plainfield plan commission september 8, 2016 7:00 p.m ... · plainfield plan commission 9-8-16 1...

Plainfield Plan Commission 9-8-16 1

PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION

September 8, 2016

7:00 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER

Mr. Gibbs: I would like to call to order the Plainfield Plan Commission

meeting for September 8, 2016.

ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM

Mr. Gibbs: Mr. Klinger would you poll board to determine a quorum.

Mr. Klinger: Mr. McPhail- here

Mr. Brandgard- here

Mr. Smith- here

Mr. Kirchoff- here

Mr. Bahr- here

Mr. Gibbs- here

All are present and accounted for and we have one open seat.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr. Gibbs: If you would please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Mr. Gibbs: I assume that all of the Board members have had the opportunity

to review the minutes from August 1st. If there is no corrections as noted I

will entertain a motion.

Mr. Kirchoff: So move.

Mr. Brandgard: Second.

Mr. Gibbs: All those in favor signify by saying aye, opposed, motion

carried.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

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

OATH OF TESTIMONY

Mr. Daniel conducted the Oath of Testimony

CONTINUED TO OCTOBER MEETING

Mr. Gibbs: The first item on the agenda is DP-16-013 asking for a

continuation through October, is that correct Joe?


Mr. James: Yes, good evening Mr. President and members of the Plan

Commission. Yes, this project is still not ready to bring to the Plan

Commission yet so we are requesting a continuance to the October meeting.

Mr. Gibbs: I will entertain a motion by the board.

Mr. McPhail: So move.


Mr. Gibbs: I have a motion and a second, all those in favor of continuing

DP-16-013 say aye, opposed, motion carries.

PETITIONS FOR PUBLIC HEARING

Mr. Gibbs: Next on the agenda is PP-16-002 and DP-16-014, are you doing

those together Joe?

Mr. James: Yes. Thank you Mr. President. This will require 2 motions from

the Plan Commission tonight, two separate petitions. The first one is the

review of a primarily plat to create one commercial lot of 1/54 acres. This

is located approximately 142 Williams Trace. Here is US 40 right here, this

is the Crew Carwash and Williams Trace back there. It is paved to about

right there and then it is unapproved lane that provides access to these

residential properties back in here. This site was rezoned to General

Commercial back in June. So the second petition is review of a development

plan for 2 proposed 7200 square foot flex type structures. It is within 600’

of a residential district so the building and the site has to comply with the

gateway corridor design standards. As I mentioned that the site was rezoned

from R-3 to GC back in June and you have GC to the south, GC to the west and

then you’ve got R-3 to the north and to the east. Buffer yard was required

at the north perimeter and the east perimeter and the east perimeter because

of the residential zoning, and they also have the depth of yard development

incentive to reduce that front setback off of the private drive. When this

was first brought to the design review committee they needed several waivers

and a variance but the DRC continued it to allow them to make some changes to

the plans and so when they brought it back they eliminated several of the

needed waivers and they eliminated the need for the variance. They still

need 2 waivers, one for the building material waiver and one for the reduced

truck court width. Staff supports both waivers. They want to use cedar

board and batten as a primary material for the east facades, they use that

because that would help represent and promote their business. Part of their

business is barn renovation, so with the elimination of several waivers DRC

supported the 2 waivers. With the primary plat we review it to see if they

have made adequate provisions for access, utilities and drainage there is an

existing 50’ wide access easement that is unapproved and they are proposing a

20’ private drive within the access easement that would not be built to Town

standards for a private street, so they are going to have to get a waiver

from the subdivision control ordinance in order to do that. Access to the

lot can be provided from a public or private street and sidewalks are not

required with private streets, only with public streets. The utility and the

drainage plans appear to be adequate. Again here is the site, officially

zoned GC so it should be red that is an old map. Here is the site plan 1.54

acres, one access to service both buildings, here is the buildings and the

footpads of the buildings. This is the reduced truck court width, our

standards for the large warehouses, so it is not appropriate for this site,

the truck court width so that is why they need a waiver because this is a


smaller project, small site, and smaller buildings not the large warehouses

that we normally see. We go the required parking and setbacks and buffer

yards comply. This is the utility plan and they have made provisions for

utilities. Here is a rendering of sort of what the building could look like.

They have added a stone wrap around all elevations and they have changed, the

first generation had metal siding but they have changed all of the metal

siding to EIFS so that eliminated a waiver right there. Here is the

elevation drawings. This would be the cedar board and batten and the stone

wrap that would be EIFS stone wrap and EIFS around the north and south

buildings. This is just a photograph that represents what they want to try

to do with the appearance of the building and to promote the barn renovation

business. Landscaping plan complies, you got the buffer yard here and here.

Our new transportation plan does propose a street through here someday

turning Williams Trace into a public street and to provide access to

properties the properties to the north across the Vandalia Trail. Then this

is what they provided just to show you want the impacts could be, but this

has a 70’ right of way, which a local street only requires a 50’ right of

way, so I think we could build a street within the existing 50’ wide access

easement and not have to take additional right of way. So besides the

requested waivers the plans comply with the gateway standards, the new

transportation plan shows the possibility of Williams Trace becoming a public

street. This has been disclosed to adjacent property owners and I think the

adjacent property owners are in the audience tonight, so they instead of

doing the acknowledgment letter they asked them to come to the hearing

tonight in regarding to the primary plat are there any concerns regarding to

the proposed access to the site and how the right of way should be dedicated

if a public road is built in the future. In the staff report I did propose

some language that would be added to the secondary plat with regards to

acceptance and dedication of a right of way of that access easement that the

petitioner owns. It would just be that portion and not any other portion.

So is that plat language adequate, it was borrowed from language that was on

the plat for the lots to the south regarding that Williams Trace that is

improved. So with that I will have a seat and the petitioners are here and I

am sure they would be glad to answer your questions.

Mr. Gibbs: Anyone on the board have any questions for Joe at this time?

Mr. Smith: Is there anything in the language about outside storage around

the site?

Mr. James: No.

Mr. Gibbs: Would the petitioner like to address the board this evening?

Mr. Williams: Robert Williams, 151 Williams Trace. I am the owner of BGW

Construction and Hoosier Barn Heroes and this is my project. I will go ahead

and introduce too Robert Williams my father and Arnold Gath my uncle. They

represent the rest of the property owners. My grandmother is not here, she

is 85 years old and it would be difficult but my father speaks on her behalf,

that would be all of the other residences on Williams Trace, it is just

family. I asked them to come here, we have been working on this for 8 months

and you haven’t seen them other than my father has come a couple of times and

I wanted you guys to be aware that everybody knows what is going on and we’ve

had some concerns. Joe has been awesome and the entire staff at Plainfield

the Town, has been great working with us and answering our questions. This

is a new project and a new kind of thing for me, but to answer your question,

there won’t be room for outside storage even if we wanted too. If you can


see we really fill up that space. We want the buildings to store the wood to

keep it under weather and as far as my goal, I think when we first started

this and you might remember we were going to use the north building for

ourselves and then potentially rent out the south building, that is still

plan B, what I am hoping is I can build these in such an efficient manner, we

could use the space. So we will use them both. I don’t know if that makes

you feel any better about that. As I have said many times we all live there,

we don’t want it to look like the barns to the south that is a big goal of

ours. I think I told you guys at the DRC meeting that I have tried to buy

those buildings twice in the last 6 months and they are just not willing to

give them up.

Mr. Gibbs: Any more questions from the board? At this time I will open it

up for the public for anyone in the audience who wishes to address the board

in favor or opposing this petition.

Mr. Jaco: My name is Floyd Jaco, I live at 10274 E. C.R. 200 South, Avon. I

am not opposed to the warehouses. I am here to make everyone aware of my

condition. Several years ago and I am also a decorated disabled Vietnam

veteran. Several years ago I was hospitalized for a year, diagnosed with

severe post-traumatic stress disorder. I worked on it I was in therapy for

over 20 years, 5 days a week 6-8 hours a day. I got to the point where I

didn’t have to take medications. My nightmares had gone away and my

flashbacks have gone away. Something that triggers this is stress. Since

this has all started all of that therapy has been wiped away. My nightmares

are back, my flashbacks are back, and I still don’t take medications. But I

would like to know how you are going to deal with me. I am the second house

west of Ronald Reagan on the north side of the road. This has just been

driving me nuts, I have actually gone back to guard duty. Different times at

night I go out and pull guard duty on my property. I go out and these trucks

park in front of my house day and night sits sometimes for 30 minutes at a

time. I go out and run them off, I’ve had my life threatened several times

by truck drivers. I have prepared myself for the first one that comes and

kicks my door in I am ready and waiting for that to happen. So I was just

going to tell you that you guys need to do something with me. And something

else that triggers me is loud banging noises at night and bright lights

shining in my windows. I really don’t know what to do about it. I talked to

another therapist at the VA and he said to make everyone informed of your

condition because my life could be laying in your hands. I know that I am

not up here to make you stop building warehouses, I know you are going to

build them but when you build the one across the street from me, I don’t want

loud banging noises day and night, I don’t want bright lights shining in my

windows at night because I won’t be able to handle that and I am letting you

people know that right I won’t be able to handle it. I feel like sometimes I

feel I am already right on this edge teetering or flipping out. This is what

this has done to me and so far no one at all has offered to work with me. I

have offered to sell property to get out of there, no one wants it, Town of

Avon doesn’t want it, and the Town of Plainfield doesn’t want it so I really

don’t know what to do. So that is my story and I will wait for you guys can

mail me a response or something but, the one main thing is these truck

drivers, someone is going to get hurt, I promise you if these drivers don’t,

I literally 120’ off the road, so when they park out there at 2:00 in the

morning or 3 and let those trucks idle and those valves release and compress

air, I’m sitting straight up in bed. One night a truck came through and hit

his engine brake right there. The next thing I knew I’m back in the woods

behind my house back into a flashback. So you all know now what I am going

through and I would appreciate if someone would work with me.


Mr. Gibbs: Okay, thank you. Anyone else from the audience? If not I will

close the public portion of the meeting and open it up for the Board for

further discussion.

Mr. McPhail: I guess I’d just ask the Council if this requirement on block A

is sufficient for future road right of way.

Mr. Daniel: In fact we had a meeting this afternoon at 4 with Tim and Scott

and I redrafted that provision that you are referring to. I’ve got a few

slight changes to that because when you look at the plat without getting into

a lot of detail. On the preliminary plat itself, block A actually is

identified as road that apparently belongs to Joe Rankin or at least the item

number there is Joe Rankin, so that just got carried over from a prior. What

we are dealing with is the property owned by Mr. Williams that goes north of

that. Can you see what I am talking about, Kent? See where it says block A.

In fact if you look up at the top of the preliminary plat there is a legal

description of that private roadway. That legal description on the right is

a description of that private roadway. So I have revised that to refer to

that description rather than otherwise, so if you would like for me I will

read that revision into the record.

Mr. McPhail: All right.

Mr. Daniel: What that paragraph should say is private roadway as described

on the preliminary plat shall be dedicated to the Town of Plainfield at no

cost to the Town for use as a public facility if at a future date the

Plainfield Plan Commission determines such dedication as appropriate and in

the best interest in the Town of Plainfield. Plainfield Town Council shall

have final authority to accept the improvements and or rights of way

associated with said dedication. Upon acceptance by the Plainfield Town

Council of such dedication of the private roadway the street and the

improvements thereon shall thereafter be maintained by the Town of

Plainfield. So that is the revision of that paragraph.

Mr. McPhail: Thank you.

Mr. Kirchoff: I guess I have a question for staff. Do we have a concern

that the road will be constructed to town standards and Tim or Scott either

one, when that time comes for that to be a public road, what does that mean

to us?

Mr. Belcher: As you noticed by the sketch that Joe showed, which they put

together for us of what a future road might look like, at whatever time that

would develop, but the alignment changes and that is why the road can’t be

developed now because of the folks on the east side of the road, first of all

you could easily hit a house, things like that they are not ready to do

anything so where they are building the pavement which is not Town standards

and things like that would likely be built anyway. When the new road, when

it does happen goes north then that would be curbing, sidewalks, and a lot of

things would happen which I think would mean everything would come out and be

redone and regraded, so I don’t think we would be losing a lot and we really

don’t know if it will ever happen.

Mr. Kirchoff: I understand.


Mr. Smith: Tim I have one other related thing. I am wondering just about a

small safety issue, maybe some signage or something would be in order.

Especially for traffic that would be southbound on their private road when

you get to the jog you have a blind corner practically, you have a fence, a

house and what not on your right, so people coming of the Mike’s drive thru,

we’ve all probably done this, you are blind to the traffic coming down this

Williams Trace Road. Now putting more buildings back up here with employees

and maybe customers, I don’t know I am a little worried about the potential…

Mr. Belcher: Yes we talked about that and we thought the first thing to try

which would be relatively simple is a stop sign at each stop, so I am coming

out of Mike’s after my car and I’ve got to be thinking about stopping right

there and paying attention as opposed to what I do now which is just roll on

out. So that would be maybe our first attempt but there is some large

electrical box there, things that we can’t necessarily move right now, but I

think that concern has been noted and we are going to try to address that if

it goes forward.

Mr. Smith: Well I don’t know if there could be signage also for the Williams

Trace road sign, or both ways.

Mr. Belcher: Yes that is what I was thinking we just stop everybody coming

other than incoming and then that way everyone is more aware of what is going

on in the intersection. We had tried to get the whole connected road going

to the west we haven’t gotten that done but again that could pull more

traffic there. The intersection is something we need to take a hard look at.

Mr. Smith: Good, thank you.

Mr. Gibbs: I think Mr. Smith raised a good question about outside storage.

It may not be today but in the future we don’t know how these flex buildings

might be used and I think there should be something in there about outside

storage.

Mr. Smith: Well we don’t allow it in the big warehouses.

Mr. Brandgard: It is already in the ordinance.

Mr. James: Outdoor storage isn’t really allowed in the GC district. I mean

you can have merchandise displayed adjacent to the building but it doesn’t

really have any standard for outdoor storage.

Mr. Gibbs: What do you define as outdoor merchant display?

Mr. James: Like Kroger puts flowers out.

Mr. McPhail: It seems as we went through that a few years ago with

particularly some of these gas stations and it seems like we have gotten that

under control by trying to police it where they were just putting everything

out there.

Mr. Gibbs: Yes we’ve done that for camper shells and then they end up on the

ground and everything else and we just don’t know what that is going to be in

the future.

Mr. Kirchoff: I have a question on the motion then does paragraph 4 or item

number 4 go away Mel or do we simply just reference what you just read?


Mr. Daniel: Item 4 stays and you can just refer to what is in the record as

far as what is in there or I will read it again, whichever makes you feel

more comfortable, if you want it in the record as part of the motion.

Mr. Kirchoff: It would probably be better in the motion, wouldn’t it?

Mr. Daniel: Yes probably re-read it.

Mr. Kirchoff: And that is where we are talking about it on the first motion,

right? Mr. Chairman I move the Plan Commission approve PP-16-002 as filed by

Robert G. Williams II, requesting approval of a Primary Plat for a commercial

subdivision creating one lot at 1.54 acres finding that;

1. Adequate provisions have been made for regulation of minimum lot

width, minimum lot depth and minimum lot area;

2. Adequate provisions have been made for the widths, grades, curves and coordination of subdivisions public ways with current and

planned public ways; and

3. Adequate provisions have been made for the extension of water,

sewer, and other municipal services,

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

1. Compliance with the Town Standards, including but not limited to: Plainfield Ordinance 1-96 regarding Floodplain Management;

Plainfield Ordinance Nos. 4-94 and 3-86 regarding Sewage Works;

Plainfield Ordinance No. 17-97 regarding Drainage; Plainfield

Ordinance No. 19-97 regarding Municipal Waterworks; and Plainfield

Ordinance No. 18-97 regarding Access Permits.

2. Compliance with the standards and specifications of the Plainfield Subdivision Control Ordinance of which waivers have not been

granted.

3. Compliance with the Primary Plat submitted file date September 2, 2016.

4. The following language shall be added to the Secondary Plat

regarding dedication of the private lane within the Access Easement

owned by the Petitioner as represented on the Primary Plat.

1. Private roadway as described on the preliminary plat and the

improvements thereon shall be dedicated to the Town of Plainfield

at no cost to the Town for use as public facilities if at a

future date the Plainfield Plan Commission determines that such

dedication is appropriate and in the best interest of the Town of

Plainfield. Plainfield Town Council shall have final authority

to accept the improvements and or rights of way associated with

said dedication. Upon acceptance by the Town of Plainfield

Council of such dedications of the primary roadway, the street

and appurtenant improvements thereon shall thereafter be

maintained by the Town of Plainfield.


And, regarding the waiver from Article 3.3.F. of the Plainfield Subdivision

Control Ordinance to allow a private street not built to Town Standards, I

move that the Plan Commission grant the waiver finding that:

1. The granting of the waiver will not be detrimental to the public safety, health or welfare, or injurious to other property;

2. The conditions upon which the request for a waiver is based are

unique to the property for which a waiver is sought and are not

applicable generally to other property;

3. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape or

topographical conditions of the specific property involved, a

particular hardship to the owner would result as distinguished from

a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of these regulations are

carried out; and

4. The waiver will not contravene the provisions of the Plainfield

Zoning Ordinance of the Comprehensive Plan.

Mr. Smith: Second.

Mr. Gibbs: I have a motion and a second, Mr. Klinger would you poll the

board?

Mr. Klinger: Mr. McPhail- yes

Mr. Brandgard- yes

Mr. Smith- yes

Mr. Kirchoff- yes

Mr. Bahr- yes

Mr. Gibbs- yes

PP-16-002 passed 6-0.

Mr. Kirchoff: Mr. Chairman I move the Plan Commission approve DP-16-014, as

filed by Robert G. Williams, requesting approval of a development plan for 2

7,200 sf flex-type structures on 1.54 acres finding that:

1. The Development Plan complies with all applicable Development

Standards of the GC General Commercial for which a waiver has not

been granted.

2. The Development Plan complies with all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Control Ordinance for which a waiver has not been

granted.

3. The proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The proposed development is appropriate to the site and its

surroundings.

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

And, regarding waivers to allow cedar board and batten as a primary and

secondary material and a reduced truck court width between buildings, the

Plan Commission finds that:

1. The proposed development represents an innovative use of primary

building materials which will enhance the use or value of area

properties;


2. The proposed development is consistent with and compatible with

other development located along the Gateway Corridor; and

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

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

1. Substantial compliance with building elevations, site plan and

landscaping plan submitted file date August 26, 2016.


Mr. Gibbs: (inaudible)


Mr. Brandgard- yes

Mr. Smith- yes

Mr. Kirchoff- yes

Mr. Bahr- yes

Mr. Gibbs- yes

DP-16-014 is approved.

Mr. Gibbs: Next item on the agenda is RZ-16-005 and DP-16-018

Mr. James: This also involves 2 motion. It is two separate petitions. The

fist petition is a petition to rezone about 8.82 acres from General

Commercial to R-6 high density residential district. The second petition is

review of a multi-family development plan for a proposed 64 unit age

restricted apartment complex on 8.2 acres and proposed density is less than 8

units per acre, it is about 7.3 units per acre. The multi-family development

incentives are not required but the plans must comply with R-6 development

and design standards. So here is the site it is former Just for Fun site

between Clarks Creek Road and 267 south of 40 and the old car wash site. Down

here is the Plainfield Health Center, this is the old staples building that

is being converted into a St. Vincent medical facility. Then over here

you’ve got Williams Trace Mobile Home Park with high density and then you’ve

got the apartments Crown Plaza and Gladden Farms so there is a lot of density

in this area and some similar type of services. All plans comply with the

standards so no waivers are needed. As I showed you the site and then there

is also a Walmart nearby so you have shopping near too. DRC recommended

approval of plans as submitted with some minor changes. No traffic study was

requested, any traffic generated by issues would be less than if the site was

zoned General Commercial and you had a General Commercial use in there. So

it would be a negligible impact to the road system. Here is the site plan,

Clarks Creek Road is right here and then there will be a 2 story building

right here situated like this. Here is 267 over here and then the parking

lot is one means of access from Clarks Creek Road but then they could also

use the interior access drive that has served the Just for Fun site and the

other buildings in the commercial area. Elevations of the building, 2 story

building and it is all brick and stone it has a stone wainscot wrap around

the base. Here is the black and white elevations it complies with the

building material percentages required in the R-6 as stone and brick. They

have revised the garages, they did have metal siding but they revised them to

be brick to match the primary building and then they also did that with the

trash enclosures so the garages and the trash enclosure now comply. Black


and white elevations, landscaping plan. They have put in the required

landscaping and they did add some foundation landscaping that was a DRC

recommendation. They got the parking lot screening and the perimeter

requirements. Light plan complies, that would actually be a light for the

sign. The parking lot and wall packs comply, trash enclosure complies. The

sign DRC asked them, it was an all metal sign but they asked them to do a

brick base to match the building, they’ve done that. So the proposed zoning

and the use are not consistent with the new comprehensive plan recommendation

of local/corridor commercial, the proposed use is compatible with adjacent

density and services. In order to finalize the projects tax credits are

being sought, so we need to add the formal commitment and that is off of the

letter that I provided them to the petitioner that they had to provide in

order to move forward with this project, so I passed that out to you and I

always passed out a revised motion, cut and pasted and put in the wrong

motion in there but that has been corrected. So is the above rezone

commitment adequate or are additional commitments necessary for the rezone

and the development plan? And the representatives are here and I am sure

they will be glad to answer your questions.

Mr. Gibbs: Any questions from the board at this time? If not would the

petitioner like to come forward?

Mr. Banning: Good evening, Jeff Banning, Banning Engineering, 853 Columbia

Drive, Suite 101 here in Plainfield. Thank you for hearing this this

evening. I am here to represent Keller Development. In the audience with us

this evening is Greg Majewski with Keller Development down from Ft. Wayne,

and Mark Smith the architect for the project. I almost stand before you this

evening in mourning. My daughter has worked at Just for Fun for multiple

years, I know there are going to be a lot of people disappointed in the

change of use but as you know the property owners had this property for sale

for quite a while and the opportunity has really presented itself to fit into

an area that really makes sense for this type of use. So we are in agreement

with what Joe has presented his evening with what the staff report states, I

just wanted to make one clarification on page 2 of 4 just so there is no

discrepancies in the future, Joe I apologize I didn’t mention this to you

earlier either, where it says the HVAC will be behind the building, there are

also some that are actually in front of the buildings but they are all

screened per the ordinance, so I don’ think that will be an issue but I just

wanted to point that out just in case anything would come up before approved

this evening. With that I am going to keep it short and sweet and ask if

there is any questions and ask for your approval with this project.

Mr. McPhail: Jeff I have one question. On the overall site plan I am

assuming that the access drive off of Main Street is part of this piece of

property.

Mr. Banning: It is.

Mr. McPhail: And conveys to the owner.

Mr. Banning: Correct.

Mr. McPhail: I guess the other question I have is, this is an age restricted

community, what governance assures us that that is age restricted, and I know

there is some statutes out there and should that be part of our approval

process referring to that?


Mr. Banning: And we have actually as you well know with at rezoning

commitment, we have to submit an exhibit A with restrictions on there. Of

course Joe put the one restriction up there, one commitment I guess and we

had that discussion earlier, you know this is for this this project only. I

don’t know, Mel if we need anything further than that.

Mr. Daniel: That’s a good question.

Mr. McPhail: I support the project but I want to make sure that we are

protected and what we are getting.

Mr. Majewski: My name is Greg Majewski with Keller Development, 453 Merchant

Drive, Fort Wayne. So the tax credit program that was mentioned that we are

using to fund this project is a federal program administered at State level

and we will be audited annually to make sure we are in compliance with it.

When we submit our application for funding we will commit to this being an

age restricted property which means 100% of the units will have to be leased

with someone on the lease being at least 55 years old and in our experience

in having many of these properties like this around the state, it is usually

a single individual so they have to qualify by themselves or a couple in

which both members qualify. That is how the age requirement will be

restricted. If we don’t comply we are in at risk of having to return funding

to the State, so we don’t want to be in that position.

Mr. Bahr: Just out of curiosity, you say 55, does both members have to be

55, or just one member.

Mr. Majewski: One person on the lease must be 55 or older.

Mr. Kirchoff: So no school children.

Mr. Majewski: I don’t want to say definitely not because there are

situations where a grandparent could have a legal custody of a grandchild.

Then in that case it could happen but I couldn’t think of any real examples

where we see that, so we can’t rule it out but we don’t expect it.

Mr. McPhail: Thank you.

Mr. Smith: Jeff I don’t know if you can adjust this, there is a very small

architectural feature, a difference in your drawings. This came up at the

DRC meeting and DRC suggested that the gable vent, the vent in front of the

gables this functional vent. It is also decorative and would be really

visible even out to the street so we thought maybe if that could be made,

compared to the original design which is rather small and rectangular, we

thought a little larger. I see one of the drawings they show that, but I

wasn’t quite sure which.

Mr. James: It has been revised.

Mr. Banning: We have revised that, it is not on there. Yes we did revise

that, we made all of the revision that you requested.

Mr. Smith: I knew you would.

Mr. Banning: Of course. Bill to your comment about schools we talked to the

schools and let them know the expectation of children is minimal but you

can’t guarantee 100% as Greg mentioned.


Mr. Gibbs: No further questions at this time from the board? If not I will

open it up for the public for anyone in the audience in favor or opposing

this petition. And I close the public portion of the meeting and open it

back up for the board for further discussion or a motion.

Mr. Kirchoff: I have another question to Scott or Tim again. This is a

unique piece of property and even though you say there are 2 access points,

really one. Do we have an ordinance or something like this, what does our

ordinance say about access? If you had something at that bend where the

elbow is coming in you don’t have 2 accesses you have 1.

Mr. James: Yes it says any major residential subdivision containing 30 or

more lots, it doesn’t really talk about access for multifamily. It says 30

or more lots secondary means of access from an approved perimeter, public

street or have a divided boulevard.

Mr. Kirchoff: I understand that but I think you have that in the entrance,

but with that narrowing down to that corner there. If you have a bad

accident there you’d have no access out of that property.

Mr. James: It is a Boulevard entrance.

Mr. Kirchoff: I’m talking back at the elbow, come west of there. If you had

a bad accident right there, you have no way out.

Mr. Brandgard: Or in.

Mr. Kirchoff: If you have a bad accident or something and you try to get

public safety equipment through there.

Mr. Belcher: I think the ordinance that Joe just read, it is 2 lanes coming

in, one side could be blocked but that divide is what, what he read is what

is required. Joe didn’t talk about it, another thing about public safety is

they worked some things out with folks to the south there about access in

there too.

Mr. James: I think that was in your report and I provided the agreement that

Plainfield Health has agreed to let them use their drive for emergency

access.

Mr. Kirchoff: Then how do they get on the property?

Mr. James: Well this is going to be unobstructed through here so they will

enter Plainfield Health’s drive to get to the property. It would be more for

fire access.

Mr. Smith: I wonder if there is enough room to put, I don’t know what you

would call it but it is like a reinforced grassy passage. Do you know what I

am talking about? It looks like grass but it actually reinforced for

ambulance or something like that. To the west end of your building.

Mr. Banning: You mean over here Bruce?

Mr. Smith: Yes, I don’t know if there is enough…


Mr. Banning: I don’t think we can, the grade starts dropping off and that

starts becoming an issue. I mean we could maybe reconfigure this to help

matters I guess.

Mr. Kirchoff: Do you see where I am coming from?

Mr. Banning: Yes, honestly we have a lot of subdivisions a lot of

developments where we have just the single access like that.

Mr. Kirchoff: I understand that but this is a senior citizens trying to be

sensitive.

Mr. Smith: Maybe widen that out quite a bit.

Mr. Banning: I hate to design things in the middle of the Plan Commission

meeting.

Mr. Kirchoff: I’m not going there, I look at it and I just have a concern if

you somehow had a bad accident in there that the access would be…

Mr. Banning: Yes, no totally understand. We can look at that as we go

through the construction plans, do an opening there to widen that out. I

appreciate you bringing that up.

Mr. Smith: Is there any intention to repave or improve that interior

driveway there?

Mr. Banning: That is a long story.

Mr. Smith: Maybe the short.

Mr. Banning: The short story is everyone associated and along this are

supposed to maintain that. That was established back when it was McDonald’s

and Laughner’s, way back when and I am not sure title work has really carried

over well on that. I believe Mr. Scott, the property owner, the majority

property owner has maintained that more than anyone else? I don’t know did

the Town ever do anything there, Tim? It seemed like there was a project.

Mr. Belcher: Last time we paved the Town needed to go through there with

utility and we worked with the property owner and said rather than to pay for

utility lets go through and repave it and that is what he needed.

Essentially Mr. Scott said the only way I will get my money is if I sue all 7

people and I will spend more money doing that than fixing it so he was sort

of stuck, so he found a way to get paved but I don’t know what part you are

talking about.

Mr. Smith: Well the last time I drove through there it seemed like it was in

pretty poor condition. A lot of pot holes, I don’t know what it is like now.

Mr. Banning: I think it is okay right now, definitely something from a title

standpoint needs to be taken care of. Thank you.

Mr. Gibbs: If there is no further questions I will entertain a motion.

Mr. Daniel: I do think Kent has a good point as far as adding a condition to

the first motion there that the rezoning is for an age restricted apartment

complex only.


Mr. Bahr: Bill I understand your concern about the 2 accesses, but on a

resident level, that is actually a benefit because you don’t have drive

through, and when I say that I live in Hunter’s Ridge and we only have one

access.

Mr. Kirchoff: I move that the Plan Commission certify the zone map amendment

request RZ-16-005 as filled by Keller Development, Inc. requesting rezoning

of approximately 8.82 acres at 3650 Clarks Creek Road from the GC General

Commercial District to the R-6 High Density Residential District with a

favorable recommendation subject to the following commitments being submitted

on exhibit A forms prior to certification to the Town Council. The property

shall be rezoned to R-6 subject to Keller Development, Inc. being awarded tax

credits needed for the development and the closing on the property being

completed by September 2017. If the Plainfield Town Council votes to rezone

from GC to R-6 the rezoning would provide that in the event the either the

tax credits are not awarded to the development by March 2017 or the closing

of a purchase on the property does not occur by September 2017 the zoning on

the property will automatically revert to GC General Commercial district by

April 1, 2017 regarding the tax credits and by October 1, 2017 regarding the

purchase of the property.

2. Commitment number 2 is the rezoning is for an age restricted

apartment complex only.

Mr. McPhail: Second.

Mr. Gibbs: We have a motion and a second, Mr. Klinger would you poll the

board?


Mr. Brandgard- yes

Mr. Smith- yes

Mr. Kirchoff- yes

Mr. Bahr- yes

Mr. Gibbs- yes

RZ-16-005 is approved.

Mr. Kirchoff: Mr. Chairman I move that the Plan Commission approve DP-16-

018, as filed by Keller Development, Inc. requesting architecture and site

design approval for a 64 unit, age restricted apartment complex at 3650

Clarks Creek Road finding that:


Standards of the District in which the site is located.


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.



And that such approval shall be subject to the following condition:

1. Substantial compliance with site plan, building elevations, colored renderings, landscaping plan, trash enclosure plan, sign plan and

lighting plan file dated August 24, 2016.

Mr. Smith: Second.

Mr. Gibbs: Motion and a second, Mr. Klinger would you poll the board?


Mr. Brandgard- yes

Mr. Smith- yes

Mr. Kirchoff- yes

Mr. Bahr- yes

Mr. Gibbs- yes

DP-16-018 is approved 6-0.

Mr. Banning: Thank you very much.

Mr. Gibbs: Now we will move onto the next item which is RZ-16-006 and PP-16-

003.

Mr. James: We have another docket for several motions, this one actually has

3 separate motions. The first one is to modify a zoning commitment regarding

the dedication of right of way for the proposed Klondike Road. The site was

rezoned with commitment of a half foot right of way of 35 feet would be

dedicated down the west perimeter. There is a ditch at the southwest corner

of the property that could turn the way the proposed Klondike Road alignment

would be and where the right of way should be dedicated. Then there is a

primary plat, the view of a primary plat to subdivide 90.95 acres to create 2

industrial lots. Adequate provisions have been made for access utilities and

drainage. A traffic study was done to develop an access plan and a memo was

provided to you yesterday with staff recommendations based on the analysis of

the study and that is the memo that I just passed out to you. Then the final

petition is review of a development plan for a proposed, it is actually

892,620 square foot warehouse distribution building to be built on lot one,

on 48.3 acres. The site was rezoned with commitments, the commitment plans

had to comply with gateway corridor development standards and also they had

to do a south buffer yard. The commitment was made with the rezone to

provide screening from Medallion Meadows, they also need to use the depth of

yard incentive for the north and west perimeters and also the loading dock

orientation development incentive for the west perimeter because those docks

will eventually be facing Klondike Road someday. So here is the site, 90.95

acres. Here is Ronald Reagan Parkway, County Road 200 South, here is

Medallion Meadows and the county, then this is all zoned I-2, except this was

zoned GC but they have acquired this property and they are going to use that

for their drainage plan, then down here is US 40 and then over here is Adesa,

that is the Regal building. The new comprehensive plan, the transportation

plan does show a potential collector from 200 South on the west perimeter of

the property and just east of Adesa and that way this road can utilize the

existing traffic signal from US 40. Here is the site plan, building 1,

892,000 square feet, 200 South, Ronald Reagan, then this would be the

Klondike Road that could be built someday, but they would have to go ahead

and build this portion right here in order to occupy the building and then

they would use the existing intersection on Ronald Reagan and take a road


interior access drive over from that to this site. Here is the colored

version it shows how they will bring the interior access drive over and build

this right here to serve the building. Rendering of one of the corners of

the building with the offices in the corner and yellow basins, DRC

recommended approval as submitted. Landscaping plan, this is the north so

this would be 200 South. They had to do a level 2 here, and level 6 here,

then they required a level 5 down here with an 8-10’ berm that was required

because of the rezone commitment. Photometric plan complies, the light

fixtures comply. We wanted to make sure there would be no light spillage

across the property line so it would not impact the Medallion Meadows

residents. This is the primary plat conceptual plan, two lots, lot 1 and lot

2. Drainage, this would be dry detention and that would be wet retention

pond. They would do an additional pond here at some point. This would be

the utility plan, utilities are in place to serve the site. DRC supported

the plans with conditions that the trailer parking not be allowed at the east

perimeter until the second building is built. Is this a valid condition?

What if the second building is not built? To ensure proper screening of

loading docks and trailer parking from the Ronald Reagan Parkway if the

second building is not built the petitioner could bond for the perimeter

landscaping required for the loading dock develop incentive as a condition of

approval. Plans comply with commitments in the gateway standards, adequate

provisions have been made for access drainage and utilities. Are there any

concerns regarding the modifications of the commitments and dedication of the

Klondike right of way? I have also passed out some revised language

regarding that modification of that zoning commitment. Are there any

concerns regarding the access plan and the staff recommendations based on the

traffic study? Plans should be approved with a condition, a memorandum of

understanding is executed with Town Council regarding the cost maturing of

improvements needed for this project being developed. With that I will have

a seat and representatives are here to answer your questions.

Mr. Gibbs: Any questions for Joe at this time? Would the petitioner like to

come forward?

Mr. Churchill: Good evening, we appreciate the opportunity to be here. My

name is Andrew Churchill with JRA Architecture, offices at 7222 N. Shadeland

Avenue, Indianapolis. This has been a project we have been working on for

several years and we glad to be coming before the Commission. The Ambrose

intend to start construction on this project this fall. So we have our

engineering plans in also, so we are ready to make something happen here.

Joe presented, we have our docks oriented away from the neighboring

developments. Joe raised the point that the DRC had concerns of potential

trailers storage along the east side of the docks. We are showing that as

future, I did check the dimension on that kind of from the halfway point

along Ronald Reagan. That is over 1100 feet away so it is nearly a quarter

of a mile from the west edge of Ronald Reagan to where the trailer storage

would occur, so I think that should be a consideration in the near thought

process, I don’t think they’ll be very prominent but landscaping would be one

way to address that. There has been a lot of effort by staff working on this

and analyzing the traffic impacts and I think we have come to a good

understanding on that. Ambrose is willing to commit to making future

modifications with Town deems necessarily along Ronald Reagan there.

Mr. McPhail: I think the concern we have is that funnel access is too close

to that Main Street at US 40.

Mr. Churchill: Right.


Mr. McPhail: Long term if that gets heavy traffic we’ve got a problem there,

so do they have some long term plans to move that north?

Mr. Churchill: That is in the report, at the time that building 2 goes in

that full access point and its location would be a consideration and being

looked at again as part of that development plan. The other thing that is

acceptable to Ambrose, if it becomes a problem there, is closing off that

full access point of where it is shown now and making that right in right out

only so that would be another approach there. And then with the proposed

extension of Klondike Road there we expect that that would be a good reliever

for a lot of that traffic.

Mr. Smith: I wasn’t quite sure which of these maps is the current one. The

one in the screen shows your full access road dipping to the south of the

pond area and the one in the booklet shows it north of the pond.

Mr. Churchill: Yes that sketch plan 1 is actually part of the ordinance for

doing the development incentives, since we had the orientation of loading

docks development incentive so that is something that we are definitely not

going to do because that just has docks on one side. But we are showing what

a fully compliant plan that didn’t have docks facing Klondike Road would look

like.

Mr. Smith: So this is out of date.

Mr. Churchill: So that is out of date and we didn’t bother to update the

loop road at the south because we are not going to do that one anyway. The

colored site plan is the direction we are going.

Mr. Smith: Can you get along without the full access road since you could

have 1 or possibly 2 entrances off of 200.

Mr. Churchill: I think based on the traffic studies we’ve done and typically

until Klondike Road goes in, I think it is the consensus that the full access

there may actually help the operation of the facility and Scott or Tim may

want to address that, but I think it will become less important as Klondike

Road goes in and that is something that is under our active discussion to

make that happen fairly quickly.

Mr. Gibbs: Does the Board have any other questions at this time?

Mr. Churchill: I think one thing that was also noted in the staff report was

the traffic, I think that left turn movement on Ronald Reagan would have to

increase something like 15 times over what the volume, there is a pretty good

buffer, it is not like a close call, relocating that full access will

certainly be considered if needed.

Mr. Smith: Would you create a left turn lane for the northbound Ronald

Reagan to turn west into your drive, you would create a left hand turn lane

there?

Mr. Churchill: Yes.

Mr. Smith: Any idea how long that would be, how many trucks you could stack

in that? 100’ that is like 2 trucks?


Mr. Churchill: It is kind of the minimal. There is a little bit of

balancing on that if we make it too long it starts to, you know now there is

room to extend the left turn lane southbound onto US 40. I guess the other

thing with the idea that might become right in and right out there is the

question of how much do you want to put in now and have to move in a couple

of years maybe.

Mr. Gibbs: Thank you. At this time I will open it up for the public for

anyone in the audience in favor or opposing this petition to address the

board.

Mr. Miller: Good evening my name is Mike Miller and I live at 10246 Bradbury

Drive. First of all I am very much opposed to that access road because that

is going to put traffic 65’ right there behind my house, all day long and all

night long. So I would like for you all certainly reconsider allowing it to

be where they are proposing it to be and it is going to certainly a real

headache on Ronald Reagan, I am on that road every day and it is a headache

already. That access road where it is proposed there is going right behind

all of our houses and the majority of us that live there are senior citizens

and we certainly do like our peace and quiet and we are not going to have it

anymore with all of this traffic back there. I can sympathize with the

gentleman that was sitting here that left, I hope it doesn’t ever get to that

extent, but we do need some peace and quiet there and this is not going to be

helping that. Talking about putting in a 8-10’ berm, I would encourage that

to be increased to at least a 12’ berm so that it would cut out some of the

noise from the trucks and the lights from over there, that would greatly

help. The other concern I have is the possibility of putting a security

fence up because we are going to have employees from that warehouse on their

lunchbreak they are going to decide they want to go over to Speedway and get

them something to eat or drink and they are going to cut right through our

property, so I would encourage you to have them put up a high security fence

to block that. That is basically all I have, thank you.

Ms. VanHorn: Well it has been a long process. I was in a lot of these

zoning meetings. I am Zaina VanHorn and I am at 10160 Bradbury Drive. Since

we started the zoning I think there was a concern that we are putting a high

industrial area right next to a residential which is not the norm, but

because they didn’t feel they could use the land for anything else we ended

up passing the zoning putting that right next to the full length of our

residential land. At the time I know it was not the Plan Commission but

there were drawings of what could be done and how we could be compensated

because we were having this high usage area put in right next to us. It was

not like this, that road has got to go. 200 South is already pretty much

dedicated for truck traffic because you have warehouses half way down there

and there is no need to bring those trucks right in behind us like that. I

do leave every morning out Bradbury to Ronald Reagan and the traffic backs up

way past that and they are very kind to let us out of there or otherwise we

would never even get out in the morning. So that to me the road cutting down

like that is, first of all the warehouse is huge, I mean there is warehouses

smaller than that and then to put that road right down there, not only the

noise the exhaust from those trucks and I know that those kind of trucks you

can’t turn them off especially in cold weather so they are going to leave

them idle, so the closer they are going to be sitting down there and probably

instead of parking on 200 South, they will be parked all along that road

maybe to pick up or discharge their loads. I just think that is not

acceptable. I think we deserve to have some compensation for the fact that

has been put right next to residential. If it weren’t right next to


residential maybe you could even just follow the rules, but because it is

next to residential I think our quality of life deserves some compensation

for that. The berm I am against a high berm for one issue because if you

look in the area there is a berm between Adesa and the end of our

neighborhood, the west end it is whatever trees they may have put if they did

have died and it is all weeds and thistle and there is another high berm

between the warehouse if you go down 200 South there is a Temperpedic

Warehouse there then next to that is a subdivision, there is a high berm

there that is all weeds. So obviously there is no intent to keep those

berms. Even from our side how could I mow it, I can’t even mow it. If it is

tall it has to be wide. I have seen some that are tall over by Metropolis,

they are a little bit tall but they are very wide. Because trees when you

put them that far away from the ground water they don’t live. What grows in

there is invasive species like thistle that can have their long roots get

down and even the natural grasses are not that good at growing in there. So

high berms pose a whole different problem, who is going to keep that up,

because I think the rules say landscaping levels so and so, so if you come

back in another year and a half and it is all weeds what is our recourse to

that? I do agree we all worry about the traffic that will be coming to the

Speedway and other gas stations from the warehouse because we have dealt with

the traffic just coming in off of Washington with the parking problem, all

those no parking signs that you invested in and people have always parked, it

has gotten much better. People just need to get out and mostly for food not

for gas. I think even putting this on Ronald Reagan that in and out there, it

is just a bad idea, it is just too close and as I said the traffic already

backs up past there in the mornings and I just cannot accept that those

trucks are going to come right behind our houses. I mean look at all of that

land to the north that is just not needed. I can’t see where that would be

justified at all, thank you.

Ms. Thompson: I am Doris Thompson and I live at 10233 Bradbury Drive. To

put this project in some terms that you men will understand, I did some math

with the square footage that is proposed for this one warehouse that is the

equivalent of 4 football fields long by 2 ½ football fields deep if that

gives you a picture of what you are proposing and that is just half, then

you’ve got the other half of that property that you are proposing and then it

will eventually hold another warehouse of at least that size possibly even

bigger. That is what we are facing. Right now as it has already been stated

you go down Bradbury to get on Reagan in the morning during rush hour traffic

will back up clear up to 200 South that is without that additional semi-

truck. So if you add all of those semi’s coming in as they are loaded the

warehouse the employees will probably start their heavy loading around 7, so

those trucks will start moving out around 8 so the traffic will be backed up

there. As you mentioned during one of the other proposals tonight where you

needed to have 2 exits that one will be blocked off so we can’t get out that,

if there is an accident out on Main Street or US 40, as what happened one

night you can’t get in legally off of Reagan because that is a right out turn

only. There was an accident right there at the corner of Haliburton and Main

Street blocking that off, so people can’t get in and people can’t get out of

our neighborhood. What is the emergency vehicle supposed to do? This is

some of the issues that we are facing as already mentioned the berm issue 8-

10 feet is nothing for a semi for the noise and you are proposing that right

behind the houses. Would you want to live there? When we moved in this was

a cornfield, think of how many people cannot be fed with the crops that are

not going to be grown there anymore. There are all kinds of reasons why this

is a bad idea to put warehouses in there. I know you all have already made

up your minds that this is what is going in, but these are the issues that we


are facing, loss of our peace and quiet, loss of convenience of access to our

property, decreasing property values and as soon as it is made public of what

you are proposing here none of us will be able to sell our houses, so here we

are stuck. I hope you will listen to us as we reiterate all of these issues

because they are major issues, it is not something you just sweep under the

rug and say we don’t have to live there what does it matter it is going to

mean a few extra dollars of tax income for the city. I hope you will

consider it, thank you.

Mr. Gibbs: If there are no more people from the public, I will close the

public portion of the meeting and open it back up for the petitioner to

address any of these concerns by the public.

Mr. Bade: Good evening I am Aasif Bade with Ambrose Property Group, Monument

Circle, Suite, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204. Thank you for seeing us this

evening. As you all know we are not petitioning for a rezone this evening.

This property was rezoned in 2011 through 2014 during multiple sessions. The

65’ buffer yard along the south side of our property was heavily negotiated.

We did not own the property at the time and we bought it subsequently after

the rezone had been complete. We hear all of the concerns and I think as Tim

and Scott and Joe can attest too, our group has painstakingly worked in good

faith as we always do to meet and look at this from a variety of angles and

thought through the transportation plan and thought about as Mr. McPhail

referred to you have potential to move the Ronald Reagan entry to the north

whether it is 5 years down the road or it is 20, we try to accommodate all of

those potential changes for the long term and we are willing to work with the

Town on the construction of Klondike Road all the way down to the south side

of our property line once we work out an MOU and right of way acquisition

from Adesa. We are willing to work with the Town, Scott as he has detailed

in his memo about transportation and we are willing to work with the Town on

access to that south road which is really a driveway. So retail traffic from

Speedway and that area can access that road and get out safely on Ronald

Reagan, and then lastly I would just say as you guys know in our business we

are focused on efficient and proper logistics, so it is in our best interest

that traffic moves efficiently throughout this site and surrounding

thoroughfares so we are committed to working together during the development

process and to makes sure that happens. I am happy to address any other

questions that you may have.

Mr. Bade: I think the one specific concern that maybe we haven’t addressed

with staff and I am happy to offer this, a lot of facilities as you know are

completely fenced for security reasons for the warehouse, so to the extent

that that is something that the neighbors feel they would prefer, I think we

can commit to doing that along the southern edge of our property line at this

time.

Mr. Gibbs: Any other discussion from the board?

Mr. McPhail: I don’t have any questions, I have a couple of comments. We

have heard some concern about the noise with the roadway and the berm and

those types of things. The berm will have some noise deafening that will

help some with berm there and I understand their concern but in my mind they

are not going to get any more noise for the trucks driving in there than for

the trucks driving around in service in the building. There are going to be

trucks in there whether they come in the south end or the north end they are

still going to be around the building. So the more berm, buffering, and

landscaping we got in there that is going to help the noise than where the


road is located as far as I am concerned. I see this drainage plan and it

doesn’t look like there is a very wet detention pond there on far east side

and I guess this is a comment for the Plan Commission and all of our

developers, I think we need to be looking in the future to consider

underground storage instead of wet ponds. I know that is more expensive but

I think as a community and developers we should really start looking at that

and see if there is some way to make that work. We could get better use of

the land and that type of thing.

Mr. Kirchoff: Kent you know notice the larger of two is a future pond it is

not part of phase 1.

Mr. McPhail: Yes I see that, yes. Because there is a temporary and then a

wet one, right?

Mr. Bahr: When we talk I heard a couple of things when we talked about

berms, I know firsthand that they reduce noise, but I am not an engineer and

I think one gentleman mentioned it 8 to 12 feet and I guess the question I

have for a smart person would be the impact of that change. Then the other

question that I have is there was talk about the berm not being maintained

and the weeds not being that nature. What ordinance for the owners to

maintain those berms?

Mr. James: The landscaping ordinance requires you to replace dead or missing

landscaping annually. We do have a high grass and weed ordinance so if we

get a complaint we can send someone out there and if it is a violation we can

send them a notice, so we haven’t had any calls on the site next to Westmere

but we can certainly take a look at it.

Mr. McPhail: I might make one more comment, you know Town Council has put in

a great deal of effort trying to get an additional access out of this

neighborhood with the Klondike Road and that is certainly top priority with

us, you know this project should help us move this right along. We

understand your concern about getting in and out of your neighborhood and we

think we can solve that by giving an exit out of your subdivision to the west

and get to a traffic light there at Adesa and we are making every effort to

get that done as quickly as possible and I think that commitment was made to

the community when we were working on Ronald Reagan intersection down there.

It also if we get that completed it give you another roadway to go north.

Mr. Smith: I am kind of in the same vein that Kent made a small statement

there. I guess I would say I hear what the neighbors concern is with that

road being so close to them and I wish there was something that could be done

to move that to the north, not only for them but for the potential

interaction with Main Street area, and if there is ever the opportunity to do

that it needs to be done. On the flip side this project, there is a whole

regional project going on here, it is all interconnected and I think this is

important as Kent said to help create the Klondike Road which will directly

benefit the folks in Medallion Meadows. Give you a whole new road and an

exit to the east.

Mr. Bahr: Joe do we know, and I am going back to the buffer piece of it, I

definitely respect the residents’ concerns. What is the impact of going 2

more feet? And the reason I ask, it is sort of like I don’t want to end up

and impose something upon the developer which doesn’t have the impact as far

as the noise is concerned, I need educated there.


Mr. James: I can’t tell you what raising a berm 2 feet does as far as

reducing noise decibels and things like that but we do have standards for

berms, they have to maintain a 2 foot crown and the side slope can’t be

greater than 3 to 1 and with only 65’ to work with I don’t know if they will

still be able to meet those standards if they go to 12’.

Mr. Smith: Would the fence be on the inside of the berm not out towards the

neighbors but on the inside of the property?

Mr. Bade: Well you probably already know this I’m not an engineer so candid

answers I don’t know. I think we would do what is most appropriate and my

strong suspicion would be on the inside of the berm, meaning it would be

north of the berm. With respect to the berm, I think our zoning commitment

on this land again it was zoned prior to our acquisition required an 8-10’

berm and we proposed the high end of that with a 10’. So to the extent I

think the engineering could work in the 65’ area.

Mr. James: The berm will be on their property so it is up to them to mow it

and maintain it.

Mr. McPhail: And they will.

Mr. Gibbs: Any further questions by the Board?

Mr. McPhail: I would refer to Mel, it appears to me that the language at the

bottom of page 5 of 6 covers the realignment of the road, is that sufficient

isn’t it?

Mr. Daniel: I believe it is.

Mr. Klinger: Mel is that a matter than needs to be addressed tonight or can

that just be incorporated in the memorandum of understanding?

Mr. Daniel: Either one.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would move that the Plan Commission approve PP-

16-003 as filed by Ambrose Plainfield Industrial, LLC requesting approval of

a Primary Plat for an industrial subdivision of 90.95 acres creating two lots

finding that:

1. Adequate provisions have been made for regulation of minimum lot

width, minimum lot depth and minimum lot area;

2. Adequate provisions have been made for the widths, grades, curves and coordination of subdivision public ways with current and planned

public ways; and

3. Adequate provisions have been made for the extension of water,

sewer, and other municipal services,

and such approval shall be subject to the following conditions:

1. Compliance with the Town Standards, including but not limited to: Plainfield Ordinance 1-96 regarding Floodplain Management;

Plainfield Ordinance Nos. 4-94 and 3-86 regarding Sewage Works;

Plainfield Ordinance No. 17-97 regarding Drainage; Plainfield

Ordinance No. 19-97 regarding Municipal Waterworks; and Plainfield

Ordinance No. 18-97 regarding Access Permits.


2. Compliance with the standards and specifications of the Plainfield Subdivision Control Ordinance of which waivers have not been

granted.

3. Compliance with the Primary Plat submitted file date August 26,

2016.

4. Approval of a final detailed drainage plan by the Plainfield Town Engineer.

5. Approval of a final drainage plan by the Hendricks County Drainage Board for aspects of the plan that are within drainage board

jurisdiction.

6. Approval of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Town Council and Developer related to cost sharing on infrastructure associated

with the approved plan.


Mr. Gibbs: We have a motion and a second. Mr. Klinger would you poll the

board?


Mr. Brandgard- yes

Mr. Smith- yes

Mr. Kirchoff- yes

Mr. Bahr- yes

Mr. Gibbs- yes

PP-16-003 is approved 6-0.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Plan Commission approve the

Modification of Zoning Commitments request RZ-16-006 as filed by Ambrose

Plainfield Industrial, LLC requesting to modify Zoning Commitments made with

rezone petition Rz-13-006 so that right of way to be dedicated for the future

6construction of Klondike Rd. shall be adjusted based on the final road

alignment subject to the following commitments being submitted to Staff on

Exhibit B forms prior to being recorded in the Hendricks County Recorder’s

Office:

1. The amount of right of way to be dedicated for the future Klondike Rd. may be adjusted based on the final road alignment.


Mr. Gibbs: I have a motion and second on RZ-16-006 Mr. Klinger would you

poll the board?


Mr. Brandgard- yes

Mr. Smith- yes

Mr. Kirchoff- yes

Mr. Bahr- yes


Mr. Gibbs- yes

RZ-16-006 is approved 6-0.

Mr. Smith: I also move that the Plan Commission approve DP-16-019, as filed

by Ambrose Plainfield Industrial, LLC for a development plan for a proposed

892,623 sf warehouse/distribution building on 48.3 acres finding that:


Standards of the District in which the site is located.


granted.


Architectural and Site Design Review for which a wavier has not been

granted.


surroundings.


And that such approval shall be subject to the following condition.

1. Substantial compliance with site plan, building elevations, colored renderings, landscaping plan and lighting plan filed dated August

19, 2016.

Mr. McPhail: Second.

Mr. Gibbs: I have a motion and a second on DP-16-019, Mr. Klinger would you

poll the board?


Mr. Brandgard- yes

Mr. Smith- yes

Mr. Kirchoff- yes

Mr. Bahr- yes

Mr. Gibbs- yes


Mr. Gibbs: Next item on the agenda is DP-16-016.

Mr. Berg: This is architectural and site design review for an office

warehouse distribution building located on 27.34 acre parcel zoned I-2 in the

gateway corridor, approximate location is 2155 Stafford Road. For all of the

site views here to the north would be screened. Stafford, Edwards Drive,

Stanley, Quaker Boulevard, I think I got you the idea of where we are at.

You can see it to the east and you can see it to the west for all of the site

views here to the north will be screened left. Structure will be located in

a large end of an eastern part of a parcel, 2 points of ingress/egress off of

Stafford here and here. There is no trail sidewalk connection since there is

not a sidewalk to connect. Loading docks will be on the east and west sides.

Parking for a site this size 177 spaces are required, 219 are provided. ADA

compliant parking 6 are required, 10 are provided so they are in compliance


there. Landscaping plan is in compliance and they met the requirements for

parking island, perimeter lots, screening and in some areas they have gone

over that. Foundation planning and the lots. I’m just going to point out,

Bruce, I am sure you remember the point of concern. At DRC was beefing up

landscaping for this west side and notice that they filled this area in here

with various species of pine. They have listened to the DRC on that and have

beefed that up. Photometric plan it does comply, this is the type of parking

lot light we are going to have, flat lens in compliance, wall packs.

Elevation, DRC had made some comment that they would like to see some more

vertical elements in these areas to try to break up the façade a little bit,

they have complied with that and they have complied with that and added the

vertical elements on both the east and west side. Line of site view is in

compliance from both Stafford and Edwards Drive. DRC, they requested new

paint schemes with increased vertical elements to break up the façade that

has been done. Considering increasing the west perimeter landscaping to

provide more screening that has been done. With a building like this we

always ask is there design elements to break up the mass? DRC made some

suggestions which were followed. As a speculative building we don’t know how

they are going to handle things such as trash enclosures, trash compactors,

mechanical equipment, those are things that will be reviewed through the ILP

process to insure that they are in compliance. I know Ryan is just chomping

at the bit to come up here so I will turn it over to him.

Mr. Lindley: Good evening, Ryan Lindley with Banning Engineering, 853

Columbia Road, Plainfield, Indiana. Eric did a fantastic job I believe you

addressed DRC comments and I am happy to entertain any questions you have.

Mr. Gibbs: Looks like there are no questions at this time. At this point I

will open it up for the public those in favor or opposing this petition. If

not I close the public portion of the meeting and open it back up for the

board for further discussion or a motion.

Mr. McPhail: I guess just for a quick point of discussion, I believe this is

the first project we have seen in Plainfield from Becknell. I don’t know if

you might want to tell us a little bit about you.

Mr. Levin: Terry Levin with Becknell Industrial, 4242 South 1st Avenue,

Lions, Illinois 60534. Becknell has been around, we started out of Champagne

in late 80’s early 90’s. We are a national industrial warehouse developer,

we are just starting to make our show in Indy area. We currently just

completed our 4th building in Indy Proper. We have 2 buildings up in

Whitestown, we’ve done spec, we did all 3 spec and 1 build to suit in

Indianapolis and we have had them completely full and leased out before

completion of construction. So our product type is proving beneficial to the

area. We like to do infill, we don’t do very large warehouses, this is one

of the 2 or 3 of the largest facilities in our portfolio, we usually stick in

the 150,000-200,000 square foot range we like to serve the medium light

distribution type facilities. We have about 140 buildings about 13-14

million square feet, 34 states across the country. So we are starting to

sprout around the perimeter area. Now we have some property we are taking

down in the Greenfield area, we have 40 acres and we are looking to do a

small development and we have a build to suit under construction over there.

We have additional land in Whitestown for 2 additional potential spec or

build to suit facilities and then this is our first 4A in the Plainfield area

to sort of join in the other industrial giants that are surrounding us

already.


Mr. McPhail: Thank you very much.

Mr. Smith: I will add that they were quickly responsive to the 2 or 3

concerns that came up at the DRC, so we appreciate that.

Mr. Klinger: I have a questions Joe, condition number 3 in the motion

regards the entrance of potential future entrance off of Edwards Drive, as I

recall in our early discussions on that was going to be limited to car

traffic and not truck traffic, do we want to specify something to that regard

here.

Mr. James: Yes I believe that is correct, limited to auto traffic.

Mr. Klinger: Do we need to specify something within that.

Mr. Levin: Since the DRC meeting we have actually established communication

with the owner to the south, we have with Banning’s help prepared a

preliminary easement exhibit and we have made initial legal contact to submit

that through them for review. As of right now we don’t have feedback but

initial discussions are proving promising. So until you mentioned there is

nothing formally on the plan as we are waiting to see what the outcome of hat

final negotiation is. If it proves beneficial then our intent would look to

modify and add that as an adjustment. As you made note that would be for car

access only and it would be through their existing car drive that is already

has a height restriction bar over it and it would be through the northern

portion of the existing facility and we would extend off into our property.

Mr. Smith: Not the whole street.

Mr. Levin: No it would use as an existing curb cut and it would just be

access onto Edwards Drive.

Mr. Brandgard: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Plan Commission approve DP-16-

016 as filed by Becknell Services requesting Architectural and Site Design

approval for a 336,000 square foot flex/warehouse/distribution center on a

27.34 acre parcel zoned I-2 within a Gateway Corridor:


Standards of District in which the site is located.


granted.


Architectural and Site Design Review for which a waiver has not been

granted.


surroundings.


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


1. Substantial compliance with the site plan, building elevations,

photometric plan, and landscape plan, and line of sight illustration

dated August 19, 2016.

2. An external trash enclosure or compactor, if needed shall be

reviewed with an Improvement Location Permit (ILP).

3. Petitioner shall continue reasonable efforts to secure an access

easement with the property to the south to allow for a third

entrance that being from Edwards Drive to be limited to car traffic

only.

Mr. Kirchoff: Second.

Mr. Gibbs: Motion and a second, Mr. Klinger would you poll the board?


Mr. Brandgard- yes

Mr. Smith- yes

Mr. Kirchoff- yes

Mr. Bahr- yes

Mr. Gibbs- yes


Mr. Kirchoff: Joe before we go to the next one is it my understanding that

the 2 projects that we approved tonight now puts us over 40 million square

foot?

Mr. James: Yes it does.

Mr. Gibbs: Next on the agenda DP-16-017, Home Bank.

Mr. Berg: Good evening again, what I handed out is just a minor modification

that shows the mechanical screening. Other than that it is the same drawings

as what you have in your packet. Ok, this for final detail plan approval for

7,400 square foot bank office building on 1.4 acres zoned Saratoga planned

unit development within a gateway corridor. It is here within the yellowish

box. The structure is located right here. Structure is located right here,

parcel access ingress/egress from the east/west private street and the north/

south private street, no access is proposed off US 40. Trail and sidewalk

connection from the building to the sidewalk, along Main with a demarcated

cross walk across the drive on. There is adequate stacking, parking had to

be reconfigured to an angle parking in order to provide for a bail out lane,

so that is in compliance. So this will have to be one-way going west bound.

They are required to have 29 spaces by code, they have 42 and they are

hitting the mark on ADA compliance. Landscaping plan, parking islands, they

have 3. Primary lot screening is in compliance of a 1. Parking lot

screening here and here does comply. Photometric plan is in compliance.

Parking lot lighting, wall packs and these will be under canopy. It is tough

to see on this and having one of these near me it is actually tough to see it

in real life, they are right here you can see in the little picture. The

light comes down but you do not see the element from nearby roads.

Elevations they are requesting a waiver for this wood structure on the

canopy. Elevation view showing the wood canopy and you can see the edges of

this and you can see that they carry that wood canopy theme throughout the

interior of the building as well. Trash enclosure is in compliance and using

the same brick as the primary structure. This is the mechanical screening


for the HVAC. Design review committee supported the waiver, they approved

the elevations, and it is 100% masonry. They did request to review the HVAC

and sign plan when completed. They recommended, that mention of waiver is

required for the wood part of the canopy, as the time of the staff report we

did not have the screening information of the HVAC which is now in front of

you right now.

Mr. Gibbs: Would the petitioner like to address the board?

Mr. Butler: My name is Mark Butler with Banning Engineering I am a new face

with Banning. Once again this Home Bank we have complied with all of the DRC

comments and I would just keep this short and I would like to turn this over

to Brian Turley, I also have Ed Edwards here representing Home Bank and Brian

is going to talk about Home Bank and what they are all about.

Mr. Turley: Good evening I am Brian Turley and I work with Ed, at Edwards

Construction Company and we are located 105 Commerce Drive in Danville. As

Mark said I have Ed Edwards with Home Bank with me here. I wanted to just

tell you we appreciate very much being heard on this this evening. Home Bank

is very excited about being able to join the community here in Plainfield.

You will learn that they are very involved community members as most banking

institutions are but I will tell I know firsthand that they with their branch

in Martinsville and new branch in Greenwood have really made a big impact in

those communities down there and I think you will find the same thing with

them. They have been around for a long time, they haven’t changed names and

they have been around since 1890, something almost unheard of in the banking

world for sure. With that said I just wanted to offer that along and we are

ready for any questions you might have.

Mr. Gibbs: Any questions at this time? With this being a public meeting I

will open it up for the anyone in the public that wants to speak in favor or

opposing this petition. I will close the public portion of the meeting and

open it up for the Board for further discussion or I will entertain a motion.

Mr. Smith: There is only one observation that came that I recall

specifically from DRC and that is with all the wood that they say they have

on their other branches used the same design, this is not the first time that

they have built this style. They can treat and stain that wood in a way so

that it stays fresh looking and it doesn’t deteriorate with weather.

Mr. McPhail: It is really a nice architectural feature if they take care of

it.

Mr. Kirchoff: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Plan Commission approve DP-16-

017 as filed by Home Bank requesting final detailed plan review for a 7,400

square foot bank and office building on a 1.4 acre parcel zoned Saratoga PUD

within a Gateway Corridor.

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

establishing such District.

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


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

Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.

And regarding a waiver for material types, the Plan Commission finds that:

1. The proposed development represents an innovative use of building

material and brick color which will enhance the use or value of area

properties.

2. The proposed development is consistent with and compatible with

other development located along the Gateway Corridor; and


And that such approval be subject to the following conditions:

1. Substantial compliance with the building elevations, colored

renderings, trash enclosure details, site plan, landscape plan,

signage plan, photometric plan, and lighting cut sheets submitted

file dated August 16, 2016.

2. HVAC screening details shall be provided to staff prior to the

issuance of an Improvement Location Permit (ILP).

Mr. Smith: Second.

Mr. Gibbs: I have a motion and a second, Mr. Klinger would you poll the

Board?


Mr. Brandgard- yes

Mr. Smith- yes

Mr. Kirchoff- yes

Mr. Bahr- yes

Mr. Gibbs- yes

Dp-16-017 is approved.

Mr. Gibbs: Next item, TA-16-001.

Mr. James: This is the proposed zoning ordinance amendment to allow roof

signs on top of warehouses. We discussed this month and you wanted me to

make a few changes, so I did make some changes. I moved it from an exempt

sign to Article 7.4 which would be a sign that would require a permit. Then

I also changed the size that had to say Plainfield, Indiana from 10% to 20%

and Eric, we’ve got a mock-up of what that might look like. The change was

added it had to be a flat non-reflective paint and it could not be

illuminated. So those are the changes I made based on the comments from last

month. Then for a permit, a price, the largest post sign would cost about

$700.00 and then a large billboard would cost $1,300.00. Billboard review by

staff costs $286.00 that is $4.55 cents on the square footage and a pole sign

would be about $1.16 per square foot. I’m not sure where you want to go on

the price of the permit.

Mr. Bahr: It cannot be illuminated?


Mr. James: It cannot be illuminated.

Mr. McPhail: Seems to me we would want to put a flat rate on it wouldn’t we?

Mr. Kirchoff: Yes because whether it is 500,000 or 6 or 800,000 just process

it at the same amount.

Mr. McPhail: What do you think staff time would be to review it?

Mr. James: About the same as a billboard, about $286.00.

Mr. McPhail: Well round that up to $300.00.

Mr. Brandgard: Why do we say it cannot be illuminated?

Mr. James: The airport.

Mr. Brandgard: Is that an airport restriction?

Mr. Kirchoff: It could be or it is?

Mr. James: It could be, I’m not sure.

Mr. Brandgard: To me with all the planes flying over I would want it

illuminated.

Mr. James: Andrew did you ever run this by the airport?

Mr. Klinger: Not specifically that question of it being illuminated. I did

approach the General Council for the Airport Authority with the general issue

and he never really got back to me. My concern over it being illuminated is

really just light pollution I guess.

Mr. Kirchoff: I think that would be a good question to resolve before we

finalize it.

Mr. Bahr: I think so because we talked about this last time. I just know

that there is restrictions.

Mr. Smith: There is one other concern about the light pollution now that you

mention it, that’s the Link observatory they could lose a piece of the sky

just from a gasoline station that is the nighttime sky can be obscured just

by a big station.

Mr. James: Also on that mark up, we eliminated the size to no more than 80%

of the roof.

Mr. Kirchoff: When you started about illumination and figure out how to do

it from the sides.

Mr. Klinger: I think it may not be as big of an issue as we think because

what is the cost associated with that? I mean it is worth looking into but I

think in the end he owners are probably going to say it is not worth

lightening up.

Mr. Gibbs: This represents that the developer would do it on a flat roof,

what if he would want to build a structure on top of the roof for signage.

Mr. James: It can only be on the flat roof.


Mr. Gibbs: So we restricted that in here?

Mr. James: Yes.

Mr. Gibbs: Make sure that is specified.

Mr. McPhail: Painted on a flat roof.

Mr. James: So we got the fee at 300. And we need to check with the airport

to see if it can be illuminated.

Mr. McPhail: I like the 20% this rendering gives us a good idea. 10 would

have been pretty small.

Mr. Gibbs: Does that conclude the public portion?

Mr. James: yes that concludes the public hearing portion.

OLD BUSINESS/NEW BUSINESS

Mr. James: Next item is the RDC Declaratory Resolution Regarding the

Klondike TIF District and Confirmatory with the Plainfield Comprehensive

Plan.

Mr. Daniel: It is a requirement for that TIF district.

Mr. Kirchoff: This is building on Kent’s comments on getting this road

built. This is critical.

Mr. Brandgard: If you are ready I will enter a motion. Mr. Chairman I would

move that we approve the order of the Plainfield Plan Commission determining

that a Declaratory Resolution approved and adopted by the Plainfield

Redevelopment Commission conformity comp plan and approving that resolution.

Mr. Kirchoff: Second.

Mr. Gibbs: I got a motion and a second, Mr. Klinger?


Mr. Brandgard- yes

Mr. Smith- yes

Mr. Kirchoff- yes

Mr. Bahr- yes

Mr. Gibbs- yes

Motion is approved.

Mr. James: This is the request to rename 200 South and 900E. Initiated by

tenants in AllPoints Midwest Industrial Park, road name change will help the

Economic Development in Hendricks County increase the assessed value of the

personal property tax.

Mr. Kirchoff: I don’t understand that part of it, but go ahead.

Mr. James: Hendricks County Communication Center makes a recommendation that

they wanted it to be from Dan Jones Road to Raceway Road and then 900 E they

wanted it from 100 S. down to Township Line Road. Properties affected I sent

out 4 notices in Plainfield and no one showed up. I sent out 15 for Avon and

I sent out 48 for Hendricks County. The street house numbers would not


change. We had a meeting in July and we met with Avon, Hendricks County, 9-

1-1, Plainfield and Danville Post Offices to discuss the plan. There was a

general consensus to move forward with the plan. Indiana code gives the Plan

Commission the authority to rename roads. If we make a motion tonight it

will be heard by the Avon Plan Commission September 26th and then Hendricks

County Commissioners September 27th. I have already paid a visit to these

Commissions and sort of introduced this to them back in August. So if

everybody supports this we will send out a notice and the effective date will

be at the beginning of the New Year.

Mr. Bahr: I understand that and I don’t know what goes in public record. I

am supportive of renaming it, but I don’t like the idea of using it promotes

Economic Development, because someone is going to have to convince me of that

one.

Mr. Klingler: I think the concept and the Browning folks, this has really

been by the tenants within Midpoints but I think the folks from Browning

would say it promotes the marketability of their sites along those roads.

Mr. Brandgard: The key of it is if you got a name that means you are in a

municipality, if you got a number that means you are out in the County

somewhere. It is easier to sell in town than something outside of the town.

Mr. Brandgard: I would move that

Mr. Smith: Second.

Mr. Gibbs: We have a motion and a second, all those in favor say aye,

opposed,

motion carries.

PLAN COMMISSION INVITEES- None Mr. Kirchoff: Any new news on the vinyl at Legacy Farms?

Mr. James: We sent out the letter to all of the developers letting them know

that they put the vinyl standards on the elevations when they submit them and

also on our residential sign guide checklist, we made a note that the vinyl’s

had to comply with our standards.

Mr. Kirchoff: I understand that, that is going forward. How about Legacy

Farms?

Mr. James: I haven’t followed up, we haven’t found out if the vinyl complies

or not.

Mr. Kirchoff: Do we know?

Mr. James: Yes.

Mr. Belcher: I will have one of my guys look into that for Joe.

Mr. Kirchoff: If it is not right we need to make them make it right.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Gibbs: All those in favor of adjournment.

plainfield plan commission september 8, 2016 7:00 p.m ... · plainfield plan commission 9-8-16 1...

Documents