than the one building in size showing at 260, and then of course to
clarify, I think Mr. Brandgard had this question answered, the
commitment as fully drafted says that no one building can be larger,
cannot have a footprint in excess of 270, and the aggregate of all
buildings on the 48 acres cannot exceed 500,000. That is a ratio about
just under 10,000 square feet per acre and if you look at the density
or the usage in MetroAir, or Airtech, or Airwest, that is about 13-14
thousand square feet, so we are about 25% less, again the thought is
this needs to be a balanced approach, this needs to be presented in a
way that doesn’t just load at full force that you have appropriate
green space, you have ample room for true preservation and for
retention but also to be viable enough that if you are going to put a
traffic signal at 267 and do two left turn lanes, a through lane and a
right lane and all the other improvements that it has to be
economically viable. With those contexts and hopefully comments and I
won’t go through the commitments, I think you have copies of them
there, but I think we have hit the key highlights.
Let me comment
about the Eugene Pratt property, he joined the petition. As Mr. James
explained, it is where the Baptist Church is, it is 4 ½ acres this L
Plainfield Plan Commission
10-3-11
6
shape, Mr. Pratt bought that property over 20 years ago at the request
of one of his employees, he is a Midas Muffler businessman owner and
one of his employees goes to that church and it was having some
financial difficulties, so he bought it and leased it to him on a year
by year basis. He has no cause, no opportunity now to change that, and
he has assured them that nothing will happen immediately, but when he
learned of our efforts as I contacted neighbors he said well I would
like to join your effort, I’ve been in the Town of Plainfield, why
don’t we add my property to your zoning case, so that is how that has
come about, and that is the context of that property.
The Kelly
Strange property does not have any frontage on 70, but has a 50’
easement through the Pratt property, or the church property to his
property. With that background I would be glad to answer any questions
that you might have.
Mr. Gibbs:
Thank you Mr. McNaught.
Mr. McNaught:
Mr. Gibbs:
Thank you.
Anyone on the board have any questions at this time?
Mr. Kirchoff:
Mac if you could again, that 500,000 square foot cap,
the buildings we see here including the hotel?
Mr. McNaught:
That does not include the hotel.
The four buildings
that you see here currently total 475, we gave ourselves a little bit
of room.
Mr. Kirchoff:
about.
I just wanted to clarify what buildings you were talking
Mr. McNaught: The four buildings within the proposed I-2 area would be
under that cap.
Mr. Kirchoff:
Thank you.
Mr. Gibbs: With this being a public meeting at this time, I will open
it up for anyone in favor or supporting this petition. At this time I
will open it up for anyone with concerns or questions with this
petition.
Ms. Daum:
Good evening, my name is Francis Daum; I live at 1912
Crystal Bay E. Drive. Ray Benson and I are here representing the Land
Use Committee of Greater Guilford Township Civic Association. We are a
40 year old organization of 115 plus family members of both Guilford
Township and Plainfield citizens.
Some of our members are present
tonight, but not all of those attending this meeting are Greater
Guilford Township Civic Association members.
We want to address the
Planning Committee with our concerns and suggestions regarding the
rezoning of property on 700 S. and SR 267.
It is our hope that this
land be used for its highest and best use.
We will explain why I-2
zoning may not be the highest and best use for the land, we recommend
that a zoning of I-1 would be a higher and better use for this
development.
We know that development will come to this part of the
southern gateway to the Town of Plainfield; we would expect development
to enhance our property values, not to diminish properties in the
surrounding area.
We would expect a better quality of life by
development and not an infringement upon the quality of life for
residents living nearby.
We hope that development would result in
higher paying jobs for all Guilford Township and Plainfield, Hendricks
County area. A person’s impression of local community happens within a
few seconds of exiting an interstate highway; this zoning designation
will establish a precedent for all future development of land
surrounding the southern gateway to our community.
We ask that you
consider your decision carefully before determining the future of the
I-70 and State Road 267 gateway south. Mr. Benson will address some of
the physical reasons for our concerns and our suggestions.
Mr. Benson:
Thank you, I would like to introduce myself, I am Ray
Benson and I live at 10661 East County Road 700 South, Camby. I with
Francy co-chair the Civic Councils Land Use Committee.
I would first
like to thank members of the Commission for having supported our
request for a 30 day delay, which we have put to good use, I hope. We
would also like to thank Mac for his cooperation with two successive
meetings and I think a better understanding on a part of all of the
citizens and the members of the Civic Association. I would also like
Plainfield Plan Commission
10-3-11
7
to thank the members of the Association and the residents of Sycamore
Estates for their involvement in those meetings and for helping us
develop a recommendation or a series of recommendations that we will
present to you tonight for your consideration.
We in the Civic
Association look upon our role as one of the middleman, or the honored
broker if you will.
With the responsibility to bring the parties
together and try to find some common grounds and seek solutions, not to
just be negative or positive whichever the case may be. Therefore, our
purpose tonight from the Civic Associations point of view is to
establish as Francy has said the highest and best use for all of the
incorporated lands south of I-70 which is the part of the Town of
Plainfield. We are concerned that the development that we are talking
about tonight is a minor corner of what a Town owns and will eventually
look to develop and that extends from that interchange at 70 and 267
all the way to the Marion County line, and we made note to Mac and
others that Marion County is in the process of developing some of that
land for the Purdue experimental activities and that kind of
enterprise, now whether that is the kind of thing that might be
extended down into acreage within the Town of Plainfield or whether it
would take a different approach starting on this end, but if we look
far enough down the road, we are looking at that acreage being
developed and being a part of Plainfield, and we would like to take the
high road and at the outset.
This is the first zoning south of
Interstate 70, if we don’t start at the high level, it won’t go
anywhere but downhill from starting at a lower level.
Now, we are
realistic enough to know that the acreage in question tonight will be
developed.
We know that it is not going to stay a corn field or a
soybean field for eternity, we also know that this is the first parcel
south of 70 that is being requested for zoning, so therefore we would
like for that to be the highest and best use of the land south of 70,
and it is after all the entrance to Plainfield and the first
impressions are lasting, and therefore the highest and best use gives
us the best chance for a good impression.
Now following, I have
attempted to put together the concerns and the issues expressed by the
residents both members of our Association and residents in Sycamore
Estates who don’t happen to be members of our Association, hopefully
someday we will have them all.
I have tried to group these in seven
areas and not necessarily in priority order, but simple statements of
concern of the group.
We can expand on any one of them that the
Commission would like but in the interest of time, number one would be
property values and as had been stated before, there are approximately
150 home owners in that sub-development and all of them are custom
home, no two homes are alike.
The second point is the perception on
the part of the residents of Sycamore Estates that they are
disenfranchised, no resident lives in Plainfield so therefore they
cannot vote for any elected official of the Town, yet they are clearly
affected by the actions of the Plainfield elected officials in
appointed Boards and Commissions.
Point number three, It has already
been referenced, but it is a big issue of traffic, 700 South is a
primary entrance to Sycamore Estates, the interchange at 267 on 700
South is a nightmare now, what will it be if we have truck traffic in
and out of there on a 24 and 7 basis?
There has only been brief
reference to truck traffic going south on 825, now Mac contends that
road barriers can be placed at that curve in the road, it really not an
intersection, it is a curve in the road, and citizens are a little bit
dubious of that, all the way down to the end of 825 there is a church,
and the church has found it necessary to put a chain across their
parking lot stating no trucks allowed, so they are having a problem
already and they have only been there a few years. It is right at the
end of 825, and if they have a concern enough to put a chain across
their driveway then we have a concern for truck traffic on 825. 825 is
more narrow than 700 South and there is a very narrow bridge about half
way down there that would not accommodate a truck and a car passing any
way you slice it, and another concern would be that, should we have
minimum wage employees in this area? They are going to be coming late
for work, and they are going to be coming from the south side on old
267, and there is a through street through Sycamore subdivision, Black
Oak Drive, and there is no sidewalks, the streets narrow and there is
going to be an increase in the traffic flow and I know that that is not
directly your concern, but it is the residents concern and that just
adds to the traffic concerns. The forth major area would be pollution,
a general reference has been made to it, but let me just highlight the
three areas that we are concerned about, noise, light pollution,
environmental pollution.
Ground water run off is one such, truck
traffic with diesel engines running 24 and 7, and that particularly in
the winter time when they don’t turn them off. The next area would be
Plainfield Plan Commission
10-3-11
8
the whole area of safety, and that would be for pedestrians,
specifically children, and bikers, bikers go through the Sycamore
Estates for a short cut very often.
Then we are concerned about the
retention ponds as Mac has pointed out there are four of them
anticipated in this area. I know that retention ponds are used quite
extensively in developments, but we also know that there are constant
tragedies and we are particularly concerned about children and they are
an attraction to children, so we are concerned about that.
Certainly
not last, but increased crime, drug use, prostitution, and what have
you. Particularly if you are going to have a hotel or motel, what is
your clientele going to be if you have a warehouse next to it?
The
sixth would be the wells, and I might add there are septic systems
also. Ground water run off, how it is contained and how it is kept out
of the aquifer that they are drawing from, all of those houses are on
wells, admittedly there is public water, it was brought in by the
airport, very very few of those residents have tapped into that, simply
because they don’t have the money to tap in, so they have stayed on
their wells and they will stay on them until they have a reason not
too.
We are concerned about the quality of the water and the wells.
Lastly I would have to say, what I think you have already observed no
one from that development or surrounding residents have expressed to us
in these public meetings or personally since, no one has expressed to
us a favorable recommendation for the I-2 designation for this
property.
Now having said all of that, I would like to say that the
Civic Association prefers to be a positive influence and work towards
solution, we don’t want to be just against what Mac is proposing, but
we would rather be a part of the solution, and in so doing we have had
these meetings with Mac, we have not reached agreement on all of these
issues, we would like to continue a roll of working toward solutions,
in the meantime we would therefore respectfully request that the
Plainfield
Planning
Commission
adopt
a
higher
and
better
use
classification of I-1. Thank you.
Mr. Gibbs:
Anyone else in the audience?
Mr. Ali: Good evening, my name is Si Ali; I am one of the residents of
Sycamore Estates, 7971 Black Oak Drive. I have lived there for over 30
years, so I know what this change would mean to the residential
community in that area.
I ask the board not to proceed with the
rezoning of the area adjoining the lively professional community by
bringing in warehouses, hotels, parking lots as a starting point.
There are at least 15 hotels in Plainfield, many of these hotels
currently do not appear to have high occupancy rate, a large number of
warehouses and vacant lots on Perry Road, Stanley Road, and Stafford
Road as well as on the Ronald Reagan Parkway already zoned commercial
have been vacant for some time.
The party requesting rezoning of the
beautiful residential property area should be encouraged by this
Commission to explore both sides that are already designated as
commercial.
The Commission needs to exercise its powers so that
residential areas are provided healthful surrounding for family life.
The Commission should protect and enhance the quality of life of
current residents of the community which otherwise would be adversity
affected by history active zoning soliciting change.
The Commission
should promote and help maintain the professional environment of the
residential community. These are the citizens who are contributing to
the improvement of the Township and paying taxes in order to continue
to enhance the residential neighborhood and their appearance and
lifestyle of the community.
I urge the Commission to reject the
applicants request for rezoning.
The satisfactory solution for all
parties could be reached by this Commission by offering the alternative
of already zoned as commercial sites within Plainfield, this would
continue to protect and enhance the quality of life of the immediately
adjoining current professional residential community.
Thank you very
much.
Mr. Gibbs:
Thank you.
Mr. Daniels conducted the oath of testimony.
Ms. Allen:
My name is Charlene Allen and I just purchased a home on
South County Road 825, and I did not know about this zoning issue or I
would not have purchased that home, and that goes to show what
everybody in this community means when they tell about this
neighborhood. My husband and I was married up here 51 years ago and we
are moving back from South Carolina here to spend time with my older
brothers and sisters that live here all in Plainfield and Camby. This
Plainfield Plan Commission
10-3-11
9
is a wonderful neighborhood where children play, where animals play,
the roads are narrow and we really do need sidewalks.
I am just so
disappointed that we are not, that our views are not counted because we
don’t live in million dollar homes, but our homes are our homes, and I
plan to make this a wonderful home, where everybody is welcome, my
husband and I, and where God is worshipped everyday, and I came here to
this meeting and the other one because the holy spirit sent me. I know
that progress has to be made, but as some of the others said, the other
side of 70 is developed with plenty of hotels, motels, empty warehouses
that if our Governor changed some of his views, I had called his office
to have one of his representatives to be here, but I hear you have to
write him a letter.
We would have more people in these warehouses,
getting a decent wage, but we don’t want this neighborhood changed, we
understand Mac and that he is a business man and they have an
investment, but we think that the people that live in this neighborhood
should decide, to get together with our self and decide what we would
like developed on this side of the road. Another thing, when you come
off of 70, I do not understand why you have to cut through and you cut
through all of these beautiful little Towns, to get to Mooresville,
which is to me ridiculous.
I have one year of college, but I have a
lot of common sense, and I think you should use that and most of all
you should listen to the holy spirit and let him tell you which way to
go, progress is necessary, but planning should be first and foremost,
just like the intersection there at the Speedway station, whoever
developed that should be fired, I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but
the time has come when good men stand up for what they truly believe
in, and I believe this place is full of good people with good
intentions and I believe you are, and I pray that we can reach a
settlement for Mac and his company. Another thing I wanted to bring up
about my sister, she bought a house up behind Plainfield Christian
Church one of those little condos, well now they plan to go through and
widen that road and she is right on the end property, and she is 85
years old and she is in the audience back here, her name is Zora
Winchester, and she owns a place down there right in that subdivision
where that big warehouse is going to go, that big house, that big house
that she could no longer keep up, but she still owns the home, and I
just don’t understand how they are developing that through that area
and ruining another beautiful neighborhood, we’ve got empty land
everywhere on the other side that we already have warehouses, we have
trucks running and we can’t do anything about the airport because it is
there, but I wonder at what expense that this part of Plainfield and
this side of Town, was it worth it in the long run, what was it worth,
and I hope I have been respectful, I meant to be, and I thank you very
much for listening to me.
Mr. Gibbs:
Thank you.
Ms. Benson:
I am Mary Benson and I live at 10661 East Co. Rd. 700
South, Camby, Indiana.
I am holding here a petition signed by 93
people and I would just like to make this part of the public record,
and it is the opinion of the undersigned that the proposal will lower
property taxes, cause considerable traffic problems and do harm to the
quality of life.
Mr. Daniels conducted the oath of testimony.
Ms. George: My name is Katherine George and I live at 6915 Cottonwood
Drive, and my property abuts up to the property annexed.
I have one
question, for Mr. McNaught, because I was told when I bought my house 8
years ago, that the tree line was the separation, the property line, I
had heard that possibly some of our fences, utility sheds are on your
property, is it? How could that be, because this development was built
in 1975 and it was already petitioned and now all of a sudden it is on
his property, part of our line is, I just don’t understand because that
means that you annexed property that we thought belonged to us too, so
I would just like to clarify that, how could that be?
Mr. Daniel:
Ms. George, I am assuming, I am not that familiar with
this property, my guess is that this is undeveloped property where
these buildings are, I mean there is nothing on there otherwise and
this property is in the County and it is, believe it or not, not
uncommon for people especially on the fringe of a development who put
buildings on the back part of their property and sometimes they are
careful and keep those within their property lines and sometimes there
is not especially if there is not if there is nothing going on the
property behind them, and it believe it or not it occurs regularly.
Plainfield Plan Commission
10-3-11
10
Ms. George:
Well all my neighbors have built utility on their
property, I mean it is right in our backyards, plus I have a fence
behind it, and then the tree line behind that, so when it was surveyed
in 1975, I just don’t understand how we could lose property and it has
changed hands many times, and it has been resurveyed and resurveyed and
now all of a sudden it is surveyed and it is your property, I would
like to get that straightened out.
Mr. Daniel: Well the survey is what the survey is and like I said, it
is really not that uncommon, especially on back parts property,
subdivisions where there is nothing developed behind it and there is
not anyone back there to object or to say don’t put that that far back,
but those buildings end up encroaching upon somebody else’s property
and if there is nothing going on there.
Ms. George: Well when I bought my property, they told me the tree line
separated the properties.
Mr. Daniel: The survey determines where your property line is. I don’t
know who told you that.
Ms. George: Ok, I will get that straightened out, but I just wanted to
tell you, years ago I lived on the south side of Indianapolis, and when
I drove to Terre Haute, Evansville, and out west, the first stop was
267, and the only restaurant there was the Coachman, and it was
beautiful farmland, and just a breath of fresh air, now you go to
Greenwood or Castleton where they’ve just took up everything and just
built, I don’t even shop there, I don’t like to go there, and I don’t
want Plainfield to turn into one of those areas where you just expand
so much that people just hate going there anymore.
Plainfield is a
beautiful place, and I’d like to keep it that way, and I’m not opposed
to growth, but a truck stop, warehouse right in my back yard, I’m
opposed too. That is all I wanted to say, and thank you.
Mr. Gibbs: Did I see one more hand on this side earlier?
going to go back to this side.
If not, I’m
Mr. Miles:
Mike Miles, 8031 Cottonwood Court South, I just got a
couple of similar questions I think. Can I address them to Mac?
Mr. Gibbs: Right now you are addressing the board, and then Mac will
address them.
Mr. Miles:
Well one of the first questions is could we take one of
these views back to the proposed property?
My question is, is the
building there in the front, is that 500,000 or 270,000 square feet?
Mr. Carlucci:
260
Mr. Miles:
And the maximum allowable property is going to be 500,000?
Is this to scale? Is this drawing to scale?
Mr. Gibbs:
I’m to assume so.
Mr. Miles:
Ok.
I’ve been in the construction industry for 31 years
and if this one here is 260,000, all you need is another 240,000.
Mr. Carlucci:
Mr. McPhail:
That is the wrong one Joe.
This is a revised plan that he submitted.
Mr. Miles:
Ok, it is still 260,000 is that correct?
Mr. Gibbs:
Yes, the first one you were talking about.
Mr. Miles:
Ok, and the balance of them don’t total more than 500,000.
Mr. Kirchoff:
I added them up Mr. Miles, I found 474,500 is what I
totaled on the new plan you have there.
Mr. Miles: Ok, the reason why I was asking is if that one is to scale
it doesn’t add up. Thank you for that, the other question was that Mac
had said in the last meeting that there is a possibility that they
would put a barrier to keep trucks from turning right out of the this,
that corner as 825, 700, and Cottonwood Drive, if there is a barrier
Plainfield Plan Commission
10-3-11
11
put in that corner, we coming out of Cottonwood are not going to be
able to come straight and go to 700, we are going to have to go down to
the light at 825 and 267.
Mr. Carlucci: I don’t think those barriers restrict the cars or a pick
up truck, we have some inside the industrial park and they will take
off the top of a tractor trailer but they do not restrict cars going
through those.
Mr. Miles:
Are you talking about a height barrier?
Mr. Gibbs:
Yes.
Mr. Miles:
Our understanding was that it was a barrier on the road.
Mr. Gibbs:
He will have an opportunity to address that.
Mr. Miles:
If that is the case, the concrete barriers that maybe
similar to the ones that are between Speedway and Shell on Hadley Road,
those barriers there prevent cars from coming out of like Bob Evans
from turning left and I understand that part, but that is in a business
area while this is in a residential area and if those barriers are in
there they will have to bring them to corner a little bit and if that
is the case it would again then restrict people coming out of
Cottonwood from going straight on 700 like we do every morning and then
that would most likely make us go to 825 and 267, and that is a concern
because it is, like someone said earlier, it is nightmare right now as
it is, and if we have more restrictions more barriers then it is just
going to be more of a nightmare. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gibbs:
Thank you Mr. Miles.
I think there was one more back here.
Mr. Templeton: Don Templeton, 8234 Red Bud Court, Sycamore Estates and
I have for 25 years. In reference to the earlier comments on a gateway
the Hendricks County into Plainfield, I’d just like to know how on the
northwest side how did that warehouse get there to start with? Because
that is it, all the other warehouses are all over there together, some
of the comments earlier as to the whole area being developed south of
there, I don’t see why a warehouse has to be inside of an interstate,
thank you very much, that is all I’ve got to say.
Mr. Gibbs:
Thank you.
Mr. Miller:
Thank you Gentlemen for letting us speak about what we
have to speak about.
Mr. Gibbs:
Would you give us your name and address please.
Mr. Miller: Certainly, my name is Doug Miller, I live at 8188 Red Bud
Court, let me go ahead and take care of this while I am here. What I
am curious about is has there been a traffic study done for this
development?
Mr. Carlucci:
Yes there has been one done.
Mr. Miller:
Would we be able to get a copy of that, because to my
knowledge no one in the Sycamore Estates subdivision has any kind of
traffic pattern.
That is my main concern, we have had some of the
traffic issues addressed, and I don’t want to go over those and
reiterate those, but we need to know what kind of access we are going
to have in and out of our neighborhood, we are going to have to know
how truck traffic may impact our neighborhood, because those are
critical issues and I would hope that we would be made aware of those
things.
In addition I would like to thank Mac for providing
information. I find it a bit dissentious however that only the legal
requirements were met, in other words, if Denison Properties wanted to
consult with and work with the entire neighborhood, why were we only
providing the minimum legal notice to the residents, because there are
quite a few residents that were completely unaware of this development,
and it was only by some of the neighbors taking their initiative by
knocking on doors and explaining these things that half of these people
are made aware of it.
So I would like to see a little more
cooperation, I don’t feel we’ve had that. Again if I could be provided
a traffic study, I would certainly appreciate it because that is a
concern, not just for trucks, but also for employees that will be going
in and out of the warehouse area, because that little road doesn’t have
Plainfield Plan Commission
10-3-11
12
much access as it is and if we not only add trucks but we also add
employees and what not, it could get what I would like to see is
something addressed about 825 E., because everything we talked about is
only 700, and that is a very small portion of our subdivision.
We
really need to find out how 825 E. is going to be expanded to handle
the traffic that this project and development would cause.
I want to
thank you for your time.
Mr. Hollman:
My name is Tom Hollman, I live at 8061 Filly Lane in
Mares Meadow subdivision and let me go ahead and get my name down here
before I forget. I just wanted to talk briefly just because we heard a
lot of testimony from people in the subdivision immediately affected by
it and I am about a mile south of I-70, and so certainly not as
directly affected as them, but I wanted to comment, living where I do I
am not a resident of Plainfield either, but I consider myself a
resident of the Plainfield community certainly, my kids went to school
there and everything. I just think this is a bad thing for Plainfield,
I do not like the idea of the warehouses, that is the part that I
object too, I don’t object to it being developed, becoming commercial,
I think that is all good and is going to happen in some form, but I
just don’t think that warehouses is what Plainfield really wants there,
and that is all I have to say, thank you.
Mr. Gibbs:
Anyone else?
Ms. Williams:
Kara Williams, 6918 Cottonwood Drive, I just wanted to
comment on the amount of traffic that was proposed to possibly coming
through our area. It was proposed 800 to possibly 1,000 cars on that
little stretch of the road, it is just 2/10 of a mile is not very big,
that is all I wanted to say.
Mr. Gibb:
I had one more hand up.
Ms. Weber: Paula Weber, I live at 6818 Cottonwood Drive, I just wanted
to make a reference in regards to notification, I did receive a mail
notification, but it was after the fact that my neighbor came around to
let us know that this was going on in our neighborhood, so the secrecy
is very appalling from what I have seen, just to let you know. We’ve
lived there for 12 years, we love our neighborhood, we love the people
we live by, and we do not want this in our neighborhood. I don’t know
where all you live, you guys get to decide on what happens to our
neighborhood, we didn’t get to vote for you, but you are going to be
voting for something that impacts our home, my house, so I just want
you to remember that, you are going to make some major decisions that
are going to hurt some of us, or help us.
Mr. Gibbs:
Somebody else had their hand up right here.
Ms. Amerman: My name is Lesta Amerman, I live at 8215 Black Oak Drive,
I was just going to say we already have a truck stop at mile marker 59,
then there is the rest area at 162, I don’t really know why we need
another truck stop, just 7 miles down the road. I didn’t get anything
in the mail, the only way I knew anything about it was because of the
signs that were posted on the corner. The little bridge that somebody
was talking about on 825 is very narrow, it is like half the size of
this room, maybe not even that, if you widen that I don’t know, you are
going to run into somebody’s house, and I guess that is really all I
have to say.
Mr. Gibbs:
Is there anyone else?
Mr. Daniel conducted oath of testimony.
Ms. Watkins:
My name is Brenda Watkins, and I live at 803 Dogwood
Court. I recently learned about this project and I too recognize that
we have to recognize progress, however our homes out there, we live out
there because we like the community, we like the residential atmosphere
of that community. We have two board members here that used to live in
that community and knows what the effect of the airport when they came
in, and what the noise did to our community and you moved out primarily
for those reasons.
If we have a large warehouse next door to us, we
are going to have the sound of trucks, fumes from the trucks and
everything else that goes along with warehousing.
I would just ask
that those two board members in particular give consideration if you
were still living in that community, would you want this in your back
door.
Plainfield Plan Commission
10-3-11
13
Mr. Gibbs:
Brenda, did you sign that piece of paper?
Just under that wire.
Anyone else?
Mr. Daniel conducted the oath of testimony.
Ms. Behling: Gay Behling, 8075 Dogwood Court, and I would just like to
speak on behalf of the airport, even though they had a lot of sound
pollution, they did give us all new windows, doors, triple pane
windows, new furnace, new air conditioner, new everything to make up
for the noise, and we don’t have the noise inside our houses, and that
was after a law suit that was made against the airport. But we are not
promised any compensation for ruining, or smelling all of the diesel
fuel, or seeing all of the extra lights if the warehouse is put in or a
truck stop if it was put it. It would absolutely ruin the neighborhood
and we are not being awarded any kind of compensation from the Denison
Properties like we were from the airport.
So we hope that you will
consider not having it light industrial zoning but having it commercial
and having some dentist office or nice restaurants, we know it has to
be developed, but we don’t want to be ruined. Thank you.
Mr. Daniels conducted the oath of testimony.
Ms. Charles:
Carla Charles, 8191 Redbud Court, Plainfield.
We have
referred to this over and over again, Sycamore Estates as a
neighborhood, and I haven’t really heard anyone mention that the fact
that we are a neighborhood is because of 825, we are kind of separated
streets, that are connected by 825, we don’t have any access to the
Town’s trails system, and so I know personally I regularly walk the
neighborhood, I ride my bike through the neighborhood, and I can do
that because 825 is not a busy street, I go by the horse farm and that
sort of thing, it is a very peaceful neighborhood, it is very nice for
biking and riding, if 825 becomes a through street to warehouses and
motels, the neighborhood aspect is gone because that 825 is our
connection, so I just wanted to share that.
Mr. Gibbs: If that is all, I close the public portion of this meeting
at this time, and open it back up for Mr. McNaught, if you would like
to come up and address any of those issues, comments, or questions.
Mr. McNaught:
Let me try to address some of the specific questions,
the gentleman that wants a traffic study, if I can get your email, I
will get you that traffic study, certainly copies were given to the
staff here, but I can get you a copy.
The lady who had the boundary
question survey, I think I noted on the survey but maybe two mini barns
or sheds encroached, but it encroaches in the 50’ buffer, so it really
is a non issue for my advantage point, we would be glad to sign a non
disturbance agreements on those.
Mr. Miles I think talked about a
right turn barrier and concern about residents and others being able to
travel 700 South.
700 South isn’t going anywhere and I am sure Mr.
McGillem will make sure that it functions as a collector that it is, it
serves
obviously
several
neighborhoods,
it
also
serves
today
undeveloped twenty some acres of zoned retail ground along with the
other ground, so I sort of felt a moment that we were talking about a
neighborhood street or a street that was just within Cottonwood, and it
is obviously a County Road that at the time I know way back when the
Township Trustee bought property for a Fire Station, there is an
existing church and then of course if the comp plan is followed, you
would have another 48 acres of highway serving commercial use and I
think that is probably the decision you all need to make here. I don’t
think Mr. Miles there is any intent on our part to restrict 700, it is
the western most drive that would intersect 700, we would prevent all
vehicles, not only trucks, but all vehicles from turning right, so they
would have to turn east bound, whether it is through a modified pork
chop or Mr. McGillem probably has a more technical term, but you create
a bend and a design that only allows traffic to east bound. Hopefully
the County will be cooperative at 825 and State Road 267 to put weight
limits and other signage and maybe some other creative ways of
preventing any, or larger trucks.
I realize FedEx trucks and UPS
trucks and other serving trucks needing to use 825, but certainly the
intent is to avoid any trucks whether they are serving a retail use in
this area or they are serving one of the light industrial. I realize it
is a easy handle, but if I look at Airwest, Airtech, and Metroair and
others, there are lots of different kinds of uses, a lot of different
types of employers, that word light industrial is a multi colored,
multi dimensional, and I think you have seen the kind of buildings that
generate that employment and that kind of investment, and as I said
Plainfield Plan Commission
10-3-11
14
just briefly Bill, I think the cracks of it really boils down to
following the comp plan and many of the comments here saying that they
would like to see more restaurants, more hotels, and things of that
sort, and I also heard a lot of comments saying they don’t want that
kind of development, they don’t want more restaurants or hotels, so it
is a bit of a conundrum. What we tried to do was strike a balance, in
terms of types of uses, the intensity as well as committing to the
improvements of 700 that would absorb that change. Obviously you have
seen areas in this community whether it is Center Street or Hadley or
Stanley that had to absorb change, and I think the Town has done it
very well.
If you look at Stafford Road for example and I remember
when it was a two lane road and fairly narrow at that, there is change
that I think is difficult, but I think it can be managed and we hope to
be a part of a well managed agent of change here. Thank you.
Mr. Gibbs:
comments?
At this time does anyone on the board have any questions,
Mr. Brandgard:
is?
Joe, what did you say the current zoning on that land
Mr. James: It is highway business in the County, which is similar to
our general commercial, except the big difference is that highway
business allows a truck stop whereas the I-2 or general commercial in
Plainfield does not, somebody could file a petition for a truck stop
tomorrow through the County, and also about the traffic impact study,
it is part of the file so it is public record, so anyone can come down
by the office and we can make copies for them. Then as far as 825, the
first traffic impact study did not address it after our Transportation
Director had looked at it and he thought that this proposed concept
plan land use and the uses would generate some traffic that would
probably impact 825, so he asked the Traffic Engineer to take a look at
it and to take a better look at 825, and then so they re-did the study,
they did show some traffic that would probably go on 825 and then we
sent that revised study to the County Highway Engineer, so he has had a
chance to look at it also and he provided us some comments and I passed
out his letter earlier and so he wants to make sure that we do include
the County if we do a MOU and we do look at 825.
Mr. Brandgard:
Mel, I heard several comments relative to the notice
would you explain the notice procedure?
Mr. Daniel: The notice requirements that the petitioner has to comply
with after the publish in the paper obviously, now this meeting was
continued, so the notice was given to the last meeting, it has to be
published in the paper and then a notice has to be given to 600’ or 2
property owners deep, whichever that is, to the extent that that is the
notice requirements, I’m sure they turned in the certified things to
Joe and they complied with legal requirements on notice.
Mr. James: That is correct, they did do a notice for the first initial
meeting which would have been back in August, and we did check the, we
call it the interested parties list, make sure it is accurate, and they
did comply with the requirement.
They only had to notice 2 lots or
600’ whichever is less and a hearing can be continued for up to two
months without further notice.
Mr. Daniel:
When a petition is continued and of course this was
continued, this was continued by agreement, then obviously the
petitioner does not have to go through the cost of republishing notice
since it was by agreement that the hearing was continued, so everyone
should have known you got your notice the first time, but they are not
obligated then to spend the money to republish when they had been asked
to continue the meeting.
Mr. Kirchoff: Mr. President that issue that came up several times was
traffic and not to put our staff on point, but Don could you share your
analysis and your sense of a traffic study and any concerns you might
have that we ought to be aware of?
Mr. McGillem:
The traffic study was as Joe indicated was done
initially, I took some exception to the traffic study because most of
the traffic was showing being generated to the development from 267
intersection with 700, being familiar with the area down there, I felt
that there would be significant traffic generated to this area from the
south, anyone coming from the south primarily going to the study, I
Plainfield Plan Commission
10-3-11
15
felt is going to use 825 and not go around 267 to 700, so I had a
conference with the traffic consultant and they amended the study,
essentially taking a look at any traffic that they had assumed that
would be generated from the south utilizing 825 instead of 700, and
then also identified what under normal consideration would be the
percentage of trucks or trucks that might use 825.
So based on that
information, we did coordinate with John Ayres, the County, because 825
is in the County.
Again being familiar with the area down there as
many has indicated here, 825 is a difficult County pavement section
that is not going to stand up under any significant loads, the bridge
that has been spoken of, is a narrow bridge, I don’t know whether it
carries a reduced weight limit on it, but I would assume that there
would be a restricted weight limit on that structure in there and in
any case, it is not designed for any trucks or significantly heavy
traffic. So I guess where I stand on the traffic, the traffic study is
identified 700, it will have to be totally reconstructed from the bend
where it intersects with 825 out to 267 with new construction of 825
would have to meet the Town standards as far as pavement section, curb
section, and sidewalk section, etcetera.
There will be based on the
traffic study right turn lanes, left turn lanes where needed at the
drives and there will be…
Mr. Kirchoff:
On 700.
Mr. McGillem: On 700, there will be as Mac indicated, recommended dual
left turn lane at 267 due to projected traffic lights and I would stick
with the traffic study on that rather than Mac, which means that
adjustments on 267 and a signal at that location there.
This
development will generate a significant increase in traffic through
that 700. On 825, it is a little different situation, I would want to
get with the County and see what the County would want to do based on
traffic. Trucks is a significant problem, if you are generating trucks
in that area, we have done a lot of things to try to prevent trucks
from going where we don’t want them to go, that becomes a very
difficult situation no matter what you do, the only thing that I found
that will restrict them is what has been referred to here is a headic
bar, that would have to be put up at both ends on 825 and 267 and at
the intersection at 700 for it to work. Tim Belcher our Town Engineer
and I have discussed this significantly. We don’t think that will work
because there is need to get trucks into 825 for movers, Mr. Daum’s got
the stables down there if there is a need to get trucks in there for
agricultural purposes, so putting the headic bar up does not work
there.
If you are introducing trucks into there it creates a little
problem. I have got a solution for that right now, it is something for
Joe and staff making the recommendation that before anything that they
place it would have to be a MOU worked out between the developer, the
County, Town as what the info structure needs to be in, the timing for
it to go in and who is going to pay for it. I am very comfortable with
what the Traffic Engineer has for really the overall traffic and the
700 geometrics of it.
Mr. Kirchoff:
As I looked at it, one of my censes was this actually
would make an improvement for 700 and 267 South, I mean any of us that
travel down there at all, that is a challenge today and by these
improvements that are proposed, that would in fact be a plus for the
neighborhood.
Mr. McGillem: That would be a plus I think for the area currently, it
is almost impossible right now to get out from 700 onto 267, especially
during peak hour, and even during non peak hours down through there
it’s not that easy, so a signal, and there would be no way for this
development to occur and any activity to occur without getting a
signal.
One thing with a signal, as Mac knows and you all know,
getting a signal based on a projected development, the signal has got
to be approved by INDOT, and so we would need to basically be able to
identify through INDOT the need for the signal based on the overall
projected traffic with the hopes that INDOT will approve the signal
associated with any initial development.
Mr. Brandgard:
I want to address a couple of things, one a question
was raised in the northwest quadrant, why there is a warehouse down
there, I’m here to tell you that warehouse down there was a mistake,
and it was a mistake in our zoning that caused that and as soon as that
came in, we changed the zoning to not allow anymore down there. That
is one of the things we got to own up to, we had a mistake and we fixed
it. But at the same time, looking at what that area is zoned already,
Plainfield Plan Commission
10-3-11
16
we can certainly get something in there that if it falls within the
zoning it goes in, and that is a big issue.
Everything I heard that
what the zoning is out there now is not what you want to have go in the
area, but the zoning County zoning is already allowing that if someone
came in. So that is something to be thinking about. An issue brought
up about well and septic and runoff, Tim can you address kind of what
we do to protect?
Mr. Belcher: I can address it to the point where we are at which again
there is not a lot of details just yet submitted for this program
because it hasn’t been zoned yet, you are still considering that, in
terms of the Towns ordinance should this go through forward with any
kind of development, there are ordinances covering the runoff a
facility, both the quantity of runoff, the rate of runoff, and now the
quality of runoff, so storm water today has a lot of different issues
that it has to meet and any project in Town, and matter of fact the
County and the Towns ordinances are very similar in terms of what they
require, and Mr. McNaught has developed all throughout Plainfield and
other areas and I am sure he is very familiar with those, and you do
see ponds, that is one of the almost required ways to control the rate
of runoff and the quantity, so those would most likely be a part of any
project, the method of protecting those, which came up earlier, that is
something that can be looked at on every project, at the time the
project came forward, that would be looked at. In terms of the well,
I’m not an expert on how runoff might affect a well, but I do know that
there have been problems with wells in that area and that was one of
the reasons the Town of Plainfield several years ago in combination put
public water in there.
Again I do know that we do require water
quality for any storm water runoff, so something coming off a parking
lot or street now is much cleaner than it was in days past even,
probably even 5 years ago, so those requirements are much more
astringent and no doubt go to assist any kind of prevention of ground
water contamination, so did I answer all of your concerns, did I miss
any?
Mr. Brandgard:
Thank you.
Mr. Kirchoff: I guess I would ask Mel if he could kind of share with
us the process this petition tonight is simply for rezoning, and yet he
has kind of a general plan with what he might come in proposing at some
point and time, we are not focusing on that tonight, can you help us
kind of understand that process and how this might happen?
Mr. Daniel:
You are exactly right Mr. Kirchoff, this is a rezoning
petition, but it does carry with it commitments, and of course this
board has dealt with commitments before so even though the Plainfield
ordinance may allow other things or a variety of things, this developer
cannot do things that is inconsistent with the commitments that he has
been willing to make for this property, and you are right, my
understanding is this is a concept plan that we are being shown
tonight, but concept or not the for instance the 270,000 limitation on
a single building or a 500,000on the total square footage on all
buildings that is a commitment that is a part of anything that this
Commission would consider tonight, even though that is not in the
ordinance, if that commitment is made then that requirement has to be
met.
So the zoning, it is just a zoning petition, it just affects
zoning and there is no plan approval at such time a development plan is
developed then that would have to be presented to the Town, once again
that will have to go through public hearings, take public comment on
the exact plan that occurs at that time, or any development on this
property before anybody can go forward and develop it. Then one other
thing that has been mentioned here and I am sure these ladies and
gentlemen aren’t familiar when they talk about MOU’s, Memorandum of
Understanding, what that means is that we have done this many times to
the extent that road improvements need to be made, and signals, and
that sort of thing, we have developed a system where we do a lot of
what we call MOU’s, they are Memorandum of Understanding between, for
instance this particular development here, especially where the County
is involved, so that all parties who are involved, because we’ve got
County roads here, and if this is developed and brought into the Town
of Plainfield, we have Town streets then, so there is a clear legal
understanding among the parties involved, what’s going to be done, who
is going to be responsible for doing it, and as Don said, who is going
to pay for it, that is always one of the interesting negotiations on
those, but that is really important as well, because then that makes
sure that everybody understands that this is the way it is going to be
Plainfield Plan Commission
10-3-11
17
developed, this is the standards that is going to be applied, you heard
Don indicate that any road changes here would be Plainfield Town
standards, and so when they talk about MOU’s, Memorandum of
Understanding, they are talking about a legal document so that
everybody understands how those developments are going to occur, who is
going to be responsible, who is going to do it, and who is going to pay
for it.
Mr. McPhail: Mr. President, I would like to address a couple of issues
that I think are important, I think we have a major issue here of a
piece of property that is something very unique and some of the things
that is bordered by a Interstate and a State Highway, it has the power
lines running through it and it has a residential neighborhood adjacent
to it that has been through tough times with the airport and other
things.
It has a current zoning that if I lived in the particular
neighborhood, I would be real concerned about the current zoning, and I
think the question is what Mr. McNaught proposing better for the
residents than the current situation, there has been some suggestion
that it be zoned I-1, I can tell you as my honest opinion that it would
never develop if it was I-1, it is not suitable for I-1 development,
there’s areas of I-1 development around that there is a lot of
competition, so I do not believe that it would develop as I-1, it just
would not happen, at least in a lifetime of anybody in this room, I
should not say never, but certainly in the foreseeable future.
Somebody referenced the Purdue Tech Park, that has some political
advantageous to be in a technical park, the Town of Plainfield has
applied for that, and we have been turned down, and it appears to me
that the State has taken a position of probably not issuing anyone in
the near future because they have issued too many in the past in
different areas and for that type of zoning to attract that type of
development because there are some tax advantages when you have that,
but I think that is an issue that somebody brought up.
Somebody
indicated we have empty warehouses, that is not true, we have very
little vacancy in our warehouse district today, we have developers that
are talking about building spec buildings and stuff, we are going to
continue to have some growth in the future, so I think those are issues
that we need to consider, I will say that I believe that these
residents have all benefited from the development in Plainfield, every
tax payer in Guilford Township has been given a good tax base because
of a lot of development that has been done within the Town of
Plainfield, I happen to personally believe that they would have more
protection with development if it was in the Town than currently in the
County and I don’t mean that to be negative at all for the County and
their zoning, but our gateway standards, which they committed too, are
very high standards for buildings and landscaping. I think there is a
great deal of advantage, they make testimony that they don’t want it to
be zoned or rezoned, but none of the them have addressed the current
zoning and what they might be facing if Mr. McNaught wanted to develop
it today and met those zoning requirements for the County, he could go
in and develop it. I think there are several issues to be considered.
There are some comments about air pollution, and obviously our
development standards prevent light from bleeding over into other
property owners, so whether that will be true or not, I don’t know, but
I have my opinion.
Mr. Satterfield:
Joe, the comprehensive plan does it say Interstate
commercial, is that I-2 and I-1 or is that separate?
Mr. James: No, interstate commercial is general commercial that allows
hotels, restaurants, and gas stations.
Mr. Kirchoff:
Truck stops?
Mr. James: No truck stops. Plainfield does not have any zoning that
allows truck stops, maybe the I-4 which is our heaviest industrial
zone.
Mr. McPhail:
What do we, have 21 acres currently zoned general
commercial?
The demand to develop that hasn’t surfaced at this point
and time, I think that it eventually will, it still has general
commercial on the other side, sewer and water obviously would enhance
possibility of general commercial development if sewer and water was
available.
Well I think we have water available, sewer has to be
brought to the area.
Mr. Gibbs:
Any other comments from the board?
Plainfield Plan Commission
10-3-11
18
Mr. McPhail: Mr. President, I move the Plan Commission certify the
zone map amendment request RZ-11-002 as filed by Denison Properties
LLC, requesting rezoning of approximately 48.2 acres pending annexation
from HB Hendricks County to I-2 office warehouse distribution district
and approximately 4.4 acres from AG agricultural to general commercial
district with a favorable recommendation subject to the following
commitments being submitted on exhibit A forms prior to certification
of the Town Council.
1. The above described area and the following commitments apply only to
the real estate owned by Denison Partners, LLC, which is being zoned to
the I-2 District.
2. The development of the subject property shall comply with the
Gateway Corridor standards of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance, as
amended.
3. A minimum of fifty feet (50’) buffer of existing trees/vegetation
along the entire western boundary of the subject property where the
same abuts Sycamore Estates shall be preserved, except where a utility
or stormwater improvement must cross such area. The Owner shall use
every effort to avoid such utility/stormwater crossings, but where
necessary, the crossing shall be minimized as much as possible. The
planned sanitary sewer extension shall be kept outside of this fifty
foot (50’) buffer, unless the Town of Plainfield requires otherwise.
4. A similar buffer of existing trees/vegetation along the southern
boundary of the subject property where the same abuts Parcel No. 06-212-41E-355.001-011 (Hendricks County Real Estate records) shall be
maintained for the first fifty feet (50’) north of the boundary line,
where there exists such a depth of existing trees/vegetation. If the
existing trees/vegetation comprises a depth of less than fifty feet
(50’), then such lesser depth shall be maintained as a buffer area.
This buffer area may be crossed with utilities or stormwater facilities
or swales, but such crossings shall be avoided wherever possible, and
when utilized, impact upon existing vegetation shall be minimized as
much as possible.
5. The developer shall work closely with the Town of Plainfield and
Hendricks County to install curbing, left (east) turn only
requirements, signs, weight limits and other truck traffic control
measures in order to keep, as much as possible, all trucks to Camby
Road (CR 700S) and not on Indiana Avenue or on roads west and south of
the subject property.
6. The maximum square footage of any one building shall not exceed two
hundred seventy thousand (270,000) square feet. The maximum square
footage of building space on the subject property, as fully developed,
shall not exceed five hundred thousand (500,000) square feet.
7. The center line of the westernmost curb cut along Camby Road (CR 700
S) shall be at least one hundred forty feet (140’) east of the western
boundary of the subject property.
8. The Memorandum of Understanding shall be developed between the
developer, the Town of Plainfield, and Hendricks County for the control
and improvements of 825.
8. No truck stop shall be allowed or developed on the subject property;
no distribution center may be developed for or occupied by a user whose
primary product of distribution is beer or other alcoholic beverages.
Primary means fifty-one percent (51%) or more of the storage capacity
of the distribution center.
I guess that number 9 would be the MOU.
These commitments shall run with the land, be binding on the owner of
the above property of the described real estate, subsequent owners of
the above described real estate and other persons acquiring an interest
therein and these commitments may be modified or terminated by the
decision of the Town of Plainfield Plan Commission made at a public
hearing after a proper notice has been given. Commitments contained in
this instrument shall be effective on approval of petition of RZ-11-002
pursuant to the Town of Plainfield zoning ordinance and shall continue
to be in effect until modified or terminated by the Town of Plainfield
Plan Commission. These commitments may be enforced jointly or
separately by the Town of Plainfield, owners of all parcels around
adjoining real estate to a depth of two, otherwise ownership not
exceeding 600’ from the perimeter real estate and all owners of the
real estate within the area included in the petition who were not
petitioners for approval however and the owners association of this
development if such an association is formed as part of the plat
conveyance governing the subject properties. The undersigned authorize
the Secretary of the Town of Plainfield to record this commitment in
the Office of the Recorder of Hendricks County on final petition of RZ11-002. Did I miss anything?
Plainfield Plan Commission
10-3-11
19
Mr. Kirchoff: So we can have further discussion I will second it just
so we will have it on the table for discussion.
Mr. Gibbs: We have a motion and a second.
discussion?
Is here any further
Mr. Kirchoff: Joe, the motion was more explicit than what I had in my
previous packet.
Mr. James: Mr. McPhail read the actual commitments instead of the
motion from the first staff report, and those were in the addendum that
I sent out last week.
Mr. Kirchoff:
Ok.
I couldn’t follow where he was at, thank you.
Mr. Satterfield: If this is approved some of the concerns will still
be addressed, specifically the traffic and things like that right?
Mr. Daniel:
There will be a MOU.
Mr. Satterfield:
be?
It will still preserve the community the best it can
Mr. Kirchoff: That is the other question I had Gary, just tonight we
received this letter from the County Engineer saying they want to be at
the table. Again one of the reasons I wanted Mel to help me rethink
this is, this is simply rezoning and anytime Mac would come in with a
proposal for a building or whatever, this would all have to be
determined, we have to know what is going to happen to 700 South, we
have to know what is going to happen to 825 E before we would ever
consider a development plan, so that is why. I have been on the Plan
Commission for a few years, but sometimes I have to rethink that from
the standpoint.
Mr. Daniel:
This is a zoning hearing only.
Mr. Kirchoff: Until at such time Gary those would be determined, if we
can’t reach an agreement between the developer, the County, and us,
nothing happens. Is that a fair statement?
Mr. Daniel:
That is correct.
Mr. Kirchoff:
Is that what you were leading too as well?
Mr. McPhail: Any development has to go through a complete development
plan approval staff and all those steps before it ever becomes to plan
anything.
Mr. Kirchoff: Where I was headed earlier and this is the wrong
direction at this point and time, but my thought process was I was
trying to get a sense on your concept plan Mac, 60,000 square feet, how
big is a 60,000 square foot building and the best thing that I could
recall was the original Walmart at 66,000 because Cinergy used that as
the annex and we always said we had 66,000 square feet of office space,
so that gives me a sense of perspective of what we might be talking
about. I had a little more difficulty conceptualizing what 260,000
looked like, but the smaller buildings I can kind of get my arms around
that.
Mr. McPhail: I think the building where the forklift company is right
on the interstate there, right along 70, I can’t think of the name
right now, they are built over in Greencastle and over in Ohio, that is
about 60,000 square feet. That is the only building that I can think
of that referred to that is about the same size.
Mr. Kirchoff: This is the conceptual plan, we are not saying that
there are going to be four buildings, and it may be 10 small ones.
Mr. Gibbs:
And retention ponds.
Mr. Kirchoff:
Mr. McPhail:
standards.
That helps, thank you.
The gateway standards bring all of the facades up to high
Plainfield Plan Commission
10-3-11
20
Mr. Kirchoff: for me the question is what are we going to do about
traffic, my lesion on the Council is with Mr. McGillem on the traffic,
so that is something I will be very interested in to go forward.
Mr. McPhail: It is unfortunate that we have trucks get on Reeves Road
and Stanley Road and I am surprised they don’t have them in the
neighborhood today. They get down in there and try to turn around and
go around, I suspect they do once in a while probably, not as many as
it would be there if we had some development, but I would suspect. I
have no idea where some of these truck drivers think they are going,
but they get in places. They get in Rich’s neighborhood don’t they
Rich.
Mr. Carlucci: They came down in a dead end court one day, and then I
was out, a guy with one good eye directing them. I don’t care where he
goes, get out of the neighborhood.
Mr. Gibbs: Any other comments from the board?
would you poll the board?
Mr. Carlucci:
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Six ayes, none opposed, motion is
If not, Mr. Carlucci
Satterfield- yes
McPhail- yes
Brandgard- yes
Dunkin- yes
Kirchoff- yes
Gibbs- yes
approved.
Mr. Gibbs:
I am going to take a five minute recess.
Mr. Gibbs:
I am going to call the meeting to order.
PETITIONS FOR PUBLIC HEARING
Mr. Gibbs:
The next item on the agenda is DP-11-00
Ms. Sprague:
This petition is for the Plainfield Commons, as you all
know after the bankruptcy of Premier Properties a lot of their
properties have been selling off to different entities, and Plainfield
Commons itself has been divided up with a couple of different owners at
this point. This particular owner owns the Shoe Carnival to the south
and as such they do not have access to the signs out on US 40, and so
they are asking to put up another sign on the Plainfield Commons Drive
for their properties.
It basically it meets all of the requirements,
the main reason we brought it back is that all of the other integrated
center signs were approved with development plans and so we are trying
to be consistent in this case as well.
The existing sign was larger
than it was originally allowed, so it had a variance the first time it
was installed and then they’ve also increased its size since then that
is just a little bit of history for you.
This particular sign is
proposed to be on the corner.
Mr. Brandgard:
The existing sign is the one on Main Street?
Ms. Sprague: Yes, right. This one will be on the corner of Plainfield
Commons Drive and City Center Way, which is the drive that is in
between Logan’s and the Red Robin. It’s got an angle to it, so it is
designed to face Plainfield Commons and City Center Way at the same
time. So this is just a list of all the various requirements that it
meets.
Basically up until about 4:30 today the landscaping needed an
amendment but we did get amended one and I will show that to you in
just a minute. This is what the sign would look like, you can see upon
the left what the angle will be, the ordinance does allow one to be
angled and to only count as one sign as long as it is not more than 15
degrees or has no more of a separation of 42”.
Then the site plan
there in the yellow is where the sign is and then Center City Way,
Logan’s, and Red Robin would be down at the end there.
Mr. Gibbs: I have a question, did you say between Red Robin?
Ms. Sprague:
two.
Mr. Gibbs:
Yes, City Center Way is the drive that is between those
And this is where the sign would be.
Plainfield Plan Commission
10-3-11
21
Ms. Sprague: No, the sign will be at the intersection of City Center
Way and Plainfield Commons Drive.
Mr. Brandgard:
behind.
If you are on Perry Road and looking east it would be
Ms. Sprague:
Right. Because this property does not have frontage on
Perry Road, other wise they would ask to put it on Perry Road.
Mr. Brandgard:
It took me a while to figure that out.
Ms. Sprague:
There is what it will look like if you were driving up
between Red Robin and Logan’s.
Mr. Kirchoff: You’ve got Red Robin on the right and it would be in the
left in this picture.
Ms. Sprague:
It would actually be behind you.
Then the new
landscaping plan includes six boxwoods which covers that last
development standard that they were required to meet and so that
besides the fact that this is a new sign that has not previously been
approved, it meets all of the ordinance standards. I believe that the
petitioner is here if you have any questions.
Mr. Gibbs: Does anybody else have any questions at this time to Jill?
Would the petitioner like to come forward?
Mr. Faulkner: I am Lee Faulkner with TK Graphics at 2751 Stafford Road.
Mr. Ovian:
My name is Steve Ovian and we are the owners at part of
Plainfield Common, 409 Plainfield Common Drive.
Mr. McPhail:
You own everything from Shoe Carnival south?
Mr. Ovian:
That is correct sir.
We purchased the center within the
last year, that portion of the center.
Some of the feedback that we
have gotten from our tenants is that there is a lack of signage there.
There is no signage on Main Street, and there has been a desire from
almost all of the tenants to get some additional signage there so they
can have some visibility from City Center Way and from Plainfield
Commons Drive, so we have gone and hired a local sign company to design
what we feel is a very appropriate sign for that area, and we feel that
it will serve our needs.
Mr. Kirchoff:
you own.
Mr. Ovian:
That is correct.
Mr. Kirchoff:
correct?
Mr. Brandgard:
Mr. Ovian:
I assume it is only available to the establishments that
Could nobody north on the other end could be on the sign
Outside of what you own?
That is right, only for the tenants in our part of it.
Mr. Faulkner: The sign is literally to the street frontage that. It
is going to be a 300 square foot side, whereas if it did extend past
that obviously you would have more sign available, but it is not
proper.
Mr. McPhail: This question has nothing to do with your sign, but was
the Lender Huntington Bank?
Mr. Ovian:
We purchased it from the bank from a foreclosure, and I
can’t remember I am kind of the construction guy, I wasn’t involved in
that.
(Inaudible)
Mr. Ovian:
We haven’t quite finalized our plans for that.
From my
understanding that we have the flexibility to increase the size of some
panels if we want for the larger tenants and sub divide some of the
other panels if we wanted to accommodate all 9 tenants.
Plainfield Plan Commission
10-3-11
22
Mr. Gibbs: Based on the location that you have on the drawing that you
have given us, the reasoning for that location, do you have plans to
expand to the south?
Mr. Ovian: We don’t own any land further to the south, but we may at
some point be interested in purchasing land to the south.
Mr. Gibbs:
I’m just curious because of that location, and why you
chose that location being on the very southern part of that piece of
property.
Mr. Ovian:
It is because we want to get visability from both all
three, from Perry Road, from Plainfield Commons Drive, and from City
Center Way.
Mr. McNaught:
(inaudible)
Mr. McPhail:
see it.
When you turn south on Plainfield Common Drive you can
Mr. Gibbs:
Thank you.
At this time I will open it up for public
comments in favor or opposing this petition.
If not, I close the
public portion of the meeting and open it up for the board for any
other further comments or motion.
Mr. Kirchoff:
Mr. President I move that the Plan Commission approve
DP-11-002 as filed by Steven Ovian requesting development plan approval
for installation of a third integrated center sign within 600’ of a
gateway corridor for Plainfield Commons Shopping Centers zoned GC
finding that
1.
The development plan complies with all development applicable
developmental standards at the district of which the site is
located.
2.
The development plan complies with all applicable provisions of
the subdivision control ordinance for which a waiver is not
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.
With such approvals will be subject with the following condition;
1. Substantial compliance with site and sign plan file dated August 26,
2011.
2. The sign landscaping, actually we have a new plan do we not? So it
would be the landscaping site plan submitted as of today.
Mr. McPhail:
Mr. Gibbs:
the board.
Second.
I have a motion and a second, Mr. Carlucci would you poll
Mr. Carlucci:
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Six ayes, none opposed, motion is
Mr. Gibbs:
Satterfield- yes
McPhail- yes
Brandgard- yes
Dunkin- yes
Kirchoff- yes
Gibbs- yes
approved.
Next item on the agenda, BP-11-003.
Mr. James:
This is another development plan to review a sign plan.
This is a request for a development plan with a waiver of Town Center
standards to allow internally illuminated LED message board to replace
existing board on an existing legal non conforming post sign for the
Dairy Queen at 325 West Main Street.
When the development plan was
approved for the new DQ in 2006, the existing post sign was allowed to
remain and serve the old DQ while the new DQ was being built. A waiver
was granted for the new DQ to allow the wall signs to be internally
illuminated.
Here is a photo of the Dairy Queen and this is what we
are talking about, they want to replace this old message board with a
Plainfield Plan Commission
10-3-11
23
new internally illuminated LED message board. Here are the dimensions
of the existing sign, it is legal non-conforming because of the
setback, and new similar use sites now require just a ground sign you
can’t have a post sign for a single use site in the Town center or
general commercial district.
They’ve provided three options, here is
option one, it will use both existing poles and this is the new LED
board they will keep the DQ on top. They like this option because it
could make the old DQ sign rotate again like it used too. Here is the
option 2, they just put the LED board a little higher and then they
removed the south pole and kept the north pole with the same setback
and then would be out over the sidewalk.
The ordinance allows legal
non conforming signs to be reduced in size, they just can’t be
enlarged. The existing board is in term Illuminated board it is 60
square feet, the new board would only be 46.25 square feet, so it
reduces the message board by 23% and the overall sign by 7.7%
The
petitioner has provided three option, each option is the same size.
Each message board is 46 square feet.
The DRC liked option three if
only the south pole can be used, that reduces the setback issue, but
this option would require a variance since the existing sign is legal
non conforming, they would have to take down the DQ part to put it on
the south pole, but once you take down a legal non conforming sign it
can’t be put back up.
So to do that, they would have to get a
variance. Then they are not sure if that south pole could support both
signs. This would be the first only modern internally illuminated LED
board in the Town Center.
Is it compatible with the Town Center
context and the National Road? Several message boards along US 40, but
is this compatible with the Town Center. Lee is the representative of
the petitioner again so I will turn it over to him.
Mr. Gibbs: Is there any questions from the board members at this time?
If not, would the petitioner like to come forward?
Mr. Faulkner: Again, Lee Faulkner with TKO, representing Mick Linn of
the DQ.
Trying to keep the integrity and traditional look of the DQ
sign as much as possible, but by replacing that changeable letter sign
out there because that is in bad shape and it does need to be repaired
and changeable letter signs is just a problem. It never looks good, it
gets dirty, gets dirt in its tracks, lose letters and it is always a
problem. So the LED is a very viable option to go with and it is the
trend that all of the DQ’s are starting to go with, they do allow them
to advertise and market themselves better, so it is really the
direction we want to go with this. We did provide the three options,
obviously option 1 is what Mick would prefer, and it does keep the
traditional look of the sign.
Mr. Linn: Mick Linn, 1226 Providence Pass. I’d like to keep the sign
as close to what it looks like now for the future and basically just
improve the appearance.
Mr. Carlucci: Joe, I have a question. I don’t get involved in these
Dairy Queen things because I get a Dilly Bar out of it somewhere along
the way.
But when you were talking about the third option was
preferred by the committee, you said that it would need a variance by
the BZA, is that a lease variance or a regular variance.
Mr. James:
It is a regular sign variance.
Mr. Linn: The other issue of option three of course when they brought
that out, I had mentioned this, that the pole configuration on that
back pole if you would go back to the picture that would be a better
representation. Those are 6” steel poles on that, the second pole is
sleeved about half way up in the center of that changeable letter sign
to a 4”, so you cannot use the existing pole. That would have to all
be removed and brand new poles put in.
So it gets to be quite
complicated besides having to have a variance that really not a real
viable option on this.
Mr. Kirchoff: This is going to be a silly question but is there anyway
to retro a modern LED sign so that it fits the National Road motif? I
know that is a silly question, I’m like you, I like option 1, but you
got old and new at the same time, is there anyway to…
Mr. Faulkner: Well give me an example of what you would like to see.
There are a lot of possibilities.
Plainfield Plan Commission
10-3-11
24
Mr. Dunkin: What are you proposing color on the message center, red or
amber?
Mr. Faulkner:
It would be color.
It is full color.
A lot of the
signs if you would see the difference in, the amber LED’s, see there is
an orange and amber.
It really doesn’t do it justice, it really
doesn’t. The prices of color electronic message centers have come down
drastically over the years and they have done a lot more tracking for
the client and for the marketing value of a color electronic message
center over multiple matting, there is just no comparison, it is
incredible.
Mr. McPhail: The new banners we put up, it has a little medallion on
there with U.S. 40 or something.
I think Bill is thinking if you
incorporate something like that in board.
Mr. Kirchoff:
like the fact
Dairy Queen.
there a way to
I don’t have
that you are
I don’t have
fit our theme
any idea, other than I am just thinking I
trying to save whatever you are call the
an answer other than I am just saying is
downtown?
Mr. Faulkner: Would it be a thicker boarder to it, or are you trying
to beef it up a little?
Mr. Kirchoff:
I am not creative or artistic.
Mr. Brandgard: I kind of agree with what Bill, I don’t have an answer,
but you guys are the creative one, so if you can come up with something
that would be great.
Mr. Kirchoff:
I agree, I like option 1.
Mr. Brandgard:
Especially if you figure out how to turn.
Mr. Gibbs:
What is our ordinance for the changing?
Mr. James:
(Inaudible)
Mr. Kirchoff:
Mr. Dunkin:
Mr. Kirchoff:
Should we be concerned about the variance.
That is on option three.
Oh, I thought it was option one.
Mr. Gibbs: Thank you gentlemen, at this time I will open it up for the
public for any comments in favor or opposing this petition, if not I
close the public portion of the meeting and open it back up to the
board.
Mr. Kirchoff:
Mr. President I move that the Plan Commission approve
DP-11-003, as filed by Linn Griffin Inc. requesting development plan
approval for the installation of the internally illuminated LED message
board on a legal non-conforming pole sign by the Dairy Queen at 325
West Main Street in the Town center district finding that;
1. A proposed development represents a use of sign features which
will enhance the use or value of the adjacent properties.
2. The proposed development is consistent and incompatible with
development located in the vicinity, and;
3. The proposed development is consistent with the intent and
purpose of the Plainfield zoning ordinance in regarding a waiver
from the Town center design standards to allow the installation
of
an
internally
illuminated
LED
message
board
legal
nonconforming pole sign.
The plan Commission finds that;
1.
The proposed development represents an innovative use of a
freestanding sign which will enhance the use and value of
properties.
2.
The proposed development represents exceptional compliance by
sign development requirements of article 5.6.
3.
The proposed development is consistent and compatible with
other development within TC Town center district.
4.
The core development is consistent with the intent of purpose
of the Plainfield zoning ordinance and such approval will be
subject to the following conditions.
Plainfield Plan Commission
10-3-11
25
1.
2.
3.
Substantial compliance with approved sign options file dated
August 26, 2011.
All required landscaping shall be completed.
A shrub at least 36” in height shall be planted for sign
landscaping.
Mr. James:
(Inaudible)
Mr. Kirchoff:
So that is #1?
Ok, so substantial compliance with
approved sign option #1 file dated August 26, 2011.
Mr. Satterfield:
Second.
Mr. Gibbs: I have a motion and a second, Mr. Carlucci would you please
poll the board?
Mr. Carlucci:
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Six ayes, none opposed, motion is
Satterfield- yes
McPhail- yes
Brandgard- yes
Dunkin- yes
Kirchoff- yes
Gibbs- yes
approved.
OLD BUSINESS/NEW BUSINESS
Mr. James:
I’ve got one item under new business.
I had a young man
come in this afternoon and he wanted me to sign a license for vehicle
salvage.
I have never seen this before; I have seen the license for
auto sales that the Indiana Secretary of State requires, but never one
for application for salvage motor vehicle business license.
He is
looking at a site, 3102 East Main Street, Suite B. It is zoned general
commercial.
Here is Main Street, this is Ronald Reagan, this is a
vacant field and it is this first building right here, the old Diner’s
property, and suite B would be back in here.
It is zoned general
commercial, so he said the proposed use is to repair vehicles from
salvaged parts, or like instead of giving a new door, you would get a
door from a wreck vehicle from a salvage yard that is still in pretty
good shape and it would be a little cheaper.
So general commercial
allows major auto repair, petitioner claims no parts would be salvaged
on site, but he would rebuild salvaged vehicles. Claims all work will
be done indoors and there would be no outdoor storage.
Indiana
Secretary of State required salvaged motor vehicle license signed by
the Zoning Administrator and Indiana code provides definitions of
vehicle salvage, and that is included in what I handed out. Ordinance
does not have a definition for vehicle salvaging, the closest thing
would probably be a junk yard allowed only in the I-4 by special
exception. So, is this major auto repair using the salvaged parts or a
junk yard?
Mr. Carlucci: I’ve got a bigger question on this. Every time I drive
down 40, especially on the east side, and in Marion County too, is
anybody and his brother can open up a car lot, and one of them is that
Clover Drive, that has turned out not so well.
I am constantly over
there trying to get him to comply on the signs and he is not doing it.
I would take the most strict look at our ordinances and if that does
not comply and then he would have to go get a variance, because you
start looking at what happens when you get a down turn in the economy,
everybody wants to sell cars. If you drive down 40, even in Plainfield
and see what the issues are there, and that is one thing I am glad this
came up because I have been thinking about bringing this to the Plan
Commission anyways, we ought to look at what requirements we should
have for car sales, what is the square footage and have some other
criteria under than here is a guy, here is a gas station that used to
be a gas station, we will put some cars there and we will sell them
there. I think it cheapens the community when you go that route and we
are getting a lot of those right now. You are asking me to give you an
opinion about that, I would say they need to go get a variance.
Mr. James:
Well that is why I wanted to bring it to you before you
tonight to get your opinion.
Mr. McPhail: I don’t see how you could do what he says he is going to
do without having junk cars sitting around? I don’t see how he can do
it.
Plainfield Plan Commission
10-3-11
26
Mr. Daniel: I’m not sure Rich, if he would need a variance or if would
need to apply to put a junk yard in. Of course he may come in here and
say well I’m not going to have junk cars on my lot, but that would all
be conditioned and the Plan Commission (inaudible).
Mr. Brandgard:
At some point and time he is going to have to have I
assume, salvaged parts brought in, and the parts he takes off hauled
out, and in the meantime they are going to have to sit somewhere.
Mr. Daniel: Where are these cars going to be that he is taking these
parts off of bringing them down here putting them on some other car?
Mr. Brandgard: This sounds more like an auto body repair. That is a
little building back there, to me that is not a very big building and
there is not a whole lot of room.
Mr. McPhail: Didn’t a locksmith move in down there?
not big enough to do much.
Mr. Brandgard:
That building is
That is something we need to look into.
Mr. James: I can just tell him in my opinion it is more like a salvage
yard and it is just not permitted use.
Mr. McPhail:
I just can’t see it being anything doing in there.
Mr. Kirchoff: Unless he can put a plan together to convince us of what
he is going to be doing if it is something different.
Mr. James:
Take Larson’s, I mean he is allowed to park vehicles out
there before he works on them.
Mr. Brandgard:
Mr. Gibbs:
But he has room to do it.
Looks like you have a consensus from the board.
Mr. James:
That is what we will go with, that is all I’ve got then.
Is there any questions about the ordinances? We’ve talked about doing
it and appropriate that it comes up now based on what we discussed
tonight.
Mr. McPhail:
That was our concern that we weren’t treating people
outside of the Town limits different, that are what the ordinance is
doing, and do we need to take action on this?
Mr. James:
Yes, we need a motion.
Mr. McPhail:
I move we approve petition TZ-11-002, amendment to the
Plainfield zoning.
Mr. Brandgard:
And certify it to the Town Council.
Mr. Brandgard:
Second.
Mr. Gibbs:
the board?
I have a motion and a second.
Mr. Carlucci:
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Six ayes, none opposed, motion is
Mr. Carlucci would you poll
Satterfield- yes
McPhail- yes
Brandgard- yes
Dunkin- yes
Kirchoff- yes
Gibbs- yes
approved.
Mr. Kirchoff:
I have a question, were you the person responsible for
getting the van moved down 700 E.?
Mr. James:
I can take a little credit for that.
Mr. Kirchoff:
Thank you.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Gibbs:
I will entertain a motion.
Plainfield Plan Commission
10-3-11
27
Mr. McPhail:
So move.
Mr. Kirchoff:
Mr. Gibbs:
Second.
All those in favor signify.
Plainfield Plan Commission
10-3-11
28