Mr. Gibbs: I would like to call to order the Plainfield Plan Commission for May 2nd. Mr. Carlucci would you poll the board to determine a quorum.
ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM
Mr. Carlucci: Mr. Satterfield- here
Mr. McPhail- here
Mr. Brandgard- here
Mr. Duncan- here
Mr. Kirchoff- here
Mr. Gibbs- here
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- April 7, 2011
Mr. Gibbs: Everyone on the board has had an opportunity to review the minutes for April 7th, I will entertain a motion.
Mr. Kirchoff: I have three questions or potential changes. On page two in that large paragraph according to Mr. James I believe it should be a Vaughn Wamsley instead of Charlie shouldn't it? And on page five, that last paragraph quoting Mr. Brandgard, I believe that should say Joe just a quick comment before the thought gets away from me instead of the clock. Then on page fifteen, quoting Mr. Brandgard again, I believe the word we want is Plat instead of plaque, if it is in the covenants, having it on the plat is one way but most people don't see the plat, instead of plaque. Other than that I move that we approve as amended.
Mr. Gibbs: Any other corrections noted? If not I will need a second.
Mr. McPhail: Second.
Mr. Gibbs: I have a motion and a second, Mr. Carlucci would you please poll the board?
Mr. Carlucci: Mr. Satterfield- abstain
Mr. McPhail- yes
Mr. Brandgard- yes
Mr. Duncan- yes
Mr. Kirchoff- yes
Mr. Gibbs- yes
Motion to approve the minutes is approved.
OATH OF TESTIMONY
Mr. Gibbs: Anyone wishing to make a testimony or present to the board this evening will need to take an oath of testimony. Mr. Daniel will administer that.
Mr. Daniel conducted the oath of testimony.
Mr. Gibbs reviewed the rules and guidelines for public hearings.
PREVIOUSLY CONTINUED PETITIONS FOR PUBLIC HEARING
Mr. Gibbs: With that Mr. James, first item on the agenda is RZ-11-001.
Mr. James: Good evening, this petition was continued from the April meeting, I won't go over everything again I will just go over some points to refresh your memory. This is a request to rezone 6.7 acres and annex it into Plainfield from Hendricks County. It is currently zoned Ag-residential in Hendricks County; they are proposing to rezone it to I-2 office warehouse distribution for a proposed truck terminal maintenance facility. The address is 10017 East County Road 200 South. The comprehensive plan recommends mixed use office flex space for this area. Some surrounding zoning, the adjacent property to the west was rezoned from Ag to I-2 in 2006 and the property to the north was I-2 zoning and it was rezoned and annexed into Plainfield in 2006 and it is now the Allpoints Midwest Industrial Park. The property to the south was rezoned to C-I, that is commercial industrial with the Wamsley rezone in 2008 and the southwest of this site was the Adesa zoned general commercial in between this site and Ronald Reagan Parkway to the east there is about thirteen residential lots that are zoned Ag residential in Hendricks County. The comprehensive plan does recommend mixed use office flex space for this whole area and if the zoning is approved, they will have to get a special exception from the Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals to have the truck terminal maintenance facility. Here is the site, the 6.7 acres, there is 200 South, there's the Ronald Reagan Parkway. Over here we do have some residential homes between this site and the Ronald Reagan Parkway. Zoning to the north is I-2 as is the zoning to the west. This area that is not colored is still in Hendricks County and everything else that is in color is in Plainfield and then here is the C-I zoning which abuts the property to the south and then here is Adesa over here in the general commercial. There is a close up picture of the property, 6.7 acres it is a long rectangular piece and there is some substantial foliage on the property. There is the comprehensive plan; this is the site right in here. This is mixed use office flex space, this is recommended for I-2 and then here is our transportation plan which recommends that we add a collector downed the west property line of the property to go through Adesa and use the stop light for US40 to provide a better access for this area. Some comments and issues that were brought up at the April 7th meeting, how many trucks were going to be on the site per day will any stay all night? Will any of them be refrigerator trucks? Some potential impacts to the surrounding residential would be traffic safety, noise, light, dust, fumes, fuel storage, drainage, and etc. What is the appropriate buffering? The screening next to the residential and even though the developmental plan is not required for this site because it does not abut residential property that is in Plainfield, in the past Plainfield's policy has always to been to protect their neighbors property values by requiring the appropriate screening and buffering and also by making sure that they do a development plan and comply with the gateway corridors standards and then the last issue is how much right of way should be dedicated? So at the last meeting some of the neighbors did get up and expressed their concerns and we continued the hearing to allow time for the petitioner to work with the neighbors to work out some issues or maybe come up with some commitments to make this request more appealing. So here are the proposed commitments that the petitioner has come up with or what they are offering. Commercial industrial develop standards have a use with new development on the property, that means that they would have to do a development plan and come back to the Plan Commission to comply with the commercial gateway corridor standards. They are proposing a fifty foot setback next to the residential portion on the east property line. Then beyond the residential portion, it would go to a twenty-two foot setback until such a time that the adjoining use is not residential and it's a more compatible commercial or industrial use then it would go to the ten foot setback minimum. With the development the landowner shall install a six foot tall privacy fence along the east portion of the property line to help screen the proposed use from the existing residential and then with new development that the landowner shall install a minimum of ten trees along the fifty foot setback along the residential and then they would commit that there would be no more than twenty trailers on the property at any given time. The proposed 6,000 square foot maintenance building would have at least a three hundred foot setback from County Road 200 South, so this would put it pretty deep into the lot and away from the existing residential. Landowner shall grant a minimum of thirty feet of right of way for the plan collector on the west property line. Then the last commitment is substantial compliance with the conceptual site plan that has been provided and I believe you have in your packet. So here is the conceptual site plan, it would have at least a sixty foot setback over here and then at least thirty feet of right of way would come off of this setback. Here is the proposed building it would be at least three hundred feet back from 300 South and it would comply with the sixty foot setback and then along each property line they would have a fifty foot buffer yard and setback along the residential portion and then it would go to twenty-five feet on the rest of the property until such time the use and zoning switch to commercial or industrial over here then it would go to a standard ten foot setback. After seeing the proposed commitments through the proposed commitments and conceptual site plan resolve all of the issues that were brought up at the last meeting. So with that, I will have a seat.
Mr. Brandgard: Joe before you do that will you go back two slides. There shall be no more than twenty trailers, I thought they were tractors?
Mr. James: Should that be tractor trailers?
Mr. Brandgard: You are going to have both? Ok, I thought last month we were talking about how many trailers per tractors.
Mr. Gibbs: Would the petitioner like to address the board?
Mr. Comer: Ben Comer, 71 West Marion Street, Danville. Good evening, I will save you from going through it all again since we did that a month ago. I know you received the updated staff report and what we have worked on in the interim as far as commitments and the conceptual plan, and to answer the question Mr. Brandgard is there can and would be both. The trailers will very likely be hooked up to the tractor as they pull in; they park the trailer, unhook and then drive the truck itself into the maintenance facility at that point and time. So I am not sure what happened with that wording but the intent is twenty tractor trailers and we will make sure if this passes that that wording gets corrected accordingly. I did want to point out just to reiterate a few main points that this is not your typical truck terminal that we are bringing to you. This is a small operation by a sole proprietor, it is a maintenance hub is what it is, and that is why we can limit the amount of trucks coming in and out of here is because it is only the ones that need maintenance is the ones that will be coming in here. At twenty maximum per day that is not a whole lot of trucks coming in and out. There is industrial to our west and to our north so this is where it will stop, there really is not an opportunity for it to go any further and this smaller side and smaller use can be seen somewhat of a buffer between the larger industrial development that is going to refer to the west from what is happening to the east. We will be subject to the more intense development standards of the C-I which makes sense as the transition (inaudible). So with that the land owner and their representative, Mr. Wyatt here to answer any questions you might have and we did, Ms. Martinez who is in the audience and I did correspond and speak on a couple of three occasions over the past month. I think you will hear that we have a difference of opinion on this but we had very polite and respectful conversations and we got as far as we could.
Mr. Daniel: Mr. Brandgard, so that everybody is clear on the commitments that they submitted, on the top of the second page number five, it does state that there should be no more than twenty trucks and twenty trailers on the property.
Mr. Kirchoff: My recollection was that what we said that there would be no more than twenty tractor trailers on the property each day and that is different than at any given time, you might have thirty come in but only twenty, so what you are simply saying is, I just want to clarify, you are saying no more than twenty tractor trailers on the property at any given time, there could be more than that coming in.
Mr. Comer: Coming in and out on a daily basis. I see what you are saying.
Mr. Kirchoff: When we had some conversation I thought you said that there will be no more than twenty to access the property per day, which is different than it would be at any given time. I don't have any problem with it; I just want to make sure what it is we are agreeing too.
Mr. Comer: That is the way it is written up and we can have some more conversation about that if we need too.
Mr. Kirchoff: Just so we are together on what it is we say we are going to do. The only thing I would, because you have mentioned earlier too, I would think that that commitment would be somewhat consistent as long as the other joining property is residential. If the adjoining property becomes commercial industrial then I don't know that that is required anymore, so I could make that condition as well. Does that make sense?
Mr. Comer: The intent of the commitments and the preliminary site plan is to soften any perceived impact on the resolution. We still don't believe that there will be, but any perceived on someone else is the reason that we have done what we have done to try to soften the perceived.
Mr. Gibbs: I guess I want to go a little bit further on the trucks and trailers. I don't see anything in here about the operation of those vehicles as far as idling, trucks or refrigeration.
Mr. Comer: We would be happy to make a commitment that the trucks that are on site will not be idling. I think the question from the neighbors was are these trucks going to be on all night, is the way I remember the question being phrased. The answer is no and it continues to be no and we'd be happy to commit to that.
Mr. Gibbs: Is that also on refrigeration trailers?
Mr. Comer: That would be correct.
Mr. Gibbs: Any other questions? With this being a public meeting I will open it up at this particular time for those that would like to address the board in favor or opposing this petition.
Ms. Martinez: My name is Cheryl Martinez, and I live at 10113 East County Road 200 South, two doors down to the east from this property. I do still have some concerns. I brought up the noise the last time and it has been said that it isn't going to be any noisier than 200 South is currently, but living there I understand how the trucks work and when they are going by our homes now, they have got their speed up, they are steady, they are going by and then they are going down a tenth maybe more of a mile turning north going about a half mile before they even get into the warehouse to slow down, stop, backup and that sort of thing. With it being this close they are going to be stopping, slowing down and that is where a lot of the noise comes from the semi's is the starting up, taking off, getting into gear, slowing down, the air brakes, and then pulling in, then idling that was a question that I had and a number of trucks, is it twenty or is it going to be twenty at any given time, and are they coming and going, so that was one of my questions as well. But also part of the noise factor is, are these tractors going to be backing up, that beeping noise is very loud. A six foot fence isn't really going to help with that sort of a noise and a mound might, but I just don't think a fence is going to help anything. Also the hours of operation it says it is from seven to six which that is nice, but what happens when the trucks that are coming to a terminal to be repaired, so they are on the road driving at ten o'clock at night, they are ready to be there at that terminal at seven a.m., I would think that they would pull in that terminal and sit and wait for them to open at seven and not be somewhere and then be at the front door at seven. So are trucks going to be coming and going and if so are they going to be idling at night and in the winter they have to idle to stay warm if they are sleeping in their trucks, they would have no place to stay, so that is a concern. Also I was told it is a growing company, it is a startup company, so right now it is twenty, but in two years, you would want them to grow, I wouldn't want anyone not to grow their business, but then they are going to outgrow that and then once they get approved are they going to a few more trucks here and a few more trucks there coming and going? From what I was told when this all started from Mr. Wyatt's realtor also his nephew I believe, he said that there was a little different story, he said that there was going to be a lot of trucks coming and going and when we talked I asked him specifically about them staying over night and that sort of thing and he said they will be staying in the houses because that is what he was going to do with the houses because he also wanted to buy Mr. Helms' property, he said they would use those to house the guys when they were there working on their trucks or they would leave their trucks and stay there, so that is still a concern, it has been toned down a lot from what I was told personally from him, and my concern is it being toned down to make the presentation to get it passed and then what happens once it is passed? I mean who is going to monitor? I don't have the time and I live next door, so once it is done it is done, and we pretty much have no recourse to it. With the drainage and things is still an issue with that little pond out in our front yard. They put blacktop all over that whole area and I am downhill, it is just going to keep going down and I am going to have a lake before I know it in my front yard. So those are a lot of my concerns still, I just feel that a special exception use should not be granted. I don't have a problem with warehouses, I know it is going to be commercial at some point and time, but I think it would be better suited to a small warehouse a medical facility, an outpatient hospital facility or something like that, something other than a truck terminal. I think that is going to detour from our property values in the future. Thank you for listening.
Mr. Carlucci: I would like to make one clarification, what the board is doing here tonight and how they vote is not a special exception. This is a change in…
Ms. Martinez: I thought that is what it was.
Mr. Carlucci: No, special exceptions are the area that the Board of Zoning Appeals does special exceptions and that is not done here.
Ms. Martinez: So what is this, if you could explain it to me?
Mr. Carlucci: Well this is a rezoning of the property, from one zoning to another.
Ms. Martinez: But doesn't it matter what this is going to be, this intent?
Mr. Carlucci: Sure, sure it does, but it is not a special exception.
Ms. Martinez: So I guess at this point I would be opposed to the rezoning of what is going in there.
Mr. Carlucci: Yes, that is how you should say it.
Ms. Martinez: Thank you very much.
Mr. Gibbs: Thank you.
Mr. Wyatt: My name is Steven W. Wyatt, I own the property in question and I am a little perplexed because I have a terminal right across the street from me that has five hundred trucks a day going in and out and the beeping noise that she is talking about is right there. I have no hill to protect me, I have no trees to protect me, I was told at this meeting when they developed the property next to me, that they would build a mound and that sort of thing, but that hasn't happened yet because of the economy, but the mound probably should have been built to start with because I am so close to it. I don't know what is fair as far as for the property, what the use is, I know the economy is bad and I had an opportunity to sell and these are good people. They've got a business, Ed my neighbor, who doesn't live there anymore, Ed Helms, had a business right next to me for several years, Helms Contracting, he didn't have a bunch of trucks, he had a bunch of pick up trucks and a bunch of friends and a bunch of parties, drinking beer out in the yard, I never said a word about it, that is his property, it is his business is the way I look at it. That is basically all I've got to say is that I just don't understand in my mind with all the trucks and all the noise anyway how much difference is it going to make? They are not going to backing that noise that the Federal Government has got on these trucks that have the backup thing on them that I have. I have it every night and all night long and a good part of the day. I just figured it was like when I moved there, the guy next to me had coon dogs and for the first six months that I lived there, I didn't sleep that good at night, two or three o'clock in the morning, and then when the fall came, my neighbor had tractors and their tractors were out in the spring and the fall, it was zoned agriculture, now I could probably put a hog farm in there since it is zoned agriculture, I don't know rather the neighbors would like a hog farm better or trucking terminal. But I am just trying to be fair about the thing and I don't feel that this is anymore unfair to them than what was built next to me. That is basically all I've got to say.
Mr. Gibbs: Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public?
Mr. Helms: My name is Ed Helms, and my home is at 10059 East County Road 200 South. Just next door to Steve's house and my concerns basically is I got in Town early tonight so I stopped by and talked to the renters and told them that I was coming to a meeting here about the zoning and I told them what was going in and they said they are giving notice right now we don't want to live next door to a bunch of semi's coming and going. I thought, oh boy, I didn't even think about that aspect and if I were to move back there, I wouldn't want to live right next to that, it is just such a small area and on a start up company that has no track record, nothing that we can drive by his existing place and say he runs a tight ship here, it's clean, he's got a house that he works out of and I think he is starting this on a hope and a dream and if my information is right he is even buying the property on contract. I think we are just getting into a bad situation all the way around. I wish the best for Steve, I truly do, but I don't think this is it and again I don't want a bunch of semi's right next to me, there is fifty feet between my house and Steve's property and they will be right up me but anyway on that note I will let you all get us out of here.
Mr. Gibbs: Does the petitioner want to make any final comments?
Mr. Wyatt: Michael Wyatt, 435 Virginia Avenue, suite 508. I would like to start out explaining a little bit about the business and exactly what they do. A maintenance hub in this type of environment is not going to be somewhere where they are doing huge work on trucks. They got a situation where on the trucks, generally if the truck breaks down it breaks down on the road and they have the repairs on the road. This is something that is going to be for oil changes, light maintenance that type of facility. If he has twenty vehicles in there which I truly believe that will never happen because that means almost half of his fleet is off the road and these guys do not work that way. All of his drivers live in Indianapolis so when they came in if they came in with a truck to be serviced the maintenance on it, the oil changes, the lubes and the things of that nature, how it would work they would drive in, back the trailer in and drop the trailer then the semi part of it would actually go into the garage to be worked on where it could be worked on. From the standpoint, lets say there were twenty trucks, which I believe that will never happen, but lets say there were twenty trucks, if you figure they are open ten hours a day, that is two trucks per hour, and I don't even see it going that way, because he's got twenty trucks down, he's got a real serious problem since he's only got fifty trucks. There would never be, I would be really surprised if there were over ten vehicles there. As far as this business, he does have a functioning business right now located in Plainfield, he is very successful with it, and he is not giving up that site as well either. That site is leased currently right now, and eventually there may be some long range plans to do something but that is going to be way down the line, he's thinking five to seven years from now or even longer than that. I've known both of the gentleman for about a year and a half, I did sell one of the gentleman a maintenance home over on Belmont Avenue, so I am familiar with what they do and I have been to that shop several times and I have never seen over ten trailers there, and it is a different operation. Steve has lived there his entire life; he's been there thirty-five years, since I was sixteen years old. He has lived in this community, paid taxes in this community, he's supported me, I was an orphan, and he took me from Vietnam as a war vet, and supported me. This property is very important to him, this piece of property has got a very large for him to handle because he retired last year, it is just tough for him to keep up the seven acres. I really think that with the buffer we are going to have there and the very limited use this facility has, there is nobody going to be sleeping in semis. And if you need to make that part to satisfy the folks back here, that is fine. But I can assure you that is not going to happen, there is not going to be trucks running all night when they pull those trucks in there they are going to drop the truck, if it is ready to be serviced, they are going to pull it in the facility and this is 6,000 square foot building, we are not talking about a giant place that they are going to have a lot of trucks, they will not be unloading freight there, they are simply going to be taking care of the scheduled maintenance that has to be on the vehicles. I don't mean to reiterate the same thing, but generally when a truck breaks down it doesn't break down close to home, they break down on the interstate and that is why you see all these big giant trucks out there that have the trucks fixed. Thank you for your time, if there is any questions you would like to ask me, please feel free.
Mr. Kirchoff: You say there is a current shop in operation here in Plainfield?
Mr. Wyatt: Yes.
Mr. Kirchoff: Where is that?
Mr. Wyatt: He doesn't want to disclose that right now because he is in the lease negotiations with the people that own it. I don't know if it would be apples to apples because he does not own that property so he is kind of what you see out there, there is another couple of trucking facilities in with that one as well. He does have one in Belmont that you can look at, they purchased. It could be a disadvantage for them to disclose that they are looking at other property, this falls through and then all of a sudden the guy is raising his lease. See what I am saying? Thank you.
Mr. Comber: Doing what you do as a planning board, and what I do as an attorney, we see more of this in our day to day lives than some of the people in the neighborhoods. We've seen areas change in Plainfield and the County, and some of those growing pains are not always easy. This isn't the first change to come through this area, this area has changed already, and it is changing presently. With industrial zoning and the industrial uses in the neighborhood and that is only going to continue to grow and I think we are a small drop in that big bucket when it all boils down. So we would ask for your favorable recommendation at the Town Council in our zoning request.
Mr. Kirchoff: Did you discuss with them there will be no more than twenty tractor trailers on the property any day, or at any given time?
Mr. Comber: We can do day, which is a lesser amount am I correct?
Mr. Kirchoff: Yes.
Mr. Gibbs: Any other questions at this time? I am going to close the public portion of this meeting and open it up for the board for questions, comments, or a motion.
Mr. McPhail: I will make just a couple comments. It appears to me that the petitioner has addressed his issues that was brought before us last month and I think they have done a good job of addressing those, the noise issue to me is not an issue because the activity is already in the area and there is a lot more than twenty trucks going out on the parks facility today in a new facility that is being occupied and the truck traffic is going to continue to increase, regardless of what happens to this piece of property.
Mr. Kirchoff: I have a question for Joe on paragraph two of the conditions. The last portion of that condition about the fifty foot setback, you say until such time is there no adjoining residential uses etc., etc. Is that truly immediately adjoining or for instance Mr. Helms' property gets sold and becomes something different; you know what I am saying? How are you defining that?
Mr. James: Here's the 50, right here based on the conceptual site plan, then you get 25 here.
Mr. Kirchoff: I understand that, my question is, are you restricting that to the immediate adjoining resident…
Mr. Daniel: adjoining means adjoining, I think is what you are after.
Mr. Kirchoff: That is my question, does it truly mean adjoining?
Mr. Daniel: So if that next property east sells and something else goes in there, what is the status of the second property to the east of that one?
Mr. Kirchoff: That is what I want to clarify. We are talking about the immediately adjoining residential.
Mr. James: It is just for this property right here. I think this is Mr. Helms property also and this is Ms. Martinez's property right here. Mr. Helms property is the only residential that abuts to their property. You've got C; this is C-I down here.
Mr. Kirchoff: So you are saying it is abutting.
Mr. James: It is abutting.
Mr. Kirchoff: I just want to make sure we are clear on what we are committing too or not committing too is all I am saying.
Mr. McPhail: As I understand that the property to the east is rezoned something other than residential then this commitment (inaudible).
Mr. Daniel: That is what that says.
Mr. Kirchoff: That is what we are thinking.
Mr. James: In order to clarify how the commitments are used, it is a legal document that has to get recorded and it basically becomes planning (inaudible). If they do not comply with these commitments, it becomes a zoning violation and then it is up to my office to enforce these commitments and correct the zoning violations. So if someone calls and says hey, they got thirty trucks up there, then we will go out and check it out and if they have thirty trucks it becomes a zoning violation, we will send them a notice, if they don't comply, we can fine them up to $2,500.00 a day and then we can eventually go to court if we have too to correct any of these commitments that they are not complying with.
Mr. Daniel: And actually Joe as far as these commitments are written it also gives, we call it standing in the legal profession, it gives you the authority to property owners to properties deep to enforce these commitments as they as the Town.
Mr. Kirchoff: I guess I would ask the Commission on item five, rewording that there shall be no more than twenty tractor trailers on the property on any given day, none of which will be refrigerated units and then would we also then want to make that conditional as we did on the other one, or have wording something to the fact until such time as there is no adjoining residential uses, this division shall be eliminated?
Mr. Daniel: The only question I would have Bill on your first comment, you said something about refrigeration, read that again if you would please.
Mr. Kirchoff: I simply said, there shall be no more than twenty tractor trailers on the property on any given day, none of which will be refrigerated units.
Mr. Daniel: I was going to say, I think the issue was whether there was refrigerated units would be running at night.
Mr. Kirchoff: I heard that there would be no refrigerated units.
Mr. Brandgard: That is what I heard the commitment was.
Mr. James: Does the trucking company use refrigerated units; I guess that is the question,
Mr. Daniel: There may be a refrigerator unit on the premises, but it won't be running.
Mr. McPhail: So it would be listed as no operating refrigerated units.
Mr. James: If that is the case, I would hope the trailer is empty.
Mr. Daniel: Well yeah it will be.
Mr. Gibbs: I think the concern is just the idling of the refrigeration.
Mr. Kirchoff: Yes, but that is not what I heard, I heard that there will be no refrigerated units there, but now they will not be refrigerated units in operation.
Mr. Daniel: Refrigerator units will not be operated while on the premises.
Mr. Gibbs: The public portion of this meeting is closed.
Mr. Comer: You will notice that this is about three hundred foot mark and that is where our building starts and this drawing does reflect our intent which this would all be a fifty foot buffer. It would stop when we get to the back of these residents parcels. If this is zoned residential and it may be, the intent is that this would be a twenty-five foot buffer, which is still more than what the ordinance requires now, which is ten feet, but the intent was against the immediate resident is that it would be fifty feet and then we back it off to twenty-five, in the undeveloped portion of that residential, that was our intent. To the extent that our text does not match up with that, I do want to say that site plan is our intent, and if we need to tweak that language accordingly, then we should.
Mr. Kirchoff: In paragraph two it says a fifty foot setback shall be required three hundred feet south of the right of way of County Road 200 South.
Mr. Comer: That is the center line Bill.
Mr. Gibbs: Is there any other discussion from the board? If not I will entertain a motion.
Mr. Kirchoff: I will take a stab at it, and you all can correct me. I move that the Plan Commission certify the zone map amendment request RZ-11-001 as filed by Cheema H. Singh requesting rezoning of approximately 6.7 acres from AGR Hendricks Co. to the I-2 Office / Warehouse Distribution District pending annexation with a favorable recommendation subject to the following commitments being submitted on Exhibit A forms prior to certification to the Town Council:
C-I development standards shall be used for new development on the property.
1. A fifty foot setback shall be required along that portion of the east property line abutting the residential neighbors property line, and that shall be three hundred feet south of the center line of County Road 200 South, and a twenty-five foot setback shall be required for the balance of the east property line until such time is there is no adjoining residential uses, at which times the setback shall be reduced to the zoning ordinance minimums.
2. With development, the landowner shall install a six foot privacy fence along that portion of the east property line abutting the residential neighbor's property line for a distance of three hundred feet from the center line of County Road 200 South.
3. With development the landowner shall install a minimum of ten new trees along that portion of the east property line abutting the residential neighbor's property line.
4. There shall be no more than twenty tractor trailers on the property on any given day, and no refrigerated units will be operated while on the property. This provision shall be in effect as long as the adjoining property to the east is a residential use.
5. No commercial industrial goings associated with the trucking business my be constructed within three hundred feet in the center line of County Road 200 South for as long as there is a residential use adjoining the property line.
6. The landowner shall grant to the Town of Plainfield upon request up to thirty feet of road right of way off and across the west line of the property for a future public road.
7. Substantial compliance with the conceptual site plan dated April 25, 2011.
Mr. McPhail: I have a motion and a second, Mr. Carlucci would you poll the board?
Mr. Carlucci: Mr. Satterfield- yes
Mr. McPhail- yes
Mr. Brandgard- yes
Mr. Duncan- yes
Mr. Kirchoff- yes
Mr. Gibbs- yes
Six ayes, none opposed, motion is approved.
PETITIONS FOR PUBLIC HEARING
Mr. Gibbs: The next item on the agenda TA-11-001.
Mr. James: This is a proposal to amend the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance. It involves five amendments. I will quickly read each amendment. The first amendment would be to article 4.1- involving accessory uses, it will provide an exception to allow three accessory structures over 200 square feet in size if the parcel is at least 1.5 acres. Second one is article 4.12- it clears up some language with regards to some family expansions legal non-conforming and also clarifies that alleys are setback off of an alley is the side setback for the zoning district. Article 5.5 gateway corridor development plans, remove projecting signs as an allowed sign wall in all commercial and industrial districts and the protecting sign as an allowed in an incidental sign. Article 5.8 develop plan clarifies that the development plans not requiring Plan Commission approval shall be submitted as improvement location permits (ILP). Then the last one is Article 7.4, signs on-premise, Commercial, Industrial add projecting sign as an allowed incidental sign; add that drive thru uses are allowed two projecting signs; add that projecting signs as incidental signs can have a size of 2.5 square feet. So in all it is all proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Kirchoff: Will we have a public hearing on this at a later date?
Mr. Gibbs: No, this is it.
Mr. James: It will go to the Town Council; you will make a recommendation to the Town Council.
Mr. Kirchoff: We have a citizen here that I think might want to speak in favor of one of those. He hasn't been sworn in but he was at a Town Council on another issue, and so I suggested he come down here tonight.
Mr. Zupan: My name is Dennis Zupan; I live at 1207 Reeves Road, Plainfield. (Interrupted to be sworn in) I just wanted to comment on article 4.1, the accessory uses item. I talked with Joe some time ago just before winter and was going to try and throw up a basically a shop building for my wife to work in all winter and unfortunately he informed me that that I already had two accessory buildings, one of them was a hundred and sixty square feet, and the other one was about nine hundred and forty square feet. Our property size is about two and a half acres. I was a little concerned that I couldn't put up one more building and you didn't really have it as a specification as to what constituted as a building size wise and I thought the hundred and sixty square feet yard barn on a two and a half acre parcel is really didn't qualify as a building, but the way that ordinance is written that was subject to interpretation so I think he is taking the initiative to put together something that clarifies the requirements a little more in a larger parcels allows owners to have a little bit more flexibility. I just wanted to support that and thank you for putting it together.
Mr. Gibbs: For public record I am going to open this up for public opinion, comments, or concerns. Seeing only the one, I appreciate that Dennis; I will close that public portion of this meeting and open it up for the board for comments, corrections, or a motion.
Mr. Brandgard: Mr. Chairman, I would move that the Plan Commission provide a favorable recommendation on the zoning amendments to Town Council.
Mr. McPhail: Second.
Mr. Gibbs: I have a motion and a second, Mr. Carlucci would you poll the board?
Mr. Carlucci: Mr. Satterfield- yes
Mr. McPhail- yes
Mr. Brandgard- yes
Mr. Duncan- yes
Mr. Kirchoff- yes
Mr. Gibbs- yes
Six ayes, none opposed, motion is approved.
Mr. Gibbs: Thank you. Activity report for April?
Mr. James: I believe those were provided with your packets, Jill does this each month to give you an idea of what is going on and what the other departments are up too. If you have any questions or comments regarding that I would be glad to answer those for you, if not, we will go on to another amendment to the zoning ordinance. This was brought up last month in regards to the rezone we just heard. The issue is that currently the way the zoning ordinance reads, a development plan is not required when commercial Industrial occurs next to residential. That is not in Plainfield, this was a simple solution. Article 5.5 we will just add or use, I think that will take are of when a development plan is required next to residential regardless if it is in Plainfield or not. You can also do it with regards to a buffer yard also just add use in the buffer yard definition.
Mr. Brandgard: I may have missed it, but it looks to me like if article 5.5 currently reads a development plan complying with gateway corridor development standards the zoning required on a commercial or a residential development between six hundred feet of a Plainfield residential use. The biggest thing is saying it is required within six hundred feet of a residential district. Just take a couple of words out of it.
Mr. James: The definition of district is to issue. It says a district is only a zoning district that is within the Plainfield Plan Commission jurisdiction.
Mr. Carlucci: Which is what we ran into 200 South isn't it? I think this really goes, and of course when I think the philosophy of this board is that we do, even though it may be out of Town, it is going to impact people outside of the Town and you shouldn't just ignore the fact that they are there.
Mr. McPhail: I think what we have to go do is look at some language that would treat every property the same regardless of whether it is in Town or out of Town, whatever language we take to clean that up.
Mr. James: Here is a definition of a district, a section of the territory within the jurisdiction of the Plan Commission.
Mr. Brandgard: She is in a residential area, she's district to everything.
Mr. Carlucci: Something simply to say the Plan Commission can take into consideration joining properties outside the Town limits for the purpose of making a decision, or something like that, because that is what you are trying to get at. The fact is this is how this Commission, every since I have been on has always acted anyway.
Mr. McPhail: Joe is saying he solved the problem by just saying district or use. Is that what you are saying?
Mr. James: Yes, residential use regardless if it is in Plainfield or not.
Mr. Brandgard: That works.
Mr. Carlucci: That is on your last TA-11-02.
Mr. James: There will be a new one, we will come back and do it either in June or July. We have to do a public notice like we did for this last one. We've got some more amendments that we might add to it. We've had a request for a gun range, and our zoning ordinance doesn't, well it has a gun range in the C-I district, but it doesn't say if it is indoor or outdoor.
Mr. Carlucci: I don't think it is going to matter because I think the legislature just took care of this. I think we got to limit that whole new legislation because they are going to bring guns if they have a permit. They can bring them in any building in Town, any public building in Town anywhere, and in the parks we don't have any control. The only place they can't have guns is at the Capital building. I think we need to look at that, as a matter of fact I've got an email message from IACT that will explain that and I will send that to you. I'm not happy with it.
Mr. McPhail: We've got the right to bare arms but to bring them into a public meeting like this…
Mr. Carlucci: Some communities has taken this take your gun to work thing, they have to be covered over or locked in a secure area. Some Towns are doing it to find out who had guns they would say those who have guns have to park in that parking lot, they banned that. Now we will just have to wait and see on this one because I think…what if someone wants to do a shooting range in Plainfield?
Mr. James: We would have to call it an indoor recreation use or an outdoor recreation use.
Mr. Carlucci: Or you don't have to do it at all.
Mr. James: True.
Mr. Carlucci: What you are doing is creating a new use or a special use. Really the Plan Commission has to say they want to go forth with anything at all or just leave it as is.
Mr. James: Something else we might need to look at fence standards for our Industrial Park, we are getting a lot of requests now for security fencing. The only standards now are that they can't be taller than eight feet. It doesn't say anything about razor wire or what type. We always if it is with a development plan and we know they are going to need a security fence, we will recommend black vinyl covered or black powder coated, but if they come in after the fact, the only standard is that it can't be taller than eight feet, so that is probably something we need to take a look at.
Mr. Carlucci: Well we've got some very secure buildings and none of them have razor wire on them, and they've put a lot of money in them.
Mr. McPhail: Do you have a request for a gun range?
Mr. James: Jill got a call that they were asking where one would be allowed, what zoning district. They are only allowed in the C-I district but it doesn't specify if it is indoors or outdoors. They'd be indoor range in a general commercial and a C-I, maybe an outdoor in the Ag district with a special exception or something like that.
Mr. Brandgard: There is a big difference between indoor and outdoor.
Mr. Carlucci: Quite honestly, other than that new law, you can in your backyard and shoot something. There is nothing to prevent out of the property that is a different deal. This thing is pretty wide open.
Mr. McPhail: I certainly am not opposed of a well operated indoor shooting range. We've got to have some sort of standards for that. An outdoor range, I don't know if there is any place in Plainfield I would be comfortable with an outdoor range.
Mr. Kirchoff: We already got one.
Mr. McPhail: Yes, a big one. I think we need to have some discussion on that. If you have a firearm and you want to go practice to shoot it, where do you go, no place in Town that I'm aware of.
Mr. Carlucci: I will have to check on that one. I wonder if local courts have done that, as a matter of fact I will try to send that to everyone.
Mr. James: Five invitees to the Plan Commission for violations. This is 713 Roosevelt Street; this has been an ongoing problem. We had him put up a fence but it can still seen from Stafford Road and I sent him a notice to clean it up and two months later he's got the auto parts and stuff out here in view again. So I invited him to the Plan Commission and he can face you and see if we can't get this taken care of, but it looks like none of the invitees have shown up tonight. The house needs cleaned up, this is the only tire that is left out there now, and I went by there today.
Mr. Gibbs: So it was all cleaned up and this is all that was left?
Mr. Kirchoff: Good.
Mr. James: Good enough?
Mr. Brandgard: Looks like the tire is in the other yard.
Mr. James: I will stop by and pay him a visit. This is 704 Roosevelt Street; I thought this home was abandoned. They had trash out front and this truck with junk in it that is inoperable. But I went by today and everything has been cleaned up and the truck is gone. It looks a lot better. 302 Omega, this is another abandoned home. I went by there today and the trash is still out here and so this is one that will have to go to court too, we apparently it is in foreclosure and it is in that state where probably the transition is being made to the bank or whomever.
Mr. McPhail: Have we a situation like that can we do like we do for the weed situation and clean it up and send them a bill?
Mr. Carlucci: We don't know, we've got some now that we've got court orders on five now.
Mr. James: Three. A representative of Extreme Windows & Tinting came in just before the meeting and they keep parking this trailer out front using it as a sign, but you can't do that, you can't use a trailer or a vehicle like a sign and park it out in front. I've asked them to park it on the other side of the building and then he's got this temporary sign that they did have out here in INDOT's right of way. INDOT's right of way goes through this utility pole, it is pretty crazy. This property is next to Clover Drive. I've had problems with them from the very beginning, they came in and put up signs without a permit and then we finally got them to take down some signs, these are down but they had to take down some lettering on the canopy on the front of the building too.
Mr. Carlucci: What do you want to do there Joe?
Mr. James: We want to put up a free standing sign so we are going to work on that so he won't have to use his trailer anymore and get rid of his temporary sign.
Mr. Brandgard: You talked to him before the meeting?
Mr. James: Yes, I talked to him before the meeting. Next location is 2198 Reeves Road, this is back by ABC Distributors. This is zoned I-1, which doesn't allow outdoor storage. It was a lot worse, he's cleaned it up, but he hasn't been very cooperative and he still has all of this outdoor storage out here and I-1 just doesn't allow it, whereas I-2 does. You can have 10% of gross floor spaces can be outdoor storage. He said he would maybe move it onto the trailer and I said that would be better than nothing if you put it up on the trailer. So I was hoping he would show up tonight, but he didn't show up.
Mr. McPhail: Do you want to fine him?
Mr. James: We can.
Mr. Gibbs: He's not been very cooperative.
Mr. James: Yes, he's gotten a little unruly with me.
Mr. Gibbs: Start the planning process.
OLD BUSINESS/NEW BUSINESS
Mr. James: Then Stout's Buick, I sent you an email. GM is making them do a National Branding for their front elevation and I talked to Jim Meyers and met with some GMC officials. So I think GM is willing to compromise because we spent a lot of time and effort on that building when it first came through the Plan Commission and so it would be a shame to have to do things to take away from the nice building we came up with, so Nic Quintana, I think most of you know Nick with Sebree Architects. He did the original building, he designed and they asked Nic to do some proposed elevations using what GMC wants to do, but they haven't filed anything yet, but what they wanted to do was to run this by you and maybe get some ideas regarding elevations, Nic has come up with four drawings. Is it ok if I go ahead and show it to them and get some feedback?
Mr. Kirchoff: It is not on the agenda, can we consider things that are not on the agenda?
Mr. Daniel: GM is not on the agenda also, those are generally heard of at a public hearing I think to have any petitioner come in prior to the public and that sort of thing and start basically showing evidence on the Plan Commission without the rest of the public being on notice, I don't think that is appropriate. I think we will just have to come in make a presentation and if they have four different designs, bring it in the time they bring it to the public hearing.
Mr. James: I do have the plans in my office if any of you want to come in and take a look at them. They want to do an arch over the doorway, they got a certain design that they want to do with colors, white, and black.
Mr. Kirchoff: Did you get any response to your email about (inaudible).
Mr. James: No, that was the last thing, I think we still need some direction on how to proceed with that. Do you want us to keep reviewing plans the way we have in the past, or are you comfortable with Ryland's? This is Ryland's matrix that they use, take a good look at it. All they do is, they say the same (inaudible) can't be next to each other that is all they do.
Mr. Gibbs: Is that all it says?
Mr. James: They don't take into account gables, rod size, porches, where the porch is, and windows.
Mr. Brandgard: Well if you don't allow the same house next to it, what else are we doing? I thought that is what we were after, we didn't want to have the same designed house here and here and here.
Mr. James: The residential design guidelines are very vague and that is what we tried to explain last month. I guess we didn't do a good job of doing it.
Mr. Brandgard: Excuse me I thought we had it in there, I thought it said you are not supposed to have the same elevation next to each other. That means you can't have the same house next to each other and we tried to keep it simple and we'd still get what we wanted out of it. You don't want to drive down the street and have the same façade on every house, you don't know which house is yours.
Mr. Kirchoff: I'm not sure this is an issue, what prompted it?
Mr. James: We've been saying they had to have at least two group one, differences, Ron said that is too strict.
Mr. Satterfield: Jill is saying you can't tell there is a difference in the two houses even built by their guidelines that there is. He's trying to make it more distinctive between the two houses. Then he said now you go out there and according to the guidelines that are different but you look at them, but when you look at them you can't tell they are different. Is that what you are saying?
Mr. McPhail: (inaudible) tried to specify different things that made them look different. I guess what Ryland wants to do…
Mr. Carlucci: He wants to tell us to butt out of there.
Mr. McPhail: Yes.
Mr. Brandgard: Ryland wants to sell houses.
Mr. Kirchoff: In fairness if you go out there, I think they have done a very nice job.
Ms. Sprague: I don't know if you want me to go through all of them.
Mr. Gibbs: Can I ask, is this on the agenda, should we close?
Ms. Sprague: Last time it wasn't a public hearing anyway, although it wasn't, we did list it as old business last time, we did not do that this time. By my review, I would add those X's, so that means that there is a lot, but basically one side is equal to the other side just because the way the grid works. I just put up pairs of each of those so that you can see them. On this one, I can't come up with any group one items that are different on this elevation. Normally one would have a porch and one wouldn't, or one would have a gable in the center and where one has one on the left side or something like that.
Mr. Brandgard: Ok, I can go along with that but visually when I look at it those are two different houses.
Ms. Sprague: And that is really what I am trying to find out is where do I come up with the difference.
Mr. Brandgard: The sides are completely different.
Mr. Kirchoff: The garage is in the same spot and the other…
Ms. Sprague: Admittedly sometimes the garages will be switched but the idea was if you were driving down the street and you were actually studying them, would you be able to tell they were different.
Mr. Brandgard: It is kind of like something I've dealt with my wife, she looks, he's concerned about what the house looks like outside, I say you take a floor plan and you can put any kind of outside you want. Again, I think you what you got to hear is those maybe pretty similar on the floor plans inside, the way I look at it, I don't see where I have a problem to differentiate one house from another. You got a second floor, you got 5 windows on the one, you got 4 on the bottom floor, you got 2 windows on the other one, and the other one you got 4.
Mr. McPhail: They look pretty similar to me.
Mr. Satterfield: I'd say it meets the written word, but it doesn't meet the (inaudible).
Ms. Sprague: I'm not sure, I don't think it says it is the same elevation, I think it says similar elevation, I will have to go and look at the plan.
Mr. Kirchoff: I think they are similar… Is this fairly new, because apparently the others, we didn't have as much problem.
Mr. Carlucci: We got a lot of that up there on Raceway Road didn't we?
Mr. Satterfield: They are just different houses every four houses is the same house.
Mr. James: If you are ok with Ryland's matrix, we can go that route, but what I would like to do is maybe get Ryland and some of these other builders together and come up with some concrete standards so then it is not subjective.
Mr. Brandgard: That is a good idea.
Mr. McPhail: Jill has a different matrix. I'd stick with Jill's until you get something else done.
Mr. James: That is just a policy we've sort adopted, it is not a written standard right now.
Mr. Satterfield: What is the written standard?
Mr. James: That they have to have different elevations.
Mr. Kirchoff: I'd just be cautious of getting too complex.
Mr. Brandgard: That is my concern.
Mr. James: For now, you just us to allow Ryland's matrix?
Mr. Carlucci: I don't think you have much choice.
Mr. James: Ok, and then move forward with putting together a task force to see what we can come up with?
Mr. Brandgard: I think to me getting all of those involved.
Mr. Kirchoff: I think they have the same goal we do. They just view it a little bit differently. Because again, being a potential client of theirs, they were very explicit about what they allowed and didn't allow. We picked out a lot and we couldn't build the house we wanted to because that was already across the street or next door.
Mr. Brandgard: Adams & Marshalls even, they are more similar houses than what the Ryland does.
Mr. Carlucci: They were here at the last Plan Commission meeting and the gentleman from Ryland said well I lost a sale on a house because they wanted the same house next to them, they can't do it and they lost a sale.
Mr. James: Ok, that is what we will do, we can use Ryland's matrix and we will work on this taskforce. That is all I have for tonight then.
Mr. Brandgard: One question, I saw an awful lot of activity at the Monroe Bank, changing signs out.
Mr. James: Old National? They submitted for sign permits.
Mr. Gibbs: I will entertain a motion. All in favor.