Mr. Duncan: I'd like to call to order the Plainfield Plan Commission meeting for July the 2nd.
ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM
Mr. Duncan: Mr. Carlucci would you please do a roll call to determine a quorum?
Mr. Carlucci: Mr. Brouillard- here
Mr. McPhail- here
Ms. Lafata- here
Mr. Brandgard- here
Mr. Duncan- here
Mr. Kirchoff- here
Mr. Gibbs is absent
We have six members here, one absent; we have a quorum for the purpose of conducting business.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mr. Duncan: Would everyone rise for the pledge of allegiance please.
Mr. Duncan: Next item on the agenda is the approval of minutes, everyone had an opportunity to look at the minutes, and I will entertain a motion.
Mr. Kirchoff: So move.
Mr. Brouillard: Second.
Mr. Duncan: I have a motion and a second, all in favor signify by saying aye, opposed, motion passes.
OATH OF TESTIMONY
Mr. Duncan: Next on the agenda will be the oath of testimony.
Mr. Daniel conducted oath of testimony.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mr. Duncan reviewed the guidelines governing the conduct of public hearings.
PETITIONS FOR PUBLIC HEARING
Mr. James: Thank you Mr. Vice President. First order of business in the memo we said that Timberstone Development, we'd withdraw their petition, they've had a change of heart, they would like to continue it but since it had to be continued twice before because they were waiting an answer from us regarding the Avon annexation, they would like to continue with no further notice required.
Mr. Brandgard: What do they want to continue on, how long?
Mr. James: Just one more month.
Mr. McPhail: I move we approve the continuance for RZ-12-001 and BP-12-003 to the August meeting.
Mr. Brandgard: Second.
Mr. Carlucci: Mr. Brouillard- yes
Mr. McPhail- yes
Ms. Lafata- yes
Mr. Brandgard- yes
Mr. Duncan- yes
Mr. Kirchoff- yes
Mr. Gibbs is absent
Six ayes, none opposed, one absence, motion is approved.
Mr. Duncan: Next petition is RZ-12-002.
Mr. James: This is a public hearing for a rezone request. Their request is to rezone approximately 54 acres from a C-I Commercial Industrial District to the I-2 Office Warehouse Distribution District. This property was first annexed and rezoned to C-I and General Commercial in 2008, it is located north of Medallion Meadows and south of County Road 200 South and west of the Ronald Reagan Parkway. The original rezone was consistent with what the Plainfield Comprehensive Plan future Land Use recommends as far as land uses, and that was a mixed used Office Flex space in the Community Commercial, the C-I is the appropriate zoning for the mixed use office flex space. The last six years there had been two rezones in this area that have created more I-2 Zoning in this area which is contrary to the comprehensive plan. The Ronald Reagan Parkway Frontage would remain as a General Commercial Zoning which would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Ronald Reagan quarter master plan does recommend light industrial or I-2 for this area; however it also says that the Warehouse Distribution should not expand beyond existing I-2 zoning or what has been designated as an I-2 district. The major difference between the CI zoning and the I-2 are major differences are building size allowed in each zoning district and the types of traffic that would be generated. The CI has a cap on building size at 150,000 square feet where the I-2 has no cap. They have proposed an 800,000 square foot warehouse distribution building with their concept plan and the C-I does have a retail and office component, so that would generate more auto traffic as the I-2 would generate more truck traffic. C-I has a 25' buffer yard requirement with level 2 perimeters landscaping where the I-2 has a 50' buffer yard requirement with level 3 perimeter landscaping and then with the original rezone they committed to a 40' buffer yard and level 5 perimeter landscaping between Medallion Meadows and this site. Here is the site, the 54 acres, here is 200 South, Ronald Reagan, US 40 and then Medallion Meadows is right here. You can see all the C-I property that was rezoned and so they would propose to rezone that 54 acres to I-2 and it is adjacent to I-2 to the west, that was just rezoned in the last 6 years and then here is the Adesa zoned General Commercial and Medallion Meadows and then some residential boarding the property to the north which is zoned Agricultural in Hendricks County, and then the C-I along Ronald Reagan would remain. This portion of the GC would, they are proposing that to be rezoned I-2. Here is a concept plan provided an 800,000 square foot warehouse, Medallion Meadows is down here, they would have a 150 foot dry detention pond between the Medallion Meadows and any development on this property would be the interior access drive. Then they would have the 50' buffer yard and with that 50' buffer yard they would have a 4-6' tall berm and then on top of the berm they would have a level 5 landscaping. Then they would use the existing intersection to get access to the property and so with the 50' buffer yard and the 150' drainage detention area, Medallion Meadows would have a 200' setback from the interior access drive. Here is the landscaping plan they submitted, here is the level 5 buffer yard with the berm and then up here they would have a level 4 perimeter landscaping to help screen the existing residential that is in the County and then along Ronald Reagan they would have the required level 3 perimeter landscaping and they would have some level 4 to help provide a buffer from this residential over here. Here is the future land use map in the Comprehensive Plan, you can see this is all designated for a flex office space uses, and then the General Commercial around the intersection with US 40 and then here is our transportation network, here is the Ronald Reagan Parkway and then the recommended road network to provide access to the flex office space uses in this area. The concept plan does not have a connection to the Adesa collector that is recommended in our Transportation Plan but they have committed to dedicate the right of way for it. A Traffic Impact Study has been provided to support their proposed road network, so with the warehouse use since it would be mainly truck traffic with some employees; the Traffic Impact Study does not recommend that the collector be taken all the way to the Adesa collector over here. They are just proposing to use the existing intersection and do a right in right out and then a connection to 200 South. The I-2 use restrictions, along with the increased perimeter landscaping have been offered in an effort to reduce potential impacts to the surrounding residential so is this enough to reduce those impacts and then are the original uses still restricted in the General Commercial, that wasn't in the administration documentation that they provided? The I-2 is contrary to what the Comprehensive Plan wants to use for land use in this area. Their justification for the rezone is there is no market for the C-I zoning and flex office uses. The I-2 will change the access needs for this area. So should the Comp. Plan be amended to reflect current market conditions and access needs to serve this area, or should the plan remain static and stop any further I-2 expansion into this area? So with that I will have a seat. There are representatives here on behalf of the petitioner.
Mr. Duncan: I will open it up to the board to ask any questions that you need too.
Mr. Banning: Thank you, Jeff Banning, Banning Engineering, 853 Columbia Road, Suite 101, Plainfield, In. It has been awhile since I have been before you guys, and a couple of new members. It is good to see you all. Joe did a nice job of presenting all of this this evening. I guess my first question I would ask of everyone, did everyone receive the letter that I put together for this particular project, ok great. I wasn't sure, I didn't want to read everything verbatim, but I did want to say somewhat about what I have written in this letter. Part of what I wanted to point out is, back in October of 2005, we were actually hired by the Town to amend the Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Plainfield it at that point only been in existence or that version of it for about a year and the Town decided hey we need to look at this particular area from the standpoint of what will happen in the area. So we undertook that responsibility to see what would happen in this particular area, just to give some of the newer members on the board an idea of what was going on at that point Ronald Reagan Parkway was not open, it was being contemplated at that point, matter of fact my office is south of there, I think everybody should be familiar where that is at. We moved there about 5 ˝ years ago at Stafford Road, I-70, Ronald Reagan area and literally when we moved in there were maybe a 100 cars that went past our office at that point, shortly after that the section from Stafford up to US 40 and across Mr. Wamsley's property was opened up, so the Town felt like it was prudent to go through and to re-look at that area. So the transportation plan, future land use plan shown up there is what we ended up coming up with, and like I said that was back in ‘05 and of course we have had a lot of things that have happened since then, I'd hate to guess how many million square feet of office space we have put in place since then and other areas, Browning, AllPoints Development, Browning Duke Development was not even contemplated in this plan, that came several years after this plan was put together. One of the things that we discussed that is really is kind of the crux of this zoning is this C-I Commercial Industrial Zoning classification, and really the only thing I did equate that to that is in the Town of Plainfield right now would actually be the office building I am in, and the building do the west of it, then maybe if you are familiar with the building at, I will call it Hadley Road, Cambridge, Mann Properties developed that property, that I guess would be east of the Hampton Inn, Homewood Suites there, there is a flex type building. That would be a C-I type building, the building we are in, the building to the west of ours and that particular building. I guess that would be the closest thing, I don't believe there have been any C-I zoned buildings approved through the Town, I think I am correct in that Joe, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that is the case. Part of the reason we ended up in our building is because it had sat there for probably two years before we even moved in there and it took quite a while for anybody to even fill that building up and then it took quite a while before they built that second building and it is still not quite full. The Mann Property building I don't know, maybe a third full or maybe a forth full, I don't know the exact numbers, but what we found out over a period of time, between Mooresville and what you can get approved down in that area probably little lesser standards than what is required in Plainfield, a little different type of use. Park Fletcher what is currently existing over in that area, this C-I type of zoning and existing building and then probably up in the Park 100 area, we've got kind of the smaller stand-alone less than 50,000 square feet which is really what the C-I zoning classification is, it is 50,000 square feet for a single user or 150,000 square feet for a multi user, that is the largest size that can be accomplished. As a for instance, the building I am in is a little over 100,000 square feet, it is about 110,000 to 115,000 square feet and has multiple tenants. What we continue to see in the marketplace and all be at the marketplace has been down over the last several years, but what we are seeing is that that type of use in Plainfield has not really generated much interest even with the existing buildings that we've got within the corporate limits. Where my building is, there is supposed to be 2 more buildings of the same size built to the south of my office building. I talked to the owners of that property and they are really not contemplating doing anything anytime in the near future just because of the lack or desire of that type of use, so I guess where I am going with that is, even though the intent of the C-I zoning is what we created through this comprehensive plan, even though we came up with that classification, and thought this would be a good use, it just hasn't really panned out like we thought. There has been additional C-I zoning approval on Ronald Reagan Parkway, we have it north of Indy Park Ride and Fly, it would be the frontage basically on the east side of Ronald Reagan Parkway, north of Indy Park Ride and Fly, it is the Verus Property, the Green Park Development, and then Mr. Wamsley also owns property north of there where we have that same zoning classification on the vacant piece of ground that he currently owns as well. So there has been a multitude of this type of zoning with very little action. The other thing that we found out and it is pretty interesting, I was in Evansville this morning for a meeting if you can imagine I drove down there and back already today, but a meeting with Vectren in their corporate office and you know when you say Plainfield, Plainfield is bulk warehouse, industrial, logistic type of buildings, 300, 400, 500 thousand up to a million plus and everybody tends to recognize that. So therefore the reason why we are bringing this before you, Mr. Wamsley actually has a signed commitment on this property if this property goes through for about an 800,000 square foot building to go on the property. I believe and I don't know where, but the proposed owner is actually out of State and so it is pretty amazing what Plainfield has accomplished over really the last 20 years and maybe a little longer in how they've created that reputation in that type of development. So what we are bringing before you this evening is the opportunity or what we would like to think is an opportunity, create another industrial site and hopefully another building pad for another a logistics type of facility. As you look at the comprehensive plan map up here, the map on the right hand side, it is kind of cut off, this proposed road right here, this is Adesa, this is the stoplight out at Adesa and US 40, actually I worked on Adesa, we worked on that back in 1995 and did all of the site work on that. We did the planning, zoning annexation work for all of Browning up in AllPoints, this is the area right now that is currently under construction that Duke is doing, and as you can see the actual classification proposed on that property was the same as what we're currently proposed to happen in the comprehensive plan with office flex space. I'm also I know that this commission rezoned this particular property here just recently from or to the I-2 zoning classification as well. So that is what I am saying is, we've recently had properties encroaching to the east towards Ronald Reagan for this type of zoning use and we just feel like that is the pertinent use for this particular property and I think we are going to see that happening more and more as we go up and down this Ronald Reagan Corridor. I don't know that Joe has, did you have the actual zoning map, there we go, it doesn't go far enough north. I have a zoning map; I will hold that up here. It goes a little bit further north but I hope everybody can see this, but you can see the purple here which was the Browning Development, Ronald Reagan Parkway would thin right up to the east edge of the Browning Development which is currently zoned as I-2 as well. I guess what I am saying is based on what has happened in the area and we already have properties zoned I-2 in that area and actually on the Browning property almost right up to the Ronald Reagan Parkway precedent has been set and we would like to continue that. One of the things that I wanted to talk about as well and I have had some conversations with this as a matter of fact I had a property owner in my office last week that actually owns property at the southeast corner a little bit east of Ronald Reagan and a little bit east of Six Points Road or Old Six Points Road, 1050 East and its becoming quite difficult to figure out how to develop that intersection, that crossing to Ronald Reagan and US 40 and I think whatever happens this evening I think that is an area that really needs to be looked at and how that can be developed, not only from a zoning comp plan, land use standpoint, but from an access standpoint, road standpoint. I just wanted to throw that little commentary out there because there is interest in the area but I think that most of the interest is not necessarily going to be the General Commercial as shown, although I think a lot of people would like to do that, but it is going to be very difficult to develop this area in that form or passion because of the number of parcels within the area and because of the existing/proposed road network in that area. So with that being stated and then I will shut up and listen to everyone else, what we are requesting this evening is a rezoning of approximately 41.8 acres from C-I to I-2 and the rezoning of the 12.2 acres from General Commercial to I-2. That would give us approximately 54 acres within the I-2 category. I do want to make it clear that and you can see by the yellow line, the General Commercial Property that fronts both sides of the Ronald Reagan will continue to do that as was approved and as we proposed in our previous rezoning of this property several years ago, so I wanted to make note of that. We have restricted some of the uses in our I-2 zoning; I see everybody has that document so you can read those. In my letter we talked about a 40' buffer yard and level 5 landscaping along Medallion Meadows that actually is a 50' buffer yard per the ordinance. We are also proposing that we have a 200' setback from Medallion Meadows to any kind of improvements on our property within that setback we'd have 50' that would be landscaping, berming, buffering. We'd have another 150' that would be a water feature, whether dry or wet detention. Currently the way that property is set up and zoned, we could literally have buildings within 40' of the Medallion Meadows subdivision. So we feel like this is a good change and a buffer for them by having that 200' set back rather than what is currently approved as a 40. We've proposed to dedicate the 35' of right of way for the proposed road if it were to ever occur, along our west property line, for what I guess I'm calling the Adesa Road and then the other item I noted in my letter is there was a proposed road to go across here, we would like to eliminate the need for that road because of the change of use, if you look at our drawing that we submitted, we will have a road that will service the commercial lots and then service the one industrial use. With that change we now eliminate the need of having possibly 20 uses in there down to 1, so therefore because of that change we would request that we eliminate that roadway and access only out on Ronald Reagan as our main access with a secondary access out onto County Road 200 South. Our traffic study did state that we would need to improve both of those intersections and we will abide by that. I think with that I will open it up to any questions for the Commissions or let you have the public come up and speak.
Mr. Duncan: Any questions from the board?
Mr. McPhail: Ralph, I do have a question. Can you put the site plan of the warehouse up there? How is that roadway servicing those lots to the north of that access drive back through there, how do access lot 1, 2, and 3?
Mr. Banning: We are proposing a right in, right out here, and then we have a proposed road here. One thing I probably should clarify is that we, this is our, I guess, best guess as far as a layout for this commercial area. What we have proposed is to have an incremental plat calling for a minimum and maximum number of lots. This could potentially be one lot. But what we have done is we've tried to be flexible in how we would put our info structure in, how we would develop this. But this potentially could be one lot, these two lots here could be one lot, they could be three lots and one of these go way, so what we've done as we've done in the past on a lot of our commercial areas is we've created an incremental plat to give flexibility in how that's developed. So to answer your question we would propose a road that would actually come off of the (inaudible).
Mr. Duncan: Are there any other questions from the board? Thank you. We will move into the public portion of the meeting if you wish to speak please come to the podium, state your name and address and sign the sheet when you are finished.
Mr. Weaver: My name is John Weaver; I live at 2090 South County Road 1050 East. I want to thank the board for giving us a chance to speak. I am opposed to rezoning this to warehouse. We have established neighborhoods all around there and I don't think we should be subjected to a warehouse. This proposed intersection that they've got would allow the truck traffic to get into there and snarl Ronald Reagan, you already have a ton of truck traffic and there is no left turn lane there, and I don't think there is any room to put one in, so you are basically going to tie up one lane of traffic from the trucks trying to turn left off of Ronald Reagan to go west. I am opposed to this.
Mr. Kirchoff: Can you tell us basically where you live?
Mr. Weaver: I'm north; I'm on the east side of Ronald Reagan north of the lot.
Mr. Burkes: Tom Burkes, I lived adjacent to this property for 41 years. I'm a registered professional engineer, retired. I have developed several subdivisions in the Plainfield/Hendricks County area and I like to see nice buildings and nice subdivisions, and nice property. Needless to say where we live we know it is going to change, but we want to see the change done where the Town of Plainfield and the citizens that are out there until we are taken over (inaudible). Something has been covered in here that I was surprised that they did cover and one is that they admitted in 2006 that they approached this board with a plan and it didn't work out for them and then in 2008, following Plainfield's master plan which was developed in 2006 of which we were pleased with, the citizens out there were pleased with and we could visualize these medical buildings, office buildings, these people with the Banning building down there, I didn't really expect those kind of buildings, I thought it would be something much nicer than that building. After this occurred in 2008, which was going into accordance with the Plainfield plan, there wasn't a sole in this room against that because it was according to the plan. Well in 2012, economic conditions have changed, and there is not a person in this room that was not affected by that including myself. I own several pieces of property adjacent to this property and near. So it has affected us and it is not worth near as much as it was and I'm not surprised that it hadn't sold. It seems to me like that we've had somebody come out and want to make a quick buck here in our neighborhood, it didn't work on the first pass, so we will do anything to get our money out and it has put us on the spot, it has put you folks on the spot. This plan that was developed in 2006 was a lot of people in Plainfield how they respected and they had a good vision, and we are going to let some individual come in and affect us, and affect this plan. We are not happy about it, and I don't think that we and you should have to bail somebody out that has made a bad decision in buying land that didn't sell quickly. I bought land, and it has made money and I've bought land that didn't make money. So I guess what I am here tonight is simply to say hey, we are not wanting a warehouse out there with 24/7 semi's, it is just, if you haven't lived there you don't know what I'm talking about. And you've got this plan, let's follow it. I imagine some of you folks on this board set in on that and some of us and some of us had input to it. I guess the main thing here is this was the Ronald Reagan Memorial Highway, and we are going to put a big warehouse out there that you can see very vividly from it, there is a remaining 7 or 800 acres for warehouses in this immediate area, if you've got a buyer for that one, then you got a buyer for those and I don't think this board needs to be concerned whether they build this warehouse or not for the sake of taxes or whatever. I guess one question I have is the distance from the set back on those three lots. What is that setback? How many feet? The three lots they are proposing. I heard it was 250'. I'm curious if that takes in account the road. So you are going to have a road taken away from that too. Service road in the back? Does that include the service road or not include it?
Mr. James: It does not include it.
Mr. Kirchoff: It is inside.
Mr. Burkes: The development we had, there around the woods, our lots are 300' deep and here you want to put a building in there and a parking today I don't know what kind of, unless they make it one lot, they have sufficient parking for most of the buildings that is going to be built. Another gentleman back here had a question and he didn't take the oath, he is concerned about the road going out the other way and I didn't understand is that road going to be access road to the warehouse? Between 200 and the warehouse?
(Inaudible)
Mr. Burkes: Semi traffic.
(Inaudible)
Mr. Burkes: That is going to go 50' in front of this man's bedroom. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you, appreciate it, and requests your support.
Mr. Brandgard: I want to make one comment, tonight what we are looking at is whether we should rezone this or not, and this is a concept plan. The actual plan will come in some point after the rezoning if it happens. So to be able to answer questions on exactly what (inaudible) and how it is going to be used, we can't do that right now.
Mr. Burkes: We really not questioning that anyway, we just don't care to have that warehouse that much closer, we just feel that there is sufficient land there for you to develop warehouses. We've got a lot of people that live out there yet even though each time a piece of property is developed houses go, and neighbors go, but we do still live there. Thank you.
Mr. Duncan: Is there anyone else from the public wishing to speak?
Ms. Vanhorn: My name is Zaniah Vanhorn; I live on Bradbury Drive in Medallion Meadows. I think the only thing I want to bring up, which I am sure that everybody is aware of, is we didn't really open Ronald Reagan from Avon yet and the traffic that is there especially during the peak hours, that intersection something is going to have to be totally worked, cause you gave us that little out from Bradbury onto Ronald Reagan and that has been a help because we didn't really have to go out so much onto Washington, but right now the problem with that is when the warehouses let out the shift workers, those lanes as they said just get blocked up and we can't even get out there because any one light doesn't let enough cars through and usually the way the lights are set right now, the left hand turn, one semi can turn left before that is done and also going across it takes them so long to get up and going that you just get one or two semi's there and you get half the amount of cars and so many more people are using that road to get over to 70 and once it opens up from above I think just going to work and coming home traffic is going to be a lot, so I would just point out that, and I'm glad to actually see other roads that if they could connect us to your road on the west there, there is one house at the end of the circle that has been owned by the bank for a long time, they could buy that and give us an out and close the Ronald Reagan one so people wouldn't cut through.
Mr. Kirchoff: You are saying on the west end?
Ms. Vanhorn: Right if you go the transport side, the yellow dots here on the left, if they opened us up to that, that would let us out to the stop light, which is another safe way, but they probably have to close the Ronald Reagan because would shortcut through there. Anyways just that intersection makes life livable or not very much so around there, and having a right turn lane both there and up at Stafford are really critical, because one car not turning right stops everybody going back. Thank you very much.
Mr. McPhail: I do have a question, that lot at the west end; does the Adesa Drive go that far north?
Ms. Vanhorn: I don't think now, Adesa itself does, but Adesa Drive, no I don't believe it does.
Mr. Kirchoff: Kent if you recall that was part of our…
Mr. McPhail: Yes we want to get that access through there. She is right, traffic will be a lot more as soon as that opened up.
Mr. Sarkine: My name is Bick Sarkine, Mr. Burke was trying to speak for me I was not sure I could come up here and speak or not, I should have done it and I am just new to this stuff. I have the property that is on the corner, the very top right hand corner. It is 1.8 acres and if you can see right there, that is where the houses sit. I got a property line that is property line that is probably 25' feet from the property line to the side of the house, I got 2 bedrooms right there and you are going to come in here and bring semis in all night long, all day long. I work for Fed Ex Express, I am a driver, and I know how noisy these trucks are, drive it and do it every day. I know the noise it is going to make, could you sleep there? I don't know I would love to sell the house. But if they do this I don't know what could ever go on the future. The last appraisal I had on it was $183,000.00 and what is it going to be worth now if I have to sell it to somebody, I'm never going to sell it, who will want to live next to a truck stop? The value of my property, I won't get nothing, so to me, that is a very large impact and unless it came along and it was sold, the way this is projected what is anybody going to build around there? I don't know what else to say, I just feel really impacted by it, I appreciate it, thank you.
Mr. Burke: On these plans that the Plainfield Town board came up with it is my understanding that those are left in place normally 2 years to see if they work. Ronald Reagan is not even finished yet and as far as whether this land is going to develop or not, how can you know when the road is not done? We just don't know yet and if this economy straightens out, I think this plan that Plainfield came up with will fall right in place and I think Mr. Wamsley will reap the benefits too, thank you.
Mr. Duncan: We will close the public portion and open it up to the board for discussion.
Ms. Lafata: I've got a couple of questions for Mr. Burkes, Mr. Sarkine, and Mr. Weaver. What is exactly going north or what is being built north of you?
Mr. Burke: That is a residential area, it was developed back when they didn't develop the whole property, it was just a lot of houses (inaudible) Six Points Road going north.
Mr. Kirchoff: Also just down the road is AllPoints Midwest Industrial Park.
Mr. McPhail: I guess I don't have any questions but I've got comments for thought, we've spent a great deal of effort a few years ago on this C-I zoning and I am perplexed even during the good growth period, we have been unable to attract that type of development in Plainfield. I talk about the Mann Property, they brought that project in with one building with two more buildings, I projected they'd have all three buildings built out in two or three years because I thought the demand would be there for that type of facility. That hasn't happened and I have come to the conclusion that it probably is not going to happen because of some other areas that have turned over pretty rapidly particularly in Park Fletcher, seems those little buildings turn over pretty quickly and those start up companies that I thought maybe want to come out, have found a marketplace a little more economical for them, but that doesn't have any more impact one way or another on this piece of property, just that that particular classification that we have and we have in different places, I just don't think we are going to see that much development in the foreseeable future. I look at this particular piece of property and particularly the neighbors and concerns and I certainly understand their concerns, I guess one thing that concerns me as much as anything is that when Ronald Reagan gets open for traffic to the north and then traffic on 200 going west to AllPoints, is that going to have a bigger impact on them than whatever happens in this piece of property. I'd guess the next thought that went through my mind, Is there a way to develop this piece of property in an I-2 mode to give them the same type of protection they would have if they would develop C-I, the C-I you are going to have trucks, cars, if it would develop fully you will probably have more traffic than one warehouse, now you may have more throughout the day and throughout the week, I don't know the noise levels are and those are the neighbors' concerns, the noise levels and the traffic and that type of thing is going to impact them and I can't answer any of those questions those are just issues that are out there, but I do think that the traffic on Ronald Reagan and 200 are probably going to have a significant increase significant impact when this roadway opens up, significant impact when this road opens up. Particularly the gentleman that his house is so close to this and the trucks, would an entrance going into this particular site be any more offensive than what he currently or going to get on 200, he is right on the intersection there, I can't answer those.
Mr. Kirchoff: I have a couple of questions for staff, particularly Don. I couldn't lay my hand on it today, but I know that we participated and accepted a Ronald Reagan master plan, which my recollection was it was 1,000 foot overlay district and this is within that 1,000 foot is it not? I guess my first question is, I guess statement, this doesn't appear to be consistent with what we had said we would do in this district. Joe or Don can you help?
Mr. James: In the preferred land use scenario in the Ronald Reagan Quarter Master Plan, that quarter is 1,000 feet on each side of the center line of Ronald Reagan, it did recommend light industrial for this area, but then as I pointed out in my opening statements at the same time it does not recommend new I-2 warehouse uses within that 1,000 feet, just existing I-2 warehouses or areas that have already been planned for warehouses like along the south of US 40 or Main Street where specifically on the west side where that land is designated for I-2 warehouse.
Mr. Kirchoff: I don't think we've given the two new members a copy of that overlay, that might be good for you to get a copy of that study because we worked very hard with the other communities that were impacted by Ronald Reagan and the County and I guess being involved in that I would think really hard about going against that overlay district and that concept.
Mr. McPhail: And I think we need to not just take a piece of property and (inaudible) with this C-I classification we have because we have spent a lot of effort developing that because we thought we were going to have a demand for that use in the community. Maybe that is something we need to look at in the master plan overall.
Mr. Kirchoff: The other concern I have is working with Transportation, we do have a game plan for that area with that connector going north and south or Adesa Road whatever you want to call it, and I think we will remised not to be addressing that if we were to go forward with that. I think that is a gap that we would be remised not to include in this. I also had the same concern about the north and south, that road next to Mr. Sarkine, I really have concern for that, is there some way, does that really have to be there if we were to approve it, is there some way we could restrict that, we have existing residential there, I think I have to think real hard about what you could use that access for, but with the same token with right in and right out only all through Ronald Reagan Parkway access to this is not ideal, so I just have some concerns about it, as well as impact on the neighborhoods as Ms. Vanhorn said, we have been wanting for some time to provide an access from the west side of Medallion Meadows and if there were some way to help that happen along this line, but I guess I just have real concerns that this is the best use at this point and time, and I understand Kent maybe we need to find some other way to help make this property be valuable but I am not sure this is the right way to go.
Mr. McPhail: Am I misreading that, that appeared to be a full access road, the roadway going south, full intersection is that the road that..
Mr. Kirchoff: I was looking at the right in right out only, is that signaled? Will that be signaled?
Mr. McGillem: The full access at that point, we set it up that it would possibility be any full access that would be approved in our transportation effort we had set up that we had to consider a possibility of a signalized in the future.
Mr. Kirchoff: How far north is that from 40?
Mr. McGillem: Probably half way to 200, so you are probably starting to hit 1,500...
Mr. Kirchoff: This is one of them that was in our master plan?
Mr. McGillem: Yes.
Mr. Kirchoff: It is not a new access?
Mr. McGillem: No it is existing access.
Mr. Kirchoff: The other thing I can say to the two new members we worked really hard to make this a controlled access, because every developer that came in wanted their own full access point and we've been very diligent about saying no we are not going to do that. So this is one that was in the plan, that is what Don is telling us and so I don't have any trouble with that, but we've just been very careful about, and that is also part of the master plan, we have just not allowed anybody to come in and have full access.
Mr. McGillem: The traffic study that was done also recommended at some point and time this should be signalized and of course we are going ahead and signalizing 200 and Ronald Reagan prior to Ronald Reagan getting open this year.
Mr. Brandgard: I was going to say I thought there was pretty good guidelines in the overlay where you can have crossovers and where you can have signals and my view you are telling that is where that was planned but it looks like to me that is closer to the US 40 signal from what those guidelines are, I may be wrong, but I guess overall, when I look I have some concerns with the ingress and egress elements of the plan we have here, and I think…
Mr. McGillem: This intersection is set up and approved as a part and included that as a part of the acquisition process associated with County on this property down through there also, this particular location. There will be required also from the traffic study and there is room there for both north bound and south bound turn lanes that would have to be installed including a recommendation for I think they had for southbound right turn lane also based on what has been proposed.
Mr. Brandgard: A signal there could help the Bradbury Drive.
Mr. McGillem: A signal there could very well help and also the comment on the suggestion of possibly getting the access off to the west of the Adesa, unfortunately Adesa Drive does not go up far enough to hook into that right now, but that was one of there, but that was one of our basic premises, needing to buy a house and find it interesting that the house has been for sale there at the end for that long, but getting to buy a house off the end to where we could connect to Adesa Drive at some point and time, we can get the installation to take better advantage of the signal at 40.
Mr. Kirchoff: One other point, we really don't know what this traffic flow is going to be when the bridge over at 36 gets done and we connect that last, before the year is out right Rich?
Mr. Carlucci: That is correct.
Mr. Brouillard: Not being around when the comprehensive plan was drawn up, what were the reasoning for making this commercial/industrial, was there any particular reasons why this was zoned C-I?
Mr. James: At the time the comprehensive plan was amended in 2005, considering the existing land pattered in this area, the consultant and the Town thought that the C-I would be a good fit for this area and the C-I district was created.
Mr. Brandgard: I think part of that too is the overlay, that fit's the overlay requirements too I believe.
Mr. Brouillard: Is that the general commercial part?
Mr. Brandgard: Yes.
Mr. Kirchoff: I guess sometimes you try to transition so you just put it up against each other and try to transition that.
Mr. Brandgard: This plan is (inaudible) because it doesn't take into account the 1,000 foot setback.
Mr. Kirchoff: We probably ought to get the petitioner a chance to respond.
Mr. Banning: If I could thank you. Let me first of all say, that we have had a traffic study done, I don't know if everyone has reviewed that or not. It is pretty obvious that traffic currently is an issue in this area and part of the discussion if you look at the summary of the traffic study states that there will be dual left turn lanes into this property at a point of access, it also suggests that we probably need dual left turn lanes at US 40 and Ronald Reagan the way things set today. I think we are going to see similar situations like what we have down by my office at Stafford Road and Ronald Reagan whereas the traffic increases we are going to see other needs for upgrading those intersections, so that has been stated in our traffic study, I think as I said this particular area and I am kind of going from US 40 probably up to 200 South as far down as Airtech maybe even. This area really needs to be looked at from a traffic standpoint what can and can't be accomplished. Let me see if I can answer some of the questions, I think most of these we probably got through an answer standpoint, Joe would you go back to the comp plan, Ms. Vanhorn mentioned and I don't know if anyone caught that, but if you look at the west end of Adesa there is a green dot up there where I think maybe that vacant house is or somewhere in that neighborhood, we had contemplated that in our previous study. One of the things I want everyone to remember and think about as well, this Adesa Road, if it were to ever happen, like I said I was involved in the original Adesa plan, matter of fact Chet Schvorkian who is our traffic engineer was involved with that from a traffic standpoint, it was to say the least pulling teeth to get that signal out onto US 40, but what we've done over the years and what we did for that particular project was to set up that entrance into Adesa so that one day it could be a dedicated roadway even though it didn't come before this body, we actually got that approved through the County. We set that up that one day that could be dedicated so that if things would happen, if land uses would change we could hopefully extend that on up to County Road 200 South. We also did the very same thing along the old railroad heading west that would go behind the retail areas, Andy Mohr and all that and I think we are starting to see some of that come as well. So planning is definitely what we want to do and what we want to think about and I just want everyone to understand, we had a lot of ideas and a lot of input in the planning of this area. If Adesa ever redevelops and at one point there probably will be a higher and better use and you can't see that up there, but on the comp plan that we put together it shows that as a RC a retail commercial type land use. That is a lot of retail land use. I keep going back, this particular area and what has happened and what is going to happen really needs to be looked at and I'm just saying for the Adesa site to develop for any of these other areas to develop I think there are some things that need to be looked at when that time comes. I'm really just kind of making statements, I think based on what we are hearing and if it's what the Commission would allow to happen. I think we've got some traffic issues in particular that we need to look at, sit down with staff and I think we need to look at potentially the land use issues that have been brought up here this evening and I guess what I would ask if it is your purgative that we could continue this for 30 days so that we could look at that and see how we might be able to address some of these issues. We can see already that there are some changes that have occurred in this area that don't follow the comp plan right now. I guess I would like to sit down with staff, I don't know if anybody else wants to be involved in really kind of look through this before we get to the next meeting because this is an important piece of property, this is going to set the tone, we all understand that for how things develop up and down this corridor. I've said this for years that this particular area, this is the gateway into Plainfield from the Indianapolis area and I think we need to look at that area so I guess with that, I will open it up if you have any other questions for us, but I guess we would request a continuance to the next meeting to try to address some of these items.
Mr. Kirchoff: I would agree with you on the thought process, except I'm not sure thirty days is enough, just personally speaking, I think there are others here that would be welcome to be involved in the conversations, this is an important piece, we have had conversations with another business man out on 40 talking about what we ought to be doing out there and I think it is healthy to have the conversations and be deliberate about this and do the right thing for the neighbors for the investor, for everybody. I think there is some real issues here we really need to really, and I would support a continuance, I'm not sure I would limit it to 30 days.
Mr. Banning: Could I and I am just throwing this thought out because I know as continuances, re-notification and this and that, if we could maybe have some conversations we maybe could continue it at the next meeting as well, I would like to at least leave that flexibility that we could come back if we could work something out. I agree with you Bill, I mean that is going to be an undertaking, but I think it is something per contract with who we are dealing with on this particular property. We are scheduled to be here next month anyway for our plat, so we are already on the agenda for next month anyway.
Mr. Kirchoff: Let's make sure I know you were, lets keep the neighbors in the loop and even if they want to come to the table, we would welcome folks out. The only reason I am saying more than 30 days is, this is…
Mr. McPhail: I would like to see some of the neighbors get engaged to see if they have any ideas that would help us with the overall thought process of this.
Mr. Kirchoff: Would you and some of your neighbors want to help us?
Mr. Burke: I'd love to sit in on that.
Mr. Kirchoff: Good.
(Inaudible)
Mr. Kirchoff: Can you continue for thirty and see what happens or Mel what do you suggest?
Mr. Daniel: You can do 30 or 60, whatever you think is appropriate. I think the issue you need to deal with here is re-notification or not, and make a decision whether or not the neighbors need to be refortified or not.
Mr. Kirchoff: I will support with that as long as we include the neighborhood in the discussions, are you all comfortable with that.
Mr. Banning: We have actually notified for the next hearing which is the plat hearing zoning this month.
(Inaudible)
Mr. Kirchoff: It wouldn't be on that as it would be where we are on this.
Mr. Daniel: This has to be dealt with first.
Mr. Kirchoff: With that being the case I would move that we continue RZ-12-002 to I believe it is the August 6th meeting.
Mr. Brandgard: Second.
Mr. Duncan: We have a motion and a second, Mr. Carlucci will you poll the board please.
Mr. Carlucci: Mr. Brouillard- yes
Mr. McPhail- yes
Ms. Lafata- yes
Mr. Brandgard- yes
Mr. Kirchoff- yes
Mr. Gibbs is absent
Mr. Duncan- yes
Six ayes, none opposed, one absent, the motion is approved.
Mr. Banning: Thank you very much.
Mr. Daniel: Ladies and gentlemen, I want to make a comment to the public. There will be no new notice for the August 6th meeting, so it is on the docket so understand that this particular petition will be heard August the 6th, so you won't get any additional notification.
Mr. Kirchoff: at 7:00.
Mr. Burke: Who will make us aware of the planning meeting?
Mr. Banning: I just said something to Joe about getting everybody's phone numbers.
Mr. James: Those of you that who signed in would you please come up and write down your phone number or if you want to keep abreast of the situation you can write down your name on the back and your phone number. Do you want to take a break while we take care of this?
Mr. Duncan: Yes let's take a break.
Mr. James: That concludes our public hearing portion of the meeting.
OLD BUSINESS/NEW BUSINESS
Mr. James: Under new business we will discuss our Plan Commission invitees. We have two this month; one was at 3138 Clover Drive for junk, trash, and debris. I went out and took this photo today, they cleaned up the property, they probably had a dozen trash bags out there, but they still have this old couch and a chair that Rays won't take away, so we still need to get those out of there. Then 3120 Clover Drive, outdoor storage, junk, trash, and debris, he Mr. Woodward hasn't made much progress.
Mr. McPhail: I think it is time to start the fining process, if they are not going to reply, the one property it looks like they made some progress, but just getting that big stuff out of there. That is all that is left on the one inside.
Mr. Brouillard: So Mr. Eggleton has not been fined yet?
Mr. James: No and he has not contacted me either.
Ms. Lafata: What exactly is the process anyway, like how long are they allowed to have that stuff out there, like 30 days, 60 days, I guess what is the guidelines?
Mr. James: Well if we get a complaint and it has been out there for sometime we will go out there and look at it.
Ms. Lafata: So it is complaint driven?
Mr. James: Yes.
Ms. Lafata: Ok.
Mr. McPhail: I think Mr. Eggleton that has not made any effort?
Mr. James: No Mr. Woodward.
Mr. McPhail: I think we should start the fining process. I will make that in the form of a motion if we need to do that.
Mr. Brandgard: I will second that.
Mr. Duncan: The motion is second, (inaudible).
Mr. Carlucci: Mr. Brouillard- yes
Mr. McPhail- yes
Ms. Lafata- yes
Mr. Brandgard- yes
Mr. Duncan- yes
Mr. Kirchoff- yes
Mr. Gibbs is absent tonight.
Six ayes, one absent, motion is approved.
Mr. James: Next item, this is a timely item, the East US 40 corridor plan. Robin, Bill and I met with Andy Mohr a couple of weeks ago because Andy wanted to discuss some issues. His main issue was the appearance of East Main Street and the reflection of his property values he's put a lot of money into his property and kept it looking nice whereas some other properties out there haven't put much money into it, so he wanted to know what could be done to help improve the appearance out there and east Main Street is a gateway into Plainfield at the Raceway Road, the comp plan was amended in 2005 like we discussed earlier, but it only addressed land uses, and accesses at the intersection. The US 40 Streetscape master plan was done and we have implemented some of it from the Bridge up to Carr Road with the Streetscape improvements, but that plan is to go from Saratoga all the way out to Raceway, but it could be several years before we get this implemented all the way out to Raceway. Then the completion of the Ronald Reagan Parkway to State Road 36 by the end of the year may help promote redevelopment in this area at the US 40/Ronald Reagan intersection, and like Jeff was saying earlier maybe we need to take another look at the comprehensive plan and rethink land uses and access out there. The Indianapolis Airport Authority completed their study last year, which was a 40 year risen on future land uses for the property they own. They do own some property on US 40, so that addressed the airports property. So we have a lot of elements in place for East Main Street, but nothing that combines it all and puts it in one document. So maybe now is the time to do a US 40/Washington Street corridor study, but not just for Plainfield, start downtown Indianapolis and go all the way out to Plainfield, so with that we need to get some other key players involved, and that would be Town of Plainfield, Plainfield Chamber of Commerce, the Indianapolis Airport Authority, Indianapolis Department of Metropolitan Development, INDOT of course since it is their road, maybe even the Indiana National Road Association. That is something that we probably really need to consider and maybe start the process of getting that in place. I was out there today and took this picture. This is the Shrum Mobile Home Park and this is right off of Main Street and I don't know what the required setback is for this zoning, I think it is C-7 maybe. That has got to be within the setback, and then this trailer here is right off of US 40, that's got to be in the setbacks, and I have tried to work with code enforcements with Indianapolis to address this and I just haven't gotten much response, but maybe if we can get the Indianapolis Council person for this district involved and let them know this is a gateway into Plainfield and it really makes a bad impression as one enters Plainfield, so I think we should try to work with Indianapolis to see if we can't get this addressed.
Ms. Lafata: It is a blight on Indianapolis too, because who should we talk to about the 465 Washington interchange, I know it is under construction.
Mr. Brandgard: It is under construction so when it gets done it is going to be nice.
Ms. Lafata: I wasn't sure if there was a plan on plantings, because every time you go through there it just looks like…
Mr. Brandgard: That is not going to happen, I have met with Mike Wells the Chairman of the Airport Board earlier in the day when we met with Andy Mohr and he expressed some of the same concerns about the US 40 corridor and that and with Andy Mohr expressing somewhat of the same thing and it is just not Plainfield, it's just not Bridgeport, but it does extend all the way downtown. But the most immediate things is what do we do with, and I am going to say the corridor from here to 465, you have to take this in chunks and that is the most important piece, the rest can come later. I think in the case of getting everybody together to talk like the other day and expressing what Andy Mohr said, he said good he is more than welcome to sit down and get things going. We've got to talk to all the people and get them involved.
Mr. Kirchoff: In our conversation with Andy he is willing to bring other business people from East Main Street to the table, he's already had some conversations, I see heads nodding and this would be a worthwhile project for us to…
Mr. McPhail: We all know how slow our process goes sometimes, but I would tell you Joe that I heard just recently that Shrum was in receivership so you might get some help if you can get somebody on that in Marion County to help you, you might have somebody different that Shrum to talk to.
Mr. Brandgard: I have heard that also.
Mr. Carlucci: That is interesting because they sold it at auction not too long ago.
Ms. Lafata: It is a change or something going on.
Mr. Carlucci: There was a change there and I went by there and it looks worse than ever.
Mr. Brandgard: It's not a trailer park; it is a truck trailer park.
Mr. McPhail: I really support us trying to get some kind of program going to work on that.
Mr. Kirchoff: I think a little more global approach is commendable, I have not thought that globally, but I think that is…
Mr. Carlucci: Well it is the airports back door; they have three or four places where you can get off of 40 on that side. As the economy goes down those businesses on a thin edge anyway when the economy was going well, and now they are just car lots and other stuff out there.
Mr. Kirchoff: Nothing might be as helpful as this was part of our Main Street project through Town. I don't know if the two of you have seen that, we should get you a copy of that, can you get them a copy Joe or direct them to the website to look at that. What we showed Andy was Raceway and 40 was kind of a gateway type approach there and he liked that and he said that is the kind of thing that we need to be thinking about, so we have done something…
Ms. Lafata: Wasn't something supposed to go in that old Hobbs nursery area was that already slated or was that just rumor?
Mr. McPhail: No there is an investment company out of Dallas that as far as I know still owns that.
Mr. Lafata: Rumor had it that a Home Depot or something was wanting to go in there.
Mr. McPhail: That is a rumor I can tell you.
Mr. Carlucci: It is zoned correctly.
Mr. James: What is our next step to get this started?
Mr. Carlucci: I think Robin has some people he still needs to talk to.
Mr. Brandgard: We can touch base with these people and get them on board and if we can get them all together and I think the key thing is, just like from our standpoint, we've got the corridor plan and if nothing else we can look at how we can start looking at how we can implement that.
Mr. McPhail: There are some ordinances that we can start working on to control…
Mr. Kirchoff: That is another thing, let me share with you the other, I guess it was kind of the initiating phone call that I got from Andy was the BZA, Board of Zoning Appeals was getting ready to hear a petition for one of those residential properties out by the old diner, he wanted to turn it into a used car lot. Andy was saying there ought to be standards and so we strongly suggested him come and speak to the BZA, which he did and they denied it. Well from that conversation then we kind of said is there some way for us to look at our ordinances and when we have properties that are sitting vacant and not used for some period of time is there something we ought to be doing to say here is a new standard if and when you go back into business. Similar to what we did on the non-conforming signs, so our other point to Andy we will take a look at ordinances and we will put something together as far as some planning.
Ms. Lafata: Is that golf place, is that vacant?
Mr. Kirchoff: That has been purchased.
Mr. McPhail: It will be interesting to see what he does, to keep the building, I suspect he will, he will probably remodel that.
Mr. James: He said he was going to use it for his office.
Mr. Kirchoff: I'm glad you brought that up because that was kind of how we got started talking and then it just went down the road that we ought to be looking at things like this and we ought to be looking at things like this and being proactive at putting that together, he said I will be happy to help you get people at the table.
Ms. Lafata: I agree.
Mr. McPhail: Didn't we adopt an ordinance that on car lots that they had to have a showroom and a service bay.
Mr. Daniel: That was brought up at the BZA.
Mr. Kirchoff: That is why they went to the BZA, they wanted a variance.
Mr. James: Special exception.
Mr. Kirchoff: Special exception, ok.
Mr. Brouillard: The real killer to that was the 1,000 foot from Ronald Reagan, when that came to light, we were like wait a minute that is the grand plan. We did appreciate Andy Mohr coming in to talk to us that was enlightening.
Mr. McPhail: We got Plainfield Auto Sales it has been out there a long time; they have a nice building, a service bay and that type of thing. So you don't want to restrict legitimate good quality businesses, but these fly by night guys that come in and park cars out there and stick signs on them, that is what they have all the way to downtown.
Mr. Daniel: That is what he said at the meeting, this is not a competition, they don't compete with me, it is just a bad idea coming into Plainfield.
Mr. Brandgard: The key is he from Andy's viewpoint, he advertises Plainfield pretty heavy whereas car dealerships are at and the people have to get here and one they have to drive through to get here.
Ms. Lafata: I remember driving through here from Terre Haute many many years ago and see the marked improvement is amazing.
Mr. Kirchoff: Very encouraging and I appreciate the fact of Joe bringing it in; I think we have some energy here that could really launch this thing in the right direction.
