PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION AGENDA
For January 4, 2010, 7:00PM

CALL TO ORDER

Mr. Gibbs: I'd like to call to order the Plan Commission meeting for January 4, 2010. Mr. Carlucci, would you pull the board to determine a quorum?

ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM
Mr. Carlucci:

• Mr. Satterfield- here
• Mr. McPhail- here
• Mr. Brandgard- here
• Mr. Dunkin- here
• Mr. Kirchoff- here
• Mr. Gibbs- here

We have 6 members present, none absent; we have a quorum for the purpose of conducting business.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr. Gibbs: All rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES- DECEMBER 7, 2009

ELECTION OF 2010 OFFICERS

Mr. Gibbs: At this time I'm going to turn the meeting over to Mr. Carlucci for the election of officers.

Mr. Carlucci: At the first meeting of the year we have election of officers, for the Plan Commission, as you know Mr. Gibbs is the current President, Mr. Satterfield, is the Vice President. Is there a motion to approve a President or to nominate someone for President of the Plainfield Plan Commission for 2010?

Mr. Satterfield: I nominate Dennis Gibbs.

Mr. McPhail: Second.

Mr. Brandgard: I move we close nominations.

Mr. Kirchoff: Second.

Mr. Carlucci: Mr. Satterfield made the motion that was seconded by Mr. McPhail.

• Mr. Satterfield- yes
• Mr. McPhail- yes
• Mr. Brandgard- yes
• Mr. Dunkin- yes
• Mr. Kirchoff- yes
• Mr. Gibbs- yes

We also have an opening for Vice President, Mr. Satterfield is the current Vice President, is there a motion or a nomination for this position?

Mr. Brandgard: I would nominate Mr. Satterfield for term of Vice President.

Mr. Dunkin: Second.

Mr. Carlucci: Is there a motion to close nominations?

Mr. Brandgard: So moved.

Mr. Kirchoff: Second.

Mr. Carlucci: Motion was made by Mr. Brandgard, seconded by Mr. Dunkin. To make Mr. Satterfield the Vice President of the Plan Commission for 2010.

• Mr. Satterfield- yes
• Mr. McPhail- yes
• Mr. Brandgard- yes
• Mr. Dunkin- yes
• Mr. Kirchoff- yes
• Mr. Gibbs- yes

We have one more, our current appointment from the Plan Commission to the BZA is Mr. Gibbs. I've talked to him prior to the meeting and he's agreed to serve another year on the Board of Zoning Appeals. I think that is up to the Plan Commission to make a motion and second.
Mr. Satterfield: So move.
Mr. McPhail: Second.

Mr. Carlucci: Motion was made by Mr. Satterfield, seconded by Mr. McPhail to appoint Mr. Gibbs to the Board of Zoning Appeals for one year.

• Mr. Satterfield- yes
• Mr. McPhail- yes
• Mr. Brandgard- yes
• Mr. Dunkin- yes
• Mr. Kirchoff- yes
• Mr. Gibbs- yes

In terms of election offices, that completes the (inaudible)

Mr. James: Mr. Secretary, we have one more. To be DRC appointee for the Plan Commission.

Mr. Carlucci: Who is the current member?

Mr. James: Mr. Dunkin.

Mr. McPhail: I move that he be reappointed.

Mr. Brandgard: Second.

Mr. Carlucci: Motion was made by Mr. McPhail, seconded by Mr. Brandgard. Mr. Dunkin be the appointment to the BRC to the Plainfield Plan Commission for 2010.

• Mr. Satterfield- yes
• Mr. McPhail- yes
• Mr. Brandgard- yes
• Mr. Dunkin- yes
• Mr. Kirchoff- yes
• Mr. Gibbs- yes

The reason I'm saying your names is because we have someone new who is typing these, and naming you off it will make it easier for her to understand who is talking.

Mr. Gibbs: Ok with that, I think we will continue on with our agenda this afternoon.

OATH OF TESTIMONY

Mr. Daniel: administered the Oath of testimony

PUBLIC HEARINGS

PETITIONS FOR PUBLIC HEARING

Mr. Gibbs: The first item on the agenda is RZ-09-003 Mr. James, I will turn it over to you.

Mr. James: Thank you Mr. President, one more thing under the agenda, we don't have the December minutes for you tonight, because we have a new person doing the minutes and she was still working on them at the time the reports went out. We'll have them ready for February.
Our first thing on the petition tonight is;

RZ-09-003 CLP Acquisition, LLC, approximately 8600 E.
County Rd. 200 S., requesting zone map change of ~69.43 acres from R-4 – Medium Density Residential to 12 – Office/Warehouse Distribution Industrial.
To include it into the All Points Industrial Park, the property was rezoned and annexed from an industrial PD in Hendricks County to R4, with the All Points Midwest Industrial Park annexation in a zoning that was done in 2006. And because of the soft housing market now, the petitioner now wishes to include the property into the Midwest All Points Industrial Park. The property is located north of 200 South, 69 acres right here and west of 900 East, this area to the west that takes is in Hendricks County, this is Plainfield to the north and to the east, it is part of the All Points Midwest Industrial Park, office park, which this pink area zoned to I-2 to the south, you have settlement which is zoned to Avon. This is a better aerial of the property. There is about ten residential properties that abut the property Concept Plan represents low density residential but when the zoning was done to R-4, it was done with the commitment that the minimum lot size would be 7,200 square feet, which is more like a medium to high density residential main use in the Comprehensive Plan. Here is a conceptual site plan of the property 200 South here, 900 East here, this is All Points Midwest, they've already got two large warehouse buildings already built. They will not have access to 200 South, the plan is to extend All Points Parkway over and gain access from All Points Parkway, the fire marshal would like an emergency access to the 200 South, there wouldn't be no employee or truck traffic from 200 South, all the traffic would be from 900 East. There's another conceptual site plan, again, this is just conceptual, this will be the last area to be developed in the industrial park, it would require any development would require approval, so this is not the mass public hearing that would be held before any development would occur on the property, any adjacent property owners would be noticed and the Town of Avon asked that we noticed them before any development plans if this is approved. Any development on the site would have to comply with the Gateway Quarters standards because it is within 600 ft of residential. This conceptual site plan they have no loading docks oriented toward the residential, this loading dock would face the north which is part of the All Points Park, loading dock here, would be on the east side, this loading dock would be in the middle of these two buildings, it would not be oriented toward the residential to the west or to the residential to the south. They moved the buildings apart as far away as they could from the west perimeter from the adjacent residential over here. Our zoning ordinance would require a minimum 50' wide buffer yard along this west perimeter, they would have to buffer that with level three (3) perimeter landscaping. The petitioner has committed to increase landscaping, along 200 South going in more detail about it later. The ordinance would, this is 200 south is a collector as the ordinance requires at a minimum of sixty (60) feet front yard they cannot have auto parking in the front yard of an I-2 district. They'd be guaranteed at least a sixty (60) feet front yard on the north side of 200 South. And then again there would be no access to 200 South, only emergency access and it would be gated with the Knox key. Staff comments, the rezone is not consistent with Comprehensive Plan, but it is consistent with the adjacent zoning uses to the north and south. The existing zoning would allow density of about 4.8 units per acre or about three (3) lots, this will produce about over 3,300 trips a day and that would impact the school system with 333 lots, Avon controls access, they've requested commitments for notice and review of development plans and an opportunity to approve access. And that the Plan Commission honor the petitioner's commitment surrounding residential and the settlement do have some concern to potential impacts to their properties. Petitioner did meet with the settlement to address their concerns and some efforts to medicate any potential impacts buildings have been moved away from residential. Got the fifty (50) feet side buffer yard that with level three (3) permanent landscaping, no access for truck traffic on 200 South. Just only emergency access and it will be gated. There would be a minimum of a 60' front yard along the north side of 200 South. No parking is allowed in front yard or set back. No loading docks are oriented toward the residential and the petitioner has agreed to increase perimeter landscaping along 200 south, they committed to bump it up to a level 4.5 with a six (6) feet tall berms. So this is the portion that would be adjacent to 200 South and you got the settlement over here, so they would do a minimum of six (6) feet tall berms or at least sixty percent (60%) of the length and then they've increased perimeter landscaping from a level three to a 4.5, that would be a total of seven (7) trees every 100'. So with that, I'll have a seat and the main issue tonight is, has enough been done to alleviate any potential impacts to the surrounding residential to allow this zoning change.

Mr. Gibbs: Thank you Mr. James. Would the petitioner like to come forward and make a presentation?

Mr. Hirschman: Good evening, I'm John Hirschman with Browning; my address is 6100 W. 96th Street, Indianapolis, Indiana. Thanks for the opportunity for letting me be here tonight, and Happy New Year to all of you. Joe did a good job of describing the lay of the land, so I won't do a lot of repeating of what he's already covered. I thought I might address just two or three things to provide a little color for your benefit. One is the history of how we got to where we are tonight, and this parcel, and ironically this parcel is one of, was the first piece of land that we bought for the All Points Midwest Industrial Park, we acquired 170 acres first and this was a portion of the 170 acres we acquired. The initial plan was that it would like all the other land out in this area to be part of the industrial park, but very quickly we were approached by 3 or 4 different residential home builders who wanted to buy this piece of land for residential piece, we got the land under contract and got it zoned to the R-4 designation which Joe covered and our timing was miserable because that's right when the housing market bottomed out and the company we were under contract would pull out of the contract and we were left with a piece of R-4 land with no buyer. So we've been holding the land since that time that was 2006. I guess hindsight is always 20/20, we probably should have zoned the land I-2 like everything else at the time, now that we are in this market and we think the time is right to go back with this piece of land and make it consistent with the rest of the park in this area and get it zoned I-2 for future development. And as Joe mentioned, just given everyone that has been involved in the All Points project knows this all the development is going from east to west from the Ronald Reagan Parkway toward the west because that's were the roads have been constructed, that's were the utilities have been constructed, and as Joe indicated by optimistic projections we wouldn't be developing this land or the land that's due north of it probably for another 10 years or so because we have so much other developed acreage that has roads to it and utilities already to it. So that is a little bit of the historical context. When we sent notices out for this rezone we received, I received a couple of phone calls from the settlement which is the residential neighborhood located south of 200, so south of our project and they were concerned about the things that you and I would be concerned with if we lived there, traffic, not wanting to look at the industrial buildings, that sort of thing. So along with our counsel Joe Seimia, I went and met with representatives from the neighborhood association about a week and a half ago. It was a good meeting, very positive. They expressed the typical concerns that you and I would think they would about a change in use and what that entails. To boil it down, the sort of parting thoughts that we were left with were really two fold, one is they were concerned about buffer yards, they were concerned about berms and views and things like that. Our response is we typically don't get into those things until we actually have buildings to build and we are going to the development plan process, we've been through this with a couple other adjacent neighborhoods to All Points Midwest, but with that said and with the Town of Avon, I know Tom Cline is here tonight on behalf of the Town of Avon, they are representing their stake holders, and Tom has expressed concerns again with the residents of the settlement needed to be buffered, we did agree to the additional commitments that Joe described which is a level 4.5 landscape perimeter landscape along 200 south that is inclusive of the 6' high berm, and we think without knowing what we are going to build there, we think that is at least a good faith effort of showing that we want to be good neighbors we want to not just come in and do our thing with disregarding the fact that we residential folks near us. So with that said, I don't have any real additional details to add. I'd be glad to answer questions if you have any, but with that, I can have a seat and you can call me back up if you have any questions. Thank you.

Mr. Gibbs: Does anyone on the board have any questions at this particular time? If not, I'll open it up to the public to take a moment or those that have questions or supporting this petition. Opposing this petition? If not I'll close the public part of this meeting and open it up to the board.

Mr. McPhail: Mr. President, I have a couple questions, more for clarification. You know we received letter from the Town of Avon and certainly appreciate all the concerns they have stated here, one of those concerns was that we would notify them and they would have review rights of any access on that county road 200 south, is that not their right to control that because they control that roadway? We would have to go to them rather we wanted to or not wouldn't we? Or the developer would, did I misinterpreting that?

Mr. Carlucci: It is their road.

Mr. McPhail: That is what I thought.

Mr. Carlucci: We would have our Town Engineer and Transportation Director review the opposed. But we think it should be out there in terms of an access. And once they have that approval of the Town, they will take it over to the Town of Avon and show it to them and get their accommodations.

Mr. Kirchoff: I'm confused; can you pull that up Joe?

Mr. McPhail: 200 South from 900 over to Dan Jones is in the Town of Avon, isn't it?

Mr. Carlucci: No, it's a little bit further back from the creek.

Mr. McPhail: Well, yeah it's not quite the 900, but almost.

(Inaudible)

Mr. McPhail: I'm confused on that; I'd just like to get that clarified.

Mr. James: I think it depends on who got their first, and maybe Tim and Mr. Seimia can spread some more information on this.

Mr. McPhail: I certainly don't have any problems with Avon's request, I think it's very reasonable and all that; it just seems to me if that road is in Avon, and they've got control of that access. But I may be misinterpreting that; I'd just like to know.

Mr. Seimia: For the record, my name is Joe Seimia, with Baker and Daniels, located 600 E. 96th Street, Indianapolis, Indiana. Mr. McPhail, you are, I don't believe there is disagreement among the members of the planning staff, the petitioner or the Town of Avon. We have probably is an issue of what the actual facts are here I believe to be the case. I can tell you that when the All Points property was annexed into the Town of Plainfield, which the controlling call along 200 south was to the quarter section. Now I believe the quarter section was the center of the road but I also believe and I've been told and I have no reason to doubt that when the settlement was annexed by the
Town of Avon, that they already annexed to the north property line, and if that is the case, then it is correct that they would control access, As Mr. Carlucci suggested. If they did not annex then it would be kind of a joint jurisdiction because you would each own to the center of the line. But either way, we have proposed, and what we would request is that we honor the spirit of what Avon has requested. And we've proposed a commitment a little different than Joe's, very similar but a little clearer. Its number 3, that any vehicle access to the north limits of the east county road turn south located within Avon's Town limits, which means that's their jurisdiction, shall be subject to applicable approval process of the Town of Avon or its designee. The reading for that is two fold, one is we don't have the ability right now to determine where the annexation line was and it is where it is. But to the extent with Avon, we don't disagree with the fact that we would go to them. Second is, we did ask to be subject to the applicable approval process, instead of the approval of the Town Council, only because we do not want to be treated differently than any other developer that would be seeking curb cuts or access to a county road. So those are the two modifications that we requested to item 3. And I've submitted to Joe, here's a copy of our presentation. With respect to number 2, I'm going to answer more questions, about receiving notice all we did basically was add that notice would go prior to any scheduled public hearing dates at least 10 days prior to the Town Manager so we'd know who to send it to, so that we don't get in the kind of situation of who do we send it too. And I think Mr. Cline is here can answer if he has any objections to either one of those two points. So we were just trying to comply with the request, but also make it clear so that we could follow it. So I think that everyone's understanding is, is that in fact that portion of 200 is adjacent to the property right here, would be dealing with the Town of Avon. The one thing that concerns me as a lawyer is the fact that my guess is that when we come in for development plan for approval, there may be a request for an additional right a way, so we are maxed at it's going to be determined at the time we come in for those develop plan approvals anyway. Because there is going to be a strip taken along the north property line anyway would be my guess, which will push us to the limit. So I don't want to understate the case but it's probably a lot to do with nothing because it is going to change.

Mr. Kirchoff: Joe, can you get it back to the one that is oriented north to south?

Mr. James: Sure.

Mr. Kirchoff: So how far east does your commitment say we go?

Mr. Seimia: Well we'll only make a commitment to respect our property so it would go the whole length of the frontage running along, right there that Joe is showing, because that is all that we are rezoning at this time. Now we would assume that if we were acquiring any other property located on the east or west and brought that in some it would contain some of the same commitments.

Mr. Kirchoff: Where does the settlement end?

Mr. Seimia: The settlements much further to the, Joe, keep it right there, it goes all the way to there. But we don't own the piece the arrow is on, or the home right next to it. Obviously Mr. McGlone will have a lot to say with how we align, but my guess is that, I'll be honest with you in our discussions with the home owners the settlement they were less concerned about quite honestly about the access route what berming would be in place, and of course the fact that this provides for less trips than if it were to develop a residential use. So the other concerns they had was where would the truck traffic go. Other than a few wayward drivers that may not know where they are going. Anybody that now has a GPS, we feel comfortable their looking for the shortest route. And that is not going to be west.

Mr. Gibbs: Thank you.

Mr. McPhail: I'd just like to make one other comment we got a couple residents in that settlement that we've contacted, one of the issues they stated is that they prefer that ground remain residential, I happen to live in Washington Township, we're building schools faster than we can pay for now and I'm not sure 330 lots are better for the tax payers overall as it is to have some other tax base that doesn't generate kids going to school. We're building schools pretty rapidly, a new one every year it seems like. That is a personal comment.

Mr. Kirchoff: I have some questions and opportunities for clarification I guess. Learning about the different types of zoning and if we go I-2 what kind of restrictions does that provide us as to what can be built there in the future? And Joe where I'm going is, well, let me just go through this and you can kind of see my sense of thinking. Is there anyway to restrict the type of business that will be built in this area? To me that would be a zoning provision. Would that be? Which would that perhaps lead to reduce truck traffic and reduce truck noise? I realize that someplace All Points has to abut residential, I mean it's going to touch it where it is now or whether this becomes residential, it is still going to be an abutting residential, so that kind of becomes a mute point someplace. I agree with you Kent, Washington Township certainly doesn't need anymore residential up there. So I guess my bottom line question what do we think would best fits in this piece of property? Because my concern, where I'm going is I-2 really the right way to go? And is there a better way to I guess in order to be control, what goes in there and this becomes a buffer between the residential and true industrial? Does that make sense?

Mr. Brandgard: With that question, what are the commitments we've got in the other, the rest of the portion?

Mr. Kirchoff: I think we have to be careful, this is only conceptual; we already know conceptual plans don't mean anything. I mean so I think we have to be careful saying this is what's going to go in there, because this is purely conceptual. So that's another good question to ask.
Mr. James: Yes, you can certainly restrict the uses of I-2 district that would be one way to go. The other way it would be a PUD where you identify the uses that go in there and you get more detailed with the size of the building.

Mr. Kirchoff: But it would still be I-2?

Mr. James: PUD you could resemble an I-2, but provide your own uses and standards, but the I-2 doesn't allow any outdoor operations. You can have outdoor storage, but it has to be screened by at least a level 3 landscaping. But it is usually the warehousing it does allow manufacturing preassembled parts.

Mr. Kirchoff: What other industrial zoning levels are there that we can consider?

Mr. James: Well, zoning below it I-1. Or the C-I, commercial industrial which would allow flex office type buildings. Just read the differences between the I-1 and I-2. I-1, is resource offices, industrial, established to promote the development research testing laboratories administrative facilities, that are office like in physical appearance and service requirements. I-2 established to encourage the development of office warehouse, warehouse distribution, wholesale, and assembly business establishments which are clean, quiet, and free of hazardous and objectionable elements such as noise, odor, dust, smoke, and glare, operated entirely within enclosed structures.

Mr. Kirchoff: Thank you.

Mr. Carlucci: I might ask you, you have other land in that area north of Morris Street? Does Browning Investments or All Points have land north of Morris Street there?

Mr. Hirschman: Yes.

Mr. Carlucci: What is that zone?

Mr. Hirschman: Well it is in the Town of Avon, I-3. I think the irrelevant comparison actually Joe can you zoom to the arrow? Maybe the best we are going to do, if you see the orange arrow pointing to our site, the land just north of our site there is zoned straight I-2, and it's immediately the Lexington Woods neighborhood. There are new use restrictions, when we had that zoned originally with Plainfield, there were no use restrictions, and we had to make no commitments on landscapes or buffers other than what your zoning ordinance requires. So to me that is the most relevant precedent that sat here is the 100 plus acres that are due north of this site that immediately abuts the residential neighborhood they are not separated by a road or anything. And again that was just straight I-2 zoning, it wasn't I-1 it didn't have use restrictions; it didn't have any additional buffering. With understanding when we come back in for development plan approval, that is the relevant time really look at how the building functions, how it' oriented, where the roads are, what's the best way to co exist with the adjacent residential, so to me that's the comparison we have in terms to adjacent land that's next door to residential. Does that answer your question Rich?

Mr. Carlucci: Yes, it does.

Mr. James: This property was rezoned separately from the All Points, this was the Veris property. We did do some increased, an increased set back/buffer yard with the increased landscaping. I-2 zoning had no use restrictions, and this to the north had no use restrictions either, it is all I-2 zoning.

Mr. McPhail: Joe can you put the list of commitments back up there?

Mr. Dunkin: Did the Comprehensive Plan call for this to be R-4 before the development went in there, or was it changed to R-4 as it was developed?

Mr. James: Actually it called for low density residential. Before it was ever rezoned to R-4.

Mr. Dunkin: Just this one part or the part.

Mr. James: Just this one part, but the zoning before it was rezoned and annexed into Plainfield was part of the industrial PUD in Hendricks
County.

Mr. Daniel: Joe, that statements of commitments that you have up there are different than what's in the materials that you've provided to the Plan Commission.

Mr. James: Yes, just a couple of words, and Town Manager and then the Approved of process of the Town of Avon or ordinance, they took out Town Council.

Mr. Kirchoff: Also, item 3 specifies access which is inside the Avon Town limits. The original request did not.

Mr. James: I think that is the amendment that you have.

Mr. Kirchoff: Oh guess it is, I'm sorry.

Mr. Daniel: Do other than the phrase Town Manager in item 2, that's the same as what they did.

Mr. James: Yes.

Mr. Gibbs: Is the board prepared to make a motion?

Mr. Kirchoff: I guess I will just express concerns that we're asking to modify a division plan because the market changed, which we most recently did for this petitioner for apartments because things changed, and to make it I-2 at this point and time, when they are saying ten(10) or (15) years down the road before anything will happen, I think none of us, I doubt any of us will be sitting here ten (10) or fifteen (15) years from now. I just have some real concerns that this is the right direction to go, simply because they didn't foresee the housing market changing the way it did.
Again, I don't know what else we can do to protect the residents, residential next door.

Mr. McPhail: You know I'd probably agree a little bit differently, I made a comment earlier; the residential impact some days if it remains there it's going to affect the school corporation.

Mr. Kirchoff: And I'm not suggesting residential.

Mr. McPhail: I was a little bit surprised that we really got no comments from the abutting residential neighborhood to the west. I do remember when it was zoned residential, that those folks did object to have any connector made there. And we did approve the connector with the emergency barrier there where the traffic dispersed into that residential neighborhood, so I don't know if it is a un-communicated message that they prefer this over the residential or not. With no contact from any of them on this, that it will certainly be impacted certainly much more than the settlement, because it does abut right up to their property. Their concern, they did have concern over the residential.

Mr. McPhail: I move that the Plan Commission certify the zone map amendment RZ-09-003 as filed by CLP Acquisition, LLC requesting rezone of 69.43 acres from R-4 Medium Density Residential to I-2 Office/Warehouse Distribution Industrial district with a favorable recommendation subject to the following commitments being submitted on Exhibit A forms prior to certification of the Town Council.
1. Prior to occupancy of any building constructed on the Real Estate, the owner shall install a sixty (60) foot wide landscape berm on the Real Estate along the adjacent to the frontage of County Road 200 South, in substantial compliance with the Concept Plan attached hereto and Exhibit “B”.
2. A minimum of ten (10) days prior to any scheduled hearing date, the Town of Avon shall be provided via Certified Mail, legal notice of any proposed development plan review, approval petition to modify commitments, plat, variance of development standards or use, special exception or other land use petition for any property included within petition RZ-09-003,
3. Any vehicular access to the north limits of the East County Road 200 South right-of-way within the Avon's Town Limits, shall be subject to the written review and approval of the Avon Town Council or designee.
Mr. James: Mr. McPhail, We need to modify that last sentence, last commitment.

Mr. McPhail: I thought it was the same. Any vehicular access to the north limits of the East County Road 200 South right-of-way within the Avon's Town Limits, shall be subject to the applicable review and approval process that the Town of Avon or designee.

Mr. Brandgard: Second.

Mr. Gibbs: I have a motion and a second. Mr. Carlucci, will you poll the board.

Mr. Carlucci: The motion was made by Mr. McPhail, seconded by Mr. Brandgard.

• Mr. Satterfield- yes
• Mr. McPhail- yes
• Mr. Brandgard- yes
• Mr. Dunkin- yes
• Mr. Kirchoff- no
• Mr. Gibbs- yes

5 ayes, 1 no, motion is approved.

Mr. Gibbs: Thank you.
Next item on the agenda.


OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS

Mr. Gibbs: Next item on the agenda, Adopt Negative Findings for DP-09-013 Kroger's

Mr. James: This is under Old Business, the last Plan Commission Meeting, the development plan for Kroger's gas station, was denied by the Plan Commission but we did not have negative findings prepared so I emailed those to you, I'm going to pass those out to you. The zoning allows us to adopt negative findings at the next scheduled Plan Commission hearing so Mr. President, I guess you please read the negative findings and then we will need a motion to adopt.

Mr. Gibbs: The Plan Commission on December 7, 2009 conducted a public hearing on the Petition filed by Thomas Michael Quinn and Ben Comer regarding the Kroger Fuel Center Addition to the current Kroger property.
The Plan Commission hereby enters the following Findings of Fact:
1. The proposed development is not appropriate to the site and it's surroundings.
2. The proposed development is not consistent with the intent to purpose of 4the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
3. The proposed development would create a public safety hazard.

Mr. McPhail: Mr. President, I move we approve these findings.

Mr. Gibbs: I have a motion.

Mr. Kirchoff: Is that what the motion should be or should it be denied the petition?

Mr. Daniel: The findings there, he didn't read it all, but it does deny the petition.

Mr. Kirchoff: Then I second.

Mr. Gibbs: I have a motion and a second, Mr. Carlucci, would you pull the board.

Mr. Carlucci: Motion was made by Mr. McPhail, Seconded by Mr. Kirchoff.

• Mr. Satterfield- yes
• Mr. McPhail- yes
• Mr. Brandgard- yes
• Mr. Dunkin- yes
• Mr. Kirchoff- yes
• Mr. Gibbs- yes

• Mr. Satterfield- yes
• Mr. McPhail- yes
• Mr. Brandgard- yes
• Mr. Dunkin- yes
• Mr. Kirchoff- yes
• Mr. Gibbs- yes

6 ayes, none opposed, motion carries.

Mr. James: Also, Mr. Carlucci scanned a pamphlet that Kroger has I believe mailed out in Plainfield and they have also mailed to the Plan Commission. This has their intent to seek legal proceedings against the Town based on the denial of the develop plan which has no bearing on the negative findings site. But I will pass these out to you.

Mr. Gibbs: Anything else on the agenda?

Mr. James: That is all I have this evening.

Mr. Gibbs: Thank you.

- Plan Commission Invitees: None

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Satterfield: We adjourn.

Mr. Kirchoff: Second.

Mr. Gibbs: Motioned all those in favor signify by saying aye.