The Plainfield Plan Commission met on Monday, June 6, 2005. in attendance were Mr. Thibo, Mr. Matrana, Mr. McPhail, Mr. Brandgard, Ms. Whicker, Mr. Kirchoff and Mr. Haase.
ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM
Mr. Carlucci administered the roll call.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
MINUTES
Mr. Thibo made a motion to approve the May 2, 2005 Plan commission minutes as submitted. Second by Mr. Matrana. Motion carried.
OATH OF TESTIMONY
Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Testimony.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mr. Haase reviewed the Guidelines Governing the Conduct of Public Hearings. I believe it shows here that we have a petition that is continued.
Mr. Valanzano said PP-05-004, Mid-States Engineering down in Cambridge did not send a notice out for this hearing. They also filed the development plans so we are going to package those two cases with proper notice and bring those back to the Plan Commission for your consideration next month.
Mr. Thibo made a motion to grant a continuance of PP-05-004, Mid-States Engineering until the next Plan Commission meeting. Second by Mr. McPhail. Motion carried.
Mr. Haase said if there is anyone in the audience to hear this hearing, will there be follow-up public notices in the newspaper?
Mr. Valanzano said yes we will publish the notice and they will be sending out mail notices to all property owners.
Mr. Haase said so you will get noticed both ways for the next hearing. We will start this evening with RZ-05-006, Caldera Development.
[Podium mic was not audible]
Mr. Valanzano presented the RZ-05-006, Caldera Development, Inc. on behalf of the Town.
Mr. Jeff Banning with Banning Engineering at 698 Tower Road, Suite 100, Plainfield presented RZ-05-006 on behalf of the petitioner, Caldera Development, Inc.
Ms. Whicker said on the site sketch that you have provided you are speaking of this area as the 1.1 plus or minus, the northern plot.
Mr. Banning said the last document that we gave you only showed one outlot.
Ms. Whicker said May 25th.
Mr. Banning said (inaudible).
Ms. Whicker said at 1.4.
Mr. Banning said the previous document, the 21.1 acre outlots were not shown.
Ms. Whicker said so this is the newer.
Mr. Banning said this is the new document.
Ms. Whicker said the site that you are referring to and showing us is the northernmost 1.1 but not both of them together.
Mr. Banning said they could be. This is a conceptual drawing. We don’t know how those outlots are going to develop. What we are saying is everything south of Beechwood down to the Walgreen’s we would like to have full use of that property based on our rezoning request.
Ms. Whicker said so also you are actually referring to south of Hawthorne Drive.
Mr. Banning said correct, which I don’t think was an issue at the last meeting.
Mr. McPhail said the photograph you showed us standing on the outlot shows an entrance into the site that lines up with Beechwood Drive, is that correct?
Mr. Banning said that is correct.
Mr. McPhail said that being an entrance what are the setback requirements from that entrance if you built on the south of that entrance, how far back are the normal setbacks from an entrance road?
Mr. Banning said from the entrance road itself or Dan Jones Road?
Mr. McPhail said from the entrance road.
Mr. Valanzano said it would only be five feet from the easement.
Mr. Banning said that would be considered a front yard.
Mr. Valanzano said unless you are building a public street coming in. You are talking about the north property line, correct? This site would be required a five-foot setback as a side yard of an outlot abutting a road going into a center.
Mr. Banning said I don’t really think that is our intent. I think we would like to see some nice landscaping at that entryway.
Mr. McPhail said that is what you are showing there. You are showing a boulevard, right?
Mr. Banning said right. We are showing a boulevard. The typical setback is 30 feet from a public road.
Mr. McPhail said that’s going to put the building farther south. I’m assuming there is also an entrance lined up with Hawthorne, is that correct?
Mr. Banning said correct. To further your comment we would be 30 feet south of the right-of-way, which would be a minimum 50 feet. So, there is 80 feet plus the 160. We are 210 feet straight north and south.
Mr. Thibo asked, how far is that retention pond from St. Susanna School?
Mr. Banning said when you look at our site plan, I want you to understand this is conceptual. St. Susanna sits in here by these two outlots. That detention pond is to the northern part of the property. That is conceptual. We have talked to St. Susanna. They have a drainage problem and we talked with them about working together to solve that drainage problem. That detention basin could move south. It could be closer to them. That is something that we would have to work out with them. This is conceptual. That is what the land planners had come up with at this point. So, that is really not set as far as the location of it. One of the things that is for sure is we are going to try to make as much of the water on this site back to the northeast toward the old railroad because of the drainage issues that we have toward U.S. 40 currently.
Mr. McPhail said I have in my packet Exhibit “A” and I have an administrative document and they do not match one another in terms of what you scratched off or added on. At least when I read through them, for an example, I don’t believe Exhibit “A” excludes auto, truck and bus sales and service although you scratched them off in this document.
Mr. Banning said it says, “The following items shall be prohibited.”
Mr. McPhail said I hope they do match.
Mr. Banning said I will doublecheck.
Mr. McPhail said I looked at this one and I feel comfortable with it but I got confused reading it.
Mr. Banning said Mr. Valanzano and I kind of came up with kind of an administrative document that goes along with the ordinance so that anybody could come in the office and see. This is the recorded document.
Mr. McPhail said I do see the commitment one, the exclusion. I read right over that, I’m sorry.
Mr. Banning said I will doublecheck those anyway to verify that they match.
Mr. McPhail said for some reason I had an asterisk on motorcycle sales. It didn’t make any difference to me one-way or the other.
Mr. Haase said Mr. Banning on your map back to Exhibit “A” what is that dark area?
Mr. Banning said that is the 150-foot area that we talked about on our administration document on page number eight down at the bottom. That is where we talked about limiting the issues within 150 feet of Dan Jones right-of-way to Neighborhood Retail if we were to do any kind of outlots.
Mr. Haase said so that has nothing to do with the gas station.
Mr. Banning said no. This would be an additional commitment of 250 feet from the gas station or the car wash. That would be separate. I guess as kind of a clarification, I hope I’m not getting ahead of myself, but on page eight under “additional commitments” I think probably the thing to do, if the commission is okay with that, is where we would maybe put in a number six and discuss the commitment on restricting the 250-foot area along U.S. 40 and Dan Jones, as I explained, for the car wash and the service station.
Mr. Haase asked, is there anyone in the audience who has any questions about where we stand on this or what is being presented?
Mr. Rodney Brown at 1505 E. Main St. said I live directly across from Walgreen’s. Maybe it was my misunderstanding at the last meeting I thought the Town coincided with our beliefs that we really didn’t want a gas station along the U.S. 40 corridor. From what I hear tonight they still want to move forward with that plan with 250 feet of a leeway. I thought we came to some sort of an agreement the last time to restrict the gas stations along U.S. 40. As a citizen that lives across the street from Walgreen’s I got no help from Walgreen’s when they built there. That still hurts me today. The problem that I have is when this all developed and we have all the new buildings and new tenants in there, what kind of commitment am I going to get from the developers with any new obstructions that I have as far as my property goes? Obviously, we all know the change is coming but I think we have to be smart about logistically placing the gas stations close to the schools. It’s going to be lit up at night. Gas stations are probably going to be a 24-hour convenience item. That is the thing that bothers me too. I get enough lights from Walgreen’s now. I don’t need more lights. I want some sort of an agreement for the citizens that live on the south side of U.S. 40. I think we deserve that. Just keep us in mind. I think we need to be smart about possibly allowing certain things and then again let’s get a commitment to work with the citizens on the south side of the street.
Ms. Brenda Elrod at 1509 E. Main St. said (inaudible).
Gentleman from the audience residing at 1403 E. Main St. said (inaudible).
Lady from the audience residing at 1403 E. Main St. said (inaudible).
Mr. Haase said I would just like to remind everybody that the Plan Commission does not do any rezoning at these hearings. They merely give a recommendation to the Town Council. All rezoning is taken care of at the Town Council level.
Mr. Banning said one of the things that has been developed with this plaza area we have allowed for pedestrian connectivity. There are Town paths on the old railroad. The flashing lights are up but we don’t have a path yet. We have committed to have connectivity throughout the development. We have also committed to utilizing the Town’s proposed landscaping plan along U.S. 40 and we will have committed to using Gateway Corridor standards from the standpoint of the Town with respect to the buildings and so forth. So, we have a lot of items that we put in place on this property we feel will elevate the site maybe even more so than some of the others that have been developed. I think that is one good thing that the Town does. They continue to improve on the development standards and we have committed to doing those items.
I think that was the same thing with the gentleman back there also with respect to the gas station. I think we have heard loud and clear. I guess what we would commit to now is this is the north line of Walgreen’s. At its western property it is 300 feet from the north right-of-way of U.S. 40. I guess what we would commit to is that line extended west there would be no gas station south of that. Actually when you get over the west property line, it is more like 500 so since U.S. 40 is at an angle I can’t give you an exact dimension but the north property line at the northwest corner of Walgreen’s extended west, anything south of that we have committed to not having a gas station or a car wash. That is a further commitment above the 250 with the 340 feet being the minimum distance.
And then going back to the first gentleman that goes along with the rules and regulations. This project will come back before the commission at least two more times. We will have a platting hearing and we will have a development plan review hearing. The platting hearing would generate outlots on the property and then the development plan review would be to look at the lighting, landscaping, architectural features, whatever would be along U.S. 40 or any particular project site on this property. So, I think that answers the questions.
Ms. Brenda Elrod at 1509 E. Main Street so you are saying you won’t put gas stations on U.S. 40.
Mr. Banning said from anywhere south. Basically it’s the road that connects up Dan Jones and Cinergy, anything south of that road.
Ms. Elrod said so really from here to St. Susanna.
Mr. Banning said correct.
Ms. Elrod said you are saying a gas station or a car wash.
Mr. Banning said correct.
Ms. Elrod asked, will you still commit to the 250 feet buffer with whatever goes there?
Mr. Banning said there will still be uses within that 250 feet.
Ms. Elrod said (inaudible).
Mr. Banning said it has always been intended to use that ground for development.
Ms. Elrod said (inaudible).
Mr. Haase said that was the gas station and/or car wash.
Ms. Elrod said since he is not doing the gas station or car wash it won’t be as far off.
Mr. Haase said no they were probably, I don’t want to speak for the developer, but my understanding would be that they would not put a gas station any closer than 250 feet north of U.S. 40. Now they have said 340 feet but at the northeastern point. But I’m sure they had plans at all times within that 250 foot that they would not build a gas station but I’m almost confident that some type of development would go in there.
Ms. Elrod said so there will probably be an entrance into the location off of U.S. 40.
Mr. Banning said that is the intent. That is on the conceptual site plan yes.
Ms. Elrod said (inaudible).
Mr. Banning said we don’t know at this point. This site plan is still conceptual.
Ms. Elrod said Walgreen’s has a pretty good in and out off of U.S. 40.
Mr. Banning said one of the other things that we have done, just so that everyone knows, we talked with St. Susanna about combining entrances. We have had those discussions.
Ms. Elrod said (inaudible).
Mr. Banning said (inaudible).
Mr. Haase said there would have to be a traffic study done and INDOT has a lot to do with controlling where those entrances will go. I don’t know where an entrance can go there but I’m sure that fire and safety and the traffic flow and access would want an access on U.S. 40.
Mr. McGillem said that is right. Anything that goes on U.S. 40 would have to have a traffic study be prepared in accordance with INDOT’s requirements. That would have to be submitted to INDOT and then INDOT will have full control of where, what and how it goes in on U.S. 40.
Ms. Elrod said (inaudible).
Mr. Banning said that will be a site plan and platting issue.
Ms. Elrod said (inaudible).
Mr. Banning said there could be but we don’t know until we talk to INDOT.
I think I have answered everyone’s questions.
Mr. Haase said this will come back before this board and all of the entrances and all of the landscaping and everything will come back before a public hearing. It will be noticed as this was noticed.
Mr. Banning said at least twice.
Mr. Haase said unless you would combine those at the same hearing, which you could do.
Mr. Banning said that is right.
Mr. Haase said there are two public hearings but they could be heard at the same meeting.
Mr. Banning said that is correct.
Ms. Elrod asked, will we get that notice in the mail?
Mr. Haase said you will get a notice just like you did this one. Is there anyone else in the audience who would care to speak on this matter?
Mr. John Reel at Highlander Dr., Plainfield said I’m very interested in the time frame. We have a date of August 1 to vacate the property. Would it be unethical to ask Mr. Banning if we should still plan on leaving August 1?
Mr. Haase said I think you can discuss that with them. I don’t think it has anything to do with the rezoning request that we have tonight. I’m sure, knowing the people that I see out here, that they will get with you on that.
Mr. Reel said we have had a very good understanding. I was just trying to put them on a spot.
Mr. Haase asked, does the petitioner have anything to add before we take this to a motion?
Mr. Banning said no.
Mr. Haase said we will then close the public portion of this hearing. With the motion before us there have been some changes to that, as requested by the petitioner, so be sure to stipulate and state those as changed. Remember we are giving a favorable, unfavorable or no recommendation to the Town Council.
Mr. McPhail said I would like to make a couple of comments. From the last meeting it appears to me that the petitioner has addressed the issues that we were concerned about in terms of the gas stations. I believe the setback that they have suggested addresses that issue. The lighting I feel confident that zoning regulations on lighting gives additional protection. And obviously with that setback on U.S. 40 there is going to be some kind of construction but if they do put a gas station back there, there is certainly going to be another structure between there and U.S. 40. So, I really believe they have addressed the issues that we got hung up on at the last meeting.
Ms. Whicker said for clarification is number 2 the item that has been changed?
Mr. Haase said we discussed gas stations not within 340 feet. Would that also be for car washes also?
Mr. Banning said that is correct, along U.S. 40.
Mr. Whicker said but you weren’t real sure on the 340 feet.
Mr. Banning said (inaudible).
Mr. Valanzano said, if I could make a suggestion, the probation would be on any parcel south of the north line of the Walgreen lot extended. (Inaudible). You can use that same language in both two and four. And then if you agree with Mr. Banning’s comments about the Beechwood Drive on the last part of line four, you could strike out the “first outlot south of”, referring to part of Beechwood Drive. That would basically prohibit gas stations from the north side of the property to Beechwood.
Ms. Whicker made a motion that the Plan Commission certify the zone map amendment request RZ-05-006 as filed by Caldera Development, Inc. requesting rezoning of approximately 37.8 acres to the GC classification to the Town Council with a favorable recommendation subject to the commitments filed May 25, 2005 being signed, notarized and returned to Staff prior to certification of the zone map amendment to the Town Council provided that the following additional changes be made:
Car wash (automatic or self) and gasoline service station without repair shall be prohibited on any parcel south of north line of Walgreen extended between St. Susanna and Walgreen. Or within 250’ of Dan Jones Road from the north property line of the real estate to Beechwood Drive.
Second by Mr. Brandgard. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent.
Mr. Valanzano presented DP-05-006, Premier Properties, USA, Inc. on behalf of the Town.
Mr. Ryan Cronk with Premier Properties at 5252 E. 82nd St., Indianapolis represented the petitioner this evening on this petition.
Mr. Haase asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this matter? Being no one coming forward we will close the public portion of this hearing.
Mr. Kirchoff said I would assume in the motion we would want to change the very last statement that “Sign Type “A” shall not exceed 8’ in height.
Ms. Whicker said just a question. You have confirmed the materials made of aluminum. Did we confirm the method of lighting used in that?
Mr. Cronk said (inaudible).
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion that the Plan Commission approve DP-05-006 regarding Sign Type “A” as filed by Premier Properties USA, Inc. requesting final detailed plan approval for a freestanding “Metropolis” entrance sign within the Metropolis PUD finding that:
The Final Detailed Plan satisfies the Development Requirements and Development Standards specified in the PUD District Ordinance establishing such district.
The Final Detailed Plan accomplishes the intent set forth in Article VI of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
The Final Detailed Plan provides for the protection or provision of the site features and amenities outlined in Article 6,C.,2. of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
And that such approval be subject to the following:
Sign Type “A” shall be in substantial compliance with the plan file dated May 18, 2005 with the following limitations:
The letters, which make up Sign Type “A” shall not exceed the height of 8 foot or an overall length of 90 foot and 10 inches.
Sign Type “A” shall be setback at the minimum of 150 feet from the west right-of-way of Perry Road and 40 feet from the north line of the main access easement into the mall.
The individual letters shall be made of aluminum.
Sign illumination shall be via underwater lights located within the lower pool.
Second by Mr. McPhail. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Haase said next we have PP-05-005 and DP-05-014, Duke Construction Limited partnership.
[Podium mic is now audible.]
Mr. Valanzano said I got an opportunity to preview Mr. Paul’s presentation so I will be brief. I know he is going to cover most of what I would cover anyway. The petition that you have in front of you is a combination of several steps we have been going through including annexation, rezoning, vacation of plats, vacation of roads and easements, variances for parking and for landscaping requirements. Now we are at the platting and development plan stage. We are talking about taking approximately 71 acres and dividing it up. Mr. Paul is going to show you all the details on that.
The issues that we had that we looked at on the site, if you look on the Staff Report, on the photo or the picture on the cover, really the only concern we had in terms of the platting is how to handle access into Block “A”. Since the whole purpose of platting is supposed to provide that all parcels are developable parcels, we have come up with a solution we believe by adding text that would put any party that would require future interest in the property on notice what the access situation is and what steps they would have to go through in order to be able to develop that parcel. I think from that point of view we have addressed the situation as best we can.
In terms of the development plan they are proposing a 638,000 state-of-the-art warehouse/distribution facility. It also includes 15,000 square feet of office. The office pod is located in this area in the front center portion of the project.
The issues that were discussed in front of the Design Review Committee included a tree preservation area that Mr. Paul will show you more details on, screening of the truck court area from SR267, a parking situation with respect to a variance that was approved earlier by the Board of Zoning Appeals a fire access road that may be coming around the site. As I understand it, the petitioners have agreed with the fire marshal that it will be on heavy-duty asphalt. So, really the last thing that we have an issue with this building, all of the other aspects of the landscaping, lighting, going up and down through the Zoning Ordinance, is in compliance with the regulations and favorably recommended by the Design Review Committee. The only thing that was outstanding was the appearance of the building. I believe one member of the Design Review Committee said the initial drawing was a little bit lacking in terms of the design. A series of recommendations was made by the Design Review Committee. In response to those recommendations the petitioner prepared elevations and due to timing they had to send one of the elevations for filing in the packet. What they filed was the bottom elevation, which you see on this board here. When they made the revisions, they sent both elevations via e-mail and I distributed those to the Design Review Committee and the Design Review Committee, the majority of the members said, we prefer “B” to “A”. The one that is in your packet is “A”. Having talked to the petitioner their comment was we and the future tenant like either one. If you have a strong preference with the Plan Commission one way or another, let us know and that is the way that we will go.
Mr. Haase asked, are we looking at “B” here?
Mr. Valanzano said “B” is the top one. This is the drawing that was filed. This was option “A”. This is the drawing that you have in the initial packets that was sent back to you with the Staff Report. These two options were the ones that they sent to me via e-mail. Everybody said either one is an improvement. When given a choice, the majority of the members said we like this one a little bit better. The petitioner’s response was the Plan Commission can have either one that they want basically. So, with that all of the other issues with respect to the platting issue and the approval of the plans and the landscaping and the site lighting and everything have been taken care of. There was an issue that they really worked with us on in terms in trying to protect the visibility of the truck court dock on the north side of the building from SR267. They worked with us real well in putting together some overstory trees and evergreen trees in there to get a lower and upper visual block. With that I will turn it over to Mr. Paul who has all of this stuff set up in finite detail for you on the projector.
Mr. Blaine Paul with Duke Construction at 600 E. 96th St., Suite 100, Indianapolis said I’m here this evening for the Becton Dickinson development project. I have combined the primary plat and development plan petitions into one presentation for you this evening. I will go through this presentation and if at any time, feel free to stop me and we can discuss it at that point or you can wait until I’m finished and we can have our answer and question session at that point and time.
Mr. Valanzano gave a good job of giving you an overview of where we have been on this project. I know you see a lot of projects but just to refresh your memory outlined in red is the subject property. This is an aerial view. We are located between SR267 and Perry Road on the north side of Reeves Road. There was a portion that was out of Town; a portion that was in Town, all that was zoned Residential. Lot 1, which is highlighted in the black dashed line, has been rezoned to I-2, which is the appropriate use for the proposed project. Over on the west side of the property is what we are calling Block “A”. It has been zoned to I-1 and at this point and time there is no improvement plans associated with this real estate.
Just to kind of give you a description of the primary plat this whole acreage, 71.303 acres, was previously known as the Brunswick Park Subdivision, Section 1; 2 and 3. The plat vacation has been approved by the Plan Commission and all of the internal rights-of-way, easement vacations have been approved by the Town Council. The redeveloped subdivision consists of lot 1, which is 52 acres even. That is the property that will be owned by Becton Dickinson and Company. Block “A”, which is 7.78 acres will be owned by Duke Construction. There is a right-of-way dedication associated with this project. Keep in mind that there was right-of-way dedicated as part of the Brunswick Subdivision plat and we have basically vacated the entire plat, which includes the right-of-way, which will immediately be followed up by the secondary plat associated with this project, which will essentially put the right-of-way right back in place.
This is what the primary plat looks like. The large parcel over here is the 62-acre piece. Here is the right-of-way dedication that I spoke of and this over here is Block “A”, which is 7.78 acres. There will be three points of access to lot 1 where each of those arrows is located. This will be the main truck entrance that we can get into on the site plan. This will be the main car entrance and this over here will be just another means to ingress or egress the site. I don’t believe it is intended to be used on a daily basis.
A water main extension that is proposed will be installed by the Town of Plainfield. The entire site drains to this point here. This encompassed within this 20-foot drainage easement is tributary to Rogers Creek, which traverses the northwest corner of the property in this area. That is the area where the entire site drains into the existing condition and we are going to utilize the same outfall for the proposed condition.
Sanitary sewer service - there is sewer that runs again across Block “A” and served portions of the existing residential subdivision. We will be utilizing that same main line for this development project.
I don’t know if you saw in the primary plat there was a big bunch of text that when you saw it, you probably thought you didn’t want to read it and when you start reading it, you maybe got bored. But I will give you a clipboard version of what this says. This is what I call the block “A” commitment. This will be included on the secondary plat. It basically states that the developer of the project, everybody that is part of the secondary plat, is aware of the fact that Block “A” is effectively landlocked and does not have access to utilities and we are making the commitment that unless the other means of ingress/egress and utility easements are provided to Block “A” it will not be developed. That will run with the property until such time that we have corrected that situation. At that point and time we would be back before you to talk about what we want to do with that piece of ground.
That was the primary plat presentation and now we are going to jump into the development plan presentation. We are talking specifically about lot 1 and the Becton Dickinson project. It is a 653,000 square foot warehouse/office facility. It is 638,000 square feet that is the warehouse/distribution component of that building and there will be a 15,000 square foot office facility on the south side of the building. The trailer staging area is in the rear yard, which is the north side of the building. It includes 250 trailer staging spaces and 65 dock doors and two drive-in doors. The car parking lot, which is in the front yard, includes 115 employee parking spaces and visitor stalls. Earlier this evening we presented a variance for reduction in the parking spaces to reduce the required from 265 to the client’s document needs, which is 160. That variance passed favorably earlier this evening.
I also want to point out another highlight on this project is that there is a five-acre tree preservation located in the southwest corner of the property. Here is the office component on the south side of the building to get everybody oriented again. This is Reeves Road, this portion of the building is the warehouse/distribution area, the trailer staging docks are on the north side of the building, as indicated, car parking will all be located in the front of the facility on the south side. This area here is an expansion that will be constructed at the same time the initial building is constructed. Right now this pad will be somewhere in the range of 300,000 square feet and it is just there for future expansion. I don’t believe that there is anything on the slate right now to have that happen. There is really no timeline associated with it but they wanted the ability to expand so that is why that is there. This area is a five-acre tree preservation area. It is part of the construction document. This area will be protected by fencing during construction. There will be no construction equipment in this area and it will be our intention to preserve all of the trees located in this area, which totals around 65 trees total, mature trees. The pond will be located along the north side of the property line and it discharges over here to the drainage easement at that point there.
Also, a couple of things I wanted to point out is this facility serves a very large portion of the United States of American, therefore, they cannot have any interruption in power service whatsoever. So, on the north side of the building, at those two locations, that is where the electric transformers will be located and there will be diesel generators located outside the building on the north side of the facility not visible from the road.
I also wanted to point out that the trash compactor will be located at the northeast corner of the building on the north face and not visible from Reeves Road.
This is an overall landscape plan. I don’t think the person with the best eyes could read that text so I have a couple of blow-ups for you as well. But on the west side we are proposing a Level 1, which is required by ordinance and the same thing on the north side and also on the east side, a Level 1 in those locations. The south side of the project down here is actually a portion of an area that is outside of the Town of Plainfield Town limits and it is zoned Residential. Again, it is just like this up here. It is owned by the Indianapolis Airport Authority. They took down the houses. It will not be Residential use again so we requested a variance of the amount of landscaping required. If we viewed this as residential on the south side, the entire front yard would need to be a Level 3. But the approval of a variance allowed us to use a Level 1 across the entire frontage. This is the only area in the front yard, for perimeter plantings. We are proposing new landscaping. We are utilizing the existing tree preservation area in this location, which results in a Level 7. As I stated, there are 65 mature trees. I don’t know if you have been out at the site recently but they are tall trees and they are full and we think it will be a real positive for the project.
This focuses on the office pod and the car parking lot so you can see the internal landscaping and what it looks like. This exhibit focuses in on the southwest corner, which is the tree preservation.
The lighting plans are always a little bit cumbersome to read but you can see all of the photometric values. It indicates the point values of what the foot-candle level is in each of those locations. So, what I have done is tried to clean that up a little bit and turned those off. This is a copy of what you have. I gave this exhibit to you this evening, which is a little bit different than what is in your Plan Commission booklets. Two-foot candles is what is required adjacent to a General Commercial or Industrial zoning classification, which would come into play on the west, north and east property lines. We have talked about this Residential zoning classification, not necessarily going that way, but still our variance did not indicate anything relative to a reduced requirement relative to foot-candle. So, as you can see here, it is really small but I tried to isolate all of the areas where a half-foot candle is at or near the property line. It is very close but we do stay on the project side of the right-of-way at a half-foot candle so we do meet the code. You can see tab seven in your books for all of the lighting cut sheets. I did not put those in the presentation but they are all of the shoebox variety with flat lenses. The fixtures that are mounted to the wall are wall mounted but they are the same shoebox fixture and any poles that are proposed either in the front car parking lot or the trailer staging area are of the same type. They are just pole mounted.
What I would like to share with you now are the building elevations. I’m going to put up the comparison board first. Mr. Valanzano did a fantastic job giving you a summary of the project and where we are. One thing that I perhaps remember a little bit differently is that at the time the Staff Report was written I believe three of the five DRC members had commented and then after that report was written I think four or five had actually commented. It is my recollection that there was one who was in favor of “B” and one who was in favor of “A” and one who had no comment and two that felt that either elevation was fine with them. I don’t want to be presumptuous in what they stated but that was my recollection. I felt like we were coming in here with two elevations that were essentially a tie relative to DRC’s comments and that we were coming to the Plan Commission for the tiebreaker vote. BD and the Duke team prefers “A”. It breaks up the facade in a more beneficial way and really gets the point across. We really kind of felt up here there was too much sameness with it and felt like elevation “A” did a better job of breaking up the facade. As Mr. Valanzano indicated, if the Plan Commission has a preference for elevation “B”, we will modify our drawings and resubmit those as soon as possible to meet whatever is that you would like to do. I don’t know if you want to discuss this now or we can come back to this later.
Here I will focus on elevation “A”. The elevations in your booklets, which are tab eight, are correct. They match this drawing right here. Tab nine includes two building renderings that match the full design. In the 11 x 17 that I just passed out to you included the new building renderings that reflect this design. Those renderings were not available by the time that the books were due so that is why they were not in your books the first time around. Essentially what we have done is we added more interest on the north facade using the color schemes that were originally proposed. In the north where the truck docks are we added a band along the top. It also carried the center strip that now will wrap the entire building. Given that this side of the building faces other like type uses we felt this was adequate treatment for that side of the building. Also, the east and the west elevations match the front from a pattern standpoint and also one point I want to make is that basically right here all the way to the west side of the building is where the tree preservation area is. There will be a significant portion that is not visible from Reeves Road.
So, this here, as you can see, is the office rendering. It is a rendering that kind of focuses on the office portion of the building. This is a building rendering that we kind of pulled back the advantage point so that you could get a feel for what it is going to look like as you are looking at the entire facility.
Moving onto the wall signs this is what the wall design is proposed to be. It will be a translucent acrylic face that will be lit from behind so that the colors in the letter will kind of glow. There will not be any lights that will shoot out from that or anything as you are driving, it won’t be anything like that. This wall pattern is repeated in two places. In the north side of the building on the far west end there will be a logo that has a 14-foot diameter circle and 10-foot tall letters. It is repeated on the west side of the office pod as well. That situation is a six-foot circle and four-foot tall letters. Those are the two wall signs that are proposed as part of the project. Additionally, we are showing a ground sign, which is located at the center curb cut and this is the standard Duke ground sign that has been approved for previous buildings. We just replaced Duke with the BD logo. So, that is what we are proposing at this point and time. We may or may not install it but I just wanted to make sure that I had it before you so that if we do decide to install it, we have the approval to do so. This will be externally illuminated. There will be a spot light on either side of sign pointing toward it and we will have cut-offs on each of those. It will be very similar to all of the Duke signs that you have seen out there. So, if there is something that you don’t like, speak up and let me know and we can get that incorporated in this petition.
That completes the presentation for the primary plat and the development plan for this project. I will open it up to the floor for any questions that you might have.
Mr. Brandgard said the renderings that you gave us tonight is that version “A” or version “B”?
Mr. Paul said that is version “A”.
Mr. Haase asked, what happens to that tree preservation if this building is expanded?
Mr. Paul said to some extent that is really not defined at this point and time. If the facility gets expanded in its current nature, how it is being used today, the car parking lot would expand by approximately 100 parking stalls, which would result in about 10 trees of the tree preservation area being removed and would result in the tree preservation area being reduced in size about 1.1 acres. I’m referring back to the proposal that was originally received from Dickinson and that was what was associated with the expansion. The same thing in the trailer staging area in the back. That could expand up to 350 trailer staging spots all fitting in the rear portion of the facility. Again, along with that they have an expansion pad associated with the project. So, to answer your question, as it stands today, 85% of the tree preservation would remain in tact, as it is. Now, granted, we are not making any commitments this evening that those trees will be there forever, forever and forever, however, when they came out to the site in one of their site visits, we indicated to them that we wanted to make every effort to save any tree that we could. That seemed to be a real benefit for them so we have done that. If their plans change in the future and they need that front yard space, those trees could potentially come down or a portion of those trees could come down and if we ever get to the point that the landscaping level provided doesn’t meet the code, obviously, new planting materials would need to be installed associated with that subsequent project.
Mr. Thibo asked, are there any homes left in that area?
Mr. Paul said no sir. When you drive by there, there is one home within the property that is still standing but that home is slated for demolition the mid part of this month. On the south side there are no residential structures within the frontage of the site.
Mr. Haase asked, could you show us the “A” and “B” facades? Maybe we should make sure we understand what we are voting on here tonight.
Mr. Paul said this plan is plan “A”. This point right here is the same as this point right here. Essentially you can kind of see this is the repeat pattern for “B”. This is the repeat pattern for “A”. We felt like “A” had a little more interest and flowed a little bit better. In our opinion all of these things are subjective. In our opinion it met our interpretation of the Design Review Committee’s intent.
Mr. Haase said so here are the two different facades. “A” is the one that they kind have planned on and “B” is an alternative.
Mr. Paul said Becton Dickinson does prefer elevation “A” if that makes any difference whatsoever.
Mr. Haase said they are very similar but I want to make sure what we are looking at and “A” is actually what is being proposed tonight.
Mr. Paul said that is correct and they are very similar. You have to study them for a minute or so.
Mr. Haase asked, is there anyone in the audience who has any questions on this public hearing?
On the facade that is chosen how is that going to be placed in this motion?
Mr. Valanzano said if you like “A”, then just simply strike number three that is in italic and forget about it.
Mr. Haase said I think “A” would have to be my preference.
Mr. Matrana said I like “A”.
Mr. Brandgard said I agree.
Mr. Haase said since there is no one in the audience coming forward is there anybody else from the Duke team that would like to come up and have any final closing statements?
Mr. Paul said no.
Mr. Valanzano said another thing that you might want to have done is on number one just add building elevations to number one and cross out number three in that group.
Mr. Haase said with no one else coming forward we will close the public portion of this hearing and the Chair will accept a motion.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion that the Plan Commission approve the Primary Plat PP-05-005 as filed by Duke Construction Limited Partnership requesting primary plat approval to divide 71.303 acres into one lot and one block to be known as Plainfield Business Park West upon finding that:
Adequate provisions have been made for regulation of minimum lot width, minimum lot depth and minimum lot area.
Adequate provisions have been made for the widths, grades, curves and coordination of subdivision public ways with current and planned public ways.
Adequate provisions have been made for the extension of water, sewer and other municipal services.
And that such approval shall be subject to the following conditions:
Compliance with the Town Standards, including but not limited to: Plainfield Ordinance No. 1-96 regarding Floodplain Management; Plainfield Ordinance Nos. 4-94 and 3-86 regarding Sewage Works; Plainfield Ordinance No. 17-97 regarding Drainage; Plainfield Ordinance No. 19-97 regarding Municipal Waterworks and Plainfield Ordinance No.18-97 regarding Access Permits.
Compliance with the standards and specifications of the Plainfield Subdivision Control Ordinance.
That the secondary plat for Lot 1 include a 30’ Drainage & Utility Easement and the first 5’ Town of Plainfield utility easement running parallel with the Reeves Road right-of-way.
That the secondary plat for Block “A” shall include appropriate language acknowledging that access and utilities are not available and stating the conditions required prior to any development occurring on Block “A”.
Second by Ms. Whicker. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to approve DP-05-014 requesting Architectural & Site Design Review approval for industrial development of an office/warehouse/distribution building finding that:
The Development Plan complies with all applicable Development Standards of the district in which the site is located.
The Development Plan complies with all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Control Ordinance for which a waiver has not been granted.
The Development Plan complies with all applicable provisions for Architectural and Site Design Review for which a waiver has not been granted.
The proposed development is appropriate to the site and its surroundings.
The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
And that such approval be subject to the following conditions:
Substantial compliance with the site plan, building elevations, landscape plan, lighting plan, sign plan file dated May 24, 2005.
The terms and conditions of parking variance BZA-05-008.
Building elevations shall be revised to reflect the final paint scheme on the east, south and west facades.
Second by Mr. Brandgard. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Haase said next on the agenda would be DP-05-011 and DP-05-013, Opus North Corporation.
[Podium mic is not audible]
Mr. Valanzano reviewed the petitions on behalf of the Town.
Mr. John Cumming with Opus North Corporation represented the petitioner this evening.1
Mr. Haase asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak or has a question about this public hearing? Being no one coming forward we will close the public portion of this hearing and we have two different motions to make tonight so the Chair would accept a motion to act on these two measures.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to approve DP-05-011 requesting Development Incentives for Opus/Airwest VII to provide for the orientation of loading spaces between the front lot line and the front of the building served finding that:
The required front yard is effectively screened with a Plant Unit Value which exceeds the standard for such yard by adding a Plant Unit Value of 4.0 to the total Plant Unit Value otherwise required by the Plainfield zoning Ordinance or other development incentive.
The proposed development is appropriate to the site and its surroundings.
The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
And that such approval shall be subject to:
Substantial compliance with the Landscape Plan file June 6, 2005.
Second by Mr. McPhail. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to approve DP-05-013 requesting Architectural and Site Design Review approval for industrial development of a 400,946 square foot building addition known as Opus/Airwest VII with 600 feet of a Gateway Corridor finding that:
The Development Plan complies with all applicable Development Standards of the District in which the site is located.
The Development Plan complies with all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Control Ordinance for which a waiver has not been granted.
The Development Plan complies with all applicable provisions for Architectural and Site Design Review for which a waiver has not been granted.
The proposed development is appropriate to the site and its surroundings.
The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
And that such approval be subject to the following conditions:
Substantial compliance with the Site Plan, Building Elevations, Electrical Site Plan file dated May 24, 2005.
Substantial compliance with the Landscape Plan file dated June 6, 2005.
Mechanical equipment for Airwest VII shall be located on the building consistent with Airwest VI.
Trash shall be accommodated within the building or if external collection is utilized, details shall be submitted for Staff approval prior to installation.
The existing ground sign installed for Airwest VI shall be utilized as the freestanding sign for Airwest VII.
Second by Ms. Whicker. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Haase said the next item on the agenda is DP-05-012, Route 40, LLC.
Mr. Valanzano reviewed DP-05-012 on behalf of the Town.
Mr. McGillem said I think Mr. Valanzano has pretty well covered the direction that we are wanting to go here. The handout that was given to you shows the layout of the small strip center that is proposed just to the east of this site and lays just west of the Collision Body Shop. One of the things that we had asked them, as they come in, which they will probably be coming in here possibly next month, is to provide a couple of alternatives so that if that site comes in, that the ability to get from U.S. 40 over to CR251 could be accomplished without jeopardizing what they were proposing. They came up with the two alternatives based on our discussions with them that is shown on that handout sheet, which essentially utilizes the existing old U.S. 40 access onto new U.S. 40 and comes back and comes in and wraps around and essentially creates an “S” curve that comes back into CR251. The second alternative would be a direct connection that you see, which would essentially encroach on the east portion of the site that we are looking at here today. Needless to say the direct access coming in would be the most desirable to get over to CR251. Our thoughts then associated with that, as we go down the line, is this would allow us to recommend to the Council vacating old U.S. 40 between Six Points Road and the connecting point to U.S. 40, which then would allow, as you see here, the need for the variance. There is one additional property parcel that if you look on the handout, the parcel identified is 270-001, a parcel that lies just south of old U.S. 40 and is owned by an individual, that entire triangle piece there, and we would need right-of-way from that piece in order to get either one of these alternates through. This is all a plan. We have to come up with an overall plan, we feel, for dealing with the new Ronald Reagan Parkway. There is no way that this area in here can continue to, we feel, feasibly function indefinitely to develop or redevelop with the access that is being left over from the construction of the Ronald Reagan. So, as a part of the study that we are doing right now this is only a piece of it. It is basically looking at both the east and west side of the Ronald Reagan coming up all the way essentially from Stafford Road north to CR100S or Morris Street looking at the access points on Ronald Reagan, looking at the inner-connectivity of the street and this is just one element of that that we are looking at but it does affect this parcel. It doesn’t directly affect the next development that is right now in the pending stages coming in but it would certainly improve the accessibility of the next development coming in also.
Mr. Haase asked, so this site that is before us can it be developed with this proposed interchange?
Mr. Valanzano said (inaudible).
Mr. McGillem said it’s hard to tell right now when this is going to be accomplished because we have the coordination with INDOT. There is a lot to happen in order to achieve it. I think there are enough positives, even with INDOT, that we could bring them along in this direction. Working with the developer here I think there has been a positive position of wanting to work together but I would hope that it would be understood that we would need the access of the right-of-way coming off U.S. 40. And that there would be additional right-of-way that would be provided through the vacation of the old U.S. 40 as part of that exchange.
Mr. (Inaudible), petitioner came forward to speak on this public hearing.
Mr. McPhail said we have some new ordinances that do not allow billboards in the Town of Plainfield. I think if this project moves forward, to get support from me, I would have to have a commitment that the contract would not be renewed and the billboard would be removed from the site at the end of the current contract.
Gentleman from audience said (inaudible).
Mr. Haase asked, is there anyone in the audience who has any questions or comments about this public hearing that is before us on this site? Mr. Valanzano did we get a photometric plan that met all of the Town’s standards?
Mr. Valanzano said no, it exceeded standards at the property line.
Mr. McPhail said I know that we have been discussing this whole area in terms of access. Do you have any idea of a timetable that we might be able to move forward?
Mr. McGillem said we are moving forward right now. We had another meeting this morning on the whole general area. This is just one small piece of the overall area that we are trying to develop this plan in. But I would say from the standpoint of being able to accomplish and get everything in and get INDOT approvals to be able to make these adjustments and get the vacation I think you are probably looking at six months to a year before we see this actually get punched through or have the ability to get punched through.
Mr. Kirchoff said I can respond to that to a degree. We met this morning and I guess what we are trying to do is take a little bit bigger view of this rather than just this one site.
Mr. McPhail said that is why I like the conversation that we are having.
Mr. Kirchoff said I think we are premature on this. I can’t support this at all at this time for a number of reasons.
Mr. Haase said there is a lady standing up out there. Did you want to come up and make a comment?
Lady from audience said (inaudible).
Mr. Haase asked, which property do you own?
Lady said to the east.
Mr. Haase asked, just that little triangle?
Mr. Valanzano said (inaudible).
Mr. McGillem said basically what we are looking at is where we have taken on the roadway cutting through if you go due south of where it shows the connection into the property to the east, where we have located that, there is a new building in here that we just approved about a year ago and went in at this location. Where we have located this roadway essentially is the required distance off the property line of that building that has been approved, which I think was a 10-foot setback off of the building, whatever is required in there. So, basically the roadway is going to be I think farther west of the piece of property that you are looking at. Your piece of property is located right in here, as I understand it. Essentially, the way the engineering has your property set up there could be an access that comes in off this new roadway into your property, which would not create any problems from the standpoint of the way that it is being proposed at this time. But the actual location of this coming through is not to get into the new building here but stay to the west of it and also take the right-of-way, hold the right-of-way as far as east as we can off of Mr. Pearson’s parcel. Essentially, it goes through the billboard, which we tried to put it through.
Gentleman from audience said (inaudible).
Mr. McGillem said in order for this to go through there would either need to be an acquisition of at least from the Town’s standpoint right-of-way that would be required off a parcel 270-001 or if it was acquired by someone else, Pearson or someone else, then it becomes part of a development issue. But there would be right-of-way that would be required off of that additional parcel along the east end of it.
Mr. Haase said I don’t know if that answers your questions totally but I think that is something that you could get with Mr. McGillem about at any time and he would be happy to elaborate on that.
Mr. Haase asked, are there any further questions from the floor or board members?
Mr. Daniel said I might add that Mr. McPhail was talking about the sign, the billboard sign. Most of those contracts, if there is an automatic renewal provision in there, it sometimes requires some significant lead-time on notice. If you do not renew, a lot of times it is 60-90 days or a year or whatever else. A lot of those sometimes run for a period of time so to the extent that anything is going to be done by the commission regarding that I think you probably have to ask the owner to make sure and check that contract and satisfy themselves of any long-term notice that they need to give that it is not going to be renewed.
Mr. Carlucci said today I came off of I-465 going west on U.S. 40 coming back to Plainfield and I went through that whole area in U.S. 40 that is in Marion County by the airport. I’m certainly glad that we have made a lot of improvements on U.S. 40 because that part of U.S. 40 is still in bad shape for a major area off of I-465. Mr. Pearson wants to be a good neighbor. We will negotiate anything here because that is what we have done in the past but I have some reservations about that building. It meets the requirements of the ordinance but that doesn’t necessarily mean the Plan Commission is required to approve it because there are other conditions that you cannot approve it under. But we are trying to upgrade the corridor and he will come to the Council and ask to be on public right-of-way but I think the building lacks in style and design for what we expect to be on that corridor but that is just my opinion. I’ve looked at that building, I’ve looked at what they proposed and I have seen architectural design enhancements in other areas that are better than this. I’m not just thrilled with that building. Nobody put a gun to Mr. Pearson’s head to buy that piece of property and I’m sure he knew what he was getting into with the Brownfield site. But the design of that building is not to the level that I think we ought to have on U.S. 40. That is just my opinion.
Mr. Brandgard said to go along with what you said it is one of the reasons why the Ronald Reagan corridor’s master plan went 1,000 feet on each side of the road itself is to try and keep that area for a higher level of business or building in there. I think that is one of the reasons why we have within the Ronald Reagan master plan eliminated vehicle sales because they are not of a higher level. I guess I ask the question we say it is not within it but how far from Ronald Reagan is this area?
Mr. Valanzano said (inaudible).
Mr. Brandgard said what I’m asking is how far is it? I’m just curious where does the 1,000 feet go?
Gentleman from audience said (inaudible).
Mr. Kirchoff said I agree. We worked really hard. It has been quite a series of negotiations trying to get the Ronald Reagan corridor team together. As Mr. Brandgard says, we have really wanted to make it kind of a premier destination area and we haven’t even signed off on it yet and for us to grant a variance right out of the box I just can’t support. I can’t support the vehicle sales at this point and time. Secondly, if it was a project or anything else at this point and time, I would be hesitant. I would look at the site and what they are trying to do there until we have a better sense of what we are going to do from an accessibility standpoint. I think it is just too early. We need to look at what we are going to do with Old National Road. With what other developments come in there can we really make this a redevelopment area and work with him in doing something better down the road? I just cannot support this proposal.
Mr. Brandgard said the issue the Town has with the master plan for the Ronald Reagan corridor doesn’t have anything to do with this. It is a difference of opinion on wording on the airport property that we are working on.
Petitioner said (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail said I certainly would like to know if they are within that 1,000-foot buffer. Is it or isn’t it? It looks pretty close to me one way or the other. I don’t know how to check that. Obviously, it makes a big difference in the thought process if it is within that buffer.
Mr. Carlucci said the fact is in our Zoning Ordinance General Commercial that allows car sales lots and even if we adopted a resolution, that doesn’t mean we would change our Zoning Ordinance to allow for the overlay. There are steps that have to be taken. Maybe the way to look at this issue is that used to be a gas station. They are trying to take a gas station site and shoehorn in a car sales lot, which may or may not work right there under the current geometrics that they have in what is going on out there.
Mr. Haase said I sat in on the DRC and I don’t think the building has come back with as many changes as what the DRC anticipated or really was looking for particularly with some design features on the north end of the building. So, I would have to echo Mr. Valanzano’s comments about that and confirm that it is not quite at the standards. It is a difficult site. There are a lot of difficult sites out there. This is one thing that I have always commented and I have always said that the Town of Plainfield has been very fortunate, some would say no, some would question that statement, but Chris White has developed most of the property along U.S. 40 and Perry Road, the north and south side. Like it or not he does a coordinated effort with a large, huge parcel of property and it comes out with a good finished look irregardless of some other factors that have come before the Town. But we have dealt with those factors also. So, that is the benefits of that. We have a large decision to make in planning and that is why we are here with this roadway system on this side of Town. I know Mr. Belcher and I have been out there, probably a year and a half ago, with another gentleman who built a building farther west of this and finding out where his property lines were. Mr. Belcher and I discussed ways to vacate Old National 40. Am I to understand that this next proposed development here is set to come before the July Plan Commission?
Mr. Valanzano said (inaudible).
Mr. Haase said I didn’t know if it was or not but with what we have to make a decision, and we are here to plan for all of these property owners and for the citizens of the Town of Plainfield, I think making a decision out in this area that puts an expense to anybody in this area we are premature on that. On either one of these parcels or any parcel within this area that could possibly be affected by the roadway system because we have to get them access and safe access.
Mr. Kirchoff said if we were to deny it, how long could it be before they could come back and file a new petition?
Mr. Daniel said I think it is six months but I’m not sure about that.
Mr. Haase said I think you are right. If you would withdraw, he could come back at any time.
Mr. Valanzano said a withdrawal is three months. (Inaudible).
Mr. Haase said we could waive the withdrawal.
Mr. Valanzano said (inaudible).
Mr. Haase said with a withdraw it was three, is that correct?
Mr. Valanzano said correct.
Mr. McGillem said I would say that one of the reasons that we had been talking about this potential access before either one of these developments came forward, when they both started coming forward, essentially it just meant we felt we had to accelerate at least take a look in how we could get through there in order to try to accommodate better access, better connectivity associated with the street system in this area. Because the way that it is set up right now you are not going to get any redevelopment along U.S. 40 in this area because you don’t have big enough parcels in there to do anything.
Mr. Kirchoff said and there are larger parcels in the area that are going to move forward, which is why we are trying to put this master plan together for access control.
Mr. McPhail said when you look at this particular site, to do anything at all, you are going to have major variances. It adds creditability to the fact that people are going to have difficulty unless we do something there for the whole redevelopment.
Mr. McGillem said you go on west of this site and you look at this entire area on the frontage of U.S. 40 you have the same problem all the way down to the point that you get to the new Ronald Reagan. With the Six Points Road coming through and dead-ending at U.S. 40 right now it is essentially by the Ronald Reagan being pushed to the west of existing Six Points Road and coming through on the alignment that they ended up picking and basically cutting off the existing Six Points Road you have essentially chopped up this area. One of the things that we are concerned with is it even leaves a significant problem from accessing the area from the public safety position let along encouraging any development.
Mr. Kirchoff said we were done no favor when they moved Ronald Reagan west. It is going to make it very difficult.
Mr. McGillem said we have one residential property to the west and the north of U.S. 40 that lies just east of ADESA that with the Ronald Reagan the way it is currently set up you can’t get coming from the west. If you are coming from the west, you will not be able to get into that site. From the standpoint of getting with INDOT and getting a feeling of their concurrence of going forward, etc. to get it done in six months I’m not sure we would get it punched through and completed. But I think it is realistic that we could have concurrence in moving forward.
Gentleman from audience said (inaudible).
Mr. McGillem said I would certainly hope so.
Mr. Kirchoff said I guess my response is I think what we need to do is have a plan together in that time frame. Without a plan I think we are really slow of any development in that area. That is why we are pushing hard. We contracted with an engineering firm to get this plan done.
Mr. McGillem said our objective is to come up with a pretty detailed proposed long-term street thoroughfare plan amendment. And to identify the short-term from the standpoint of how we can accommodate the development to ultimately get to our long-term. In other words, what we hope to bring to the Plan Commission and the Council as the proposed thoroughfare amendment would identify our ultimate objective of the overall, not only in this area, but within that 1,000-1,500 feet both east and west of Ronald Reagan from Stafford Road all the way to CR100S or Morris Street to accommodate what is being recommended for full access points and partial access points onto Ronald Reagan. Because without it we are going to be dealing, and it is going to create as far as we are concerned, every individual parcel owner that tries to come in and develop on an individual basis. If we don’t have a plan to work with them in fitting this in at an early stage, then we are going to be throwing this type of request with unknowns in trying to create a decision and work with an owner/developer on an individual basis when we don’t have an overall plan to achieve.
Mr. Kirchoff said as we talked today, not only do we want to have a long-range plan but we will probably have an intermediate plan because some of this we will probably have to provide some temporary accesses knowing that long-term they won’t stay. We want to be able to say to the developer we can support you at this point and time but when this other development occurs, that is going to go away. So, in 20 years this isn’t the way it’s going to be. What do we do in the interim so it can start some development out there? We have to do that. We have to be fair to developers when they come in and say this is our long-term plan but we know until this other piece develops we are going to have to bend the rules.
Mr. Haase said everybody needs to know where we are going.
Mr. Kirchoff said but in the meantime this will accommodate your access until we get the final plan put together.
Mr. McGillem said I think this is one of the things that we tried to look at here from the standpoint that if you approve this development or even the one that is proposed to come in within the next month or so, is at least with our alternatives that we proposed to getting through here, it could be accomplished as long as the developers realized what our proposal is for the ultimate connecting point through here. In other words, if you approve this site here, there is a very good likelihood there is going to be six feet of right-of-way that is going to have to come off the east end of that, which is going to have to be made up someplace else. The next development that is coming in the way they have their site laid out and the way that we have worked with them we could bring in either one of these alternatives and their site is adjusted to that longer term ability to connect to it, which is that interim process that Mr. Kirchoff was talking about. We haven’t wanted to just throw out a situation saying we don’t know what we are doing here so you are kind of out of luck in doing anything with what you want to do at this time.
Mr. Kirchoff said I feel bad that we don’t have it done but that is where we are.
The petitioner asked for a continuance.
Mr. Daniel said I think Mr. Chairman you will want to put some date on it even if it is 90 days or three months or whatever so that they know at that point it is either going to go forward or there would be another continuance at that point.
Mr. Haase said if they had a withdrawal, 90 days is as soon as it can happen. We could waive the fees that the Town has. What would they be out of pocket to re-notify? Just the re-mailing?
Mr. Valanzano said (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail said I wouldn’t want it any longer than six months at this point. If we don’t know in six months, we will be in more trouble than that because we are going to have two or three more backed up behind them. There is going to be a lot of interest with the corridor going through. This is an area that needs to be redeveloped. I’m just amazed when I look at this of the small parcels out there. I didn’t realize there were that many small parcels.
Mr. Kirchoff said that is what happened to us today as we looked at this. It really needs redeveloped.
Mr. McPhail said we have to look at the whole thing. We can’t just look at one parcel because that would drive you nuts trying to figure out anything.
Mr. Kirchoff said two road projects has kind of compounded this, relocating U.S. 40 and then the north/south corridor off Six Points. It is just really hard to do anything with.
Mr. McPhail made a motion to grant an indefinite continuance not to exceed six months with re-notification. Second by Mr. Brandgard. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried
OLD BUSINESS/NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Valanzano said (inaudible).
Mr. Haase said anything to stay away from a PUD I’m in favor of.
Mr. Valanzano said (inaudible).
Mr. Haase asked, is there consent? Consent given.
Mr. Belcher said (inaudible).
Mr. Haase said I had a guy call me on this one. He was like it was a done deal and I said they are probably going forward because they knew pretty much what they were doing over there. It is rezoned for what they are probably wanting to do, which is why they probably feel confident that it will pass. He was aware that it had been rezoned because he was at the meeting.
Mr. Belcher said (inaudible).
Mr. Haase said I’ve asked them to create a committee to try to sell the entire subdivision as a single unit. They say that isn’t going to happen but somebody has to start it and that is the best thing that could happen for all of them. They could combine and do a much better job as a whole and as a piece. So, far they don’t take me seriously.
Mr. Brandgard said that won’t happen until there is water and sewer in there.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. McPhail made a motion to adjourn. Second by Mr. Kirchoff.
Meeting adjourned.
_______________________________________
Mr. Mitchell P. Haase, President
