The Plainfield Plan Commission met on January 9, 2007 at 6:00
p.m., which was a meeting continued from the January 4, 2007 Plan
Commission meeting. In attendance were Mr. Matrana, Mr. McPhail, Mr.
Brandgard, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Kirchoff and Ms. Whicker.
ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM
Mr. Carlucci administered the roll call.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
OATH OF TESTIMONY
Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Testimony.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Ms. Whicker reviewed the Guidelines Governing the Conduct of
Public Hearings. This evening we are continuing with PP-06-011.
Mr. James said this first request tonight will require two
actions by the Plan Commission. PP-06-011 is a request of a Primary
Plat of approximately 3.5 acres to create two commercial lots. The
second request is DP-06-032, which is an Architecture & Site Design
Review of a Development Plan for a 3,936 square foot gas/convenience
market at approximately 3066 E. Main Street. This is the site, about
3.5 acres. Here is U.S. 40 and Halliburton and it does have frontage
along both roads. Back here is Medallion Meadows. Here is the
apartment complex. It is General Commercial, I believe non-conforming.
Here is the self-storage warehouse and the Hi-40 Mobile Home Park,
which is General Commercial. It is also legal non-conforming. The
Ronald Reagan Parkway is currently under construction at approximately
through this area right here. Here is the site zoned General
Commercial. This area in white is not annexed into Plainfield and is
under the Hendricks County zoning jurisdiction zoned RA, Rural
Residential.
They had to do a development incentive to allow reduced setbacks
on U.S. 40 and Halliburton. That is to keep the interior access drive
out of the front setback. So, this allowed them to decrease the front
setback from 30? to about 25? on both frontages.
Then a waiver is required to allow a pylon sign rather than a
ground sign according to the alternatives hierarchy of the Gateway
Corridor standards.
The Comprehensive Plan recommends Regional Commercial use and
again here is the Ronald Reagan Parkway. This shows the alignment.
This is the Transportation Plan. Their only access right now is
Medallion Meadows but according to the Transportation Plan it would
provide for other access on some properties to the north if developed
with a system of collector roads.
This is the proposed Primary Plat creating the two lots. This is
the proposed gas/convenience market, Speedway Market site on about 1.1
acres. Here is Halliburton and U.S. 40 and there is currently a curb
cut off U.S. 40 and then this parcel back here is currently vacant. It
is about 2.8 acres. The distance from this site to back here is about
400 feet.
Staff Comments: Those lots comply with the General Commercial
standards. Adequate provisions have been made for access drainage and
utilities. DRC recommended approval with stipulations, however, DRC did
not support the waiver for the pylon sign. This is within the Ronald
Reagan Parkway Corridor, which is 1,000 feet on either side of the
parkway. The master plan does not recommend use of pylon signs. Plans
have been revised addressing most of the DRC comments and the remaining
issues are the screening of the rooftop mechanical units on the north
elevation and on the photometric plan we had some light spillage over
onto the entrances, which is not bad because it would provide for
better lighting at the entrance. And then the pylon sign issue and
another issue is the site plan should show the proposed locations for
outdoor display. Staff recommends that in the General Commercial they
could have a 100 square foot ground sign or since they have two
frontages they could have a ground sign on each frontage but they would
have to be separated by at least 100 feet. Each side could be 50
square feet but the height would still be limited to six feet.
Here is the site plan. Here is the existing curb cut. It will be
the only curb cut for both lots; this lot and this lot. This lot does
meet the required frontage requirements so they will have to share this
access drive and get an access even across right here for this property
over here. Here is the entry access drive that was in the front
setbacks so we had to use the depth of yard incentive to get that about
25? on each frontage. Here is the building itself. Here?s the
parking, the trash enclosure and we did have them move the proposed ice
machine and propane tank display off the sidewalk to the side of the
building. The trash enclosure complies with the standards.
Here is the artist rendering of the site. There are brick
columns and an all brick building. They did get a variance to allow
the square footage for this side of the canopy to be transferred to the
ends. This is the elevations. They did have a gate but it didn?t
entirely screen the rooftop mechanical, however, we did receive another
rendering that does show that they can screen it from the rear or the
north elevation.
On the photometric plan they had some spillage here and here but
that is across the entrance. You can have some light spillage onto the
adjoining outlot. I think the representative might have some revised
plans to distribute to you tonight but this can be taken care of with
the ILP process. These are some photographs that I took. This is
looking back to the west. You can see the Ronald Reagan Parkway under
construction. Here is the site and the self-storage units and Medallion
Meadows back here and then this is the view of the property looking to
the east. Here is Halliburton and the vacant lot as it exists today.
So, hopefully I have given you a good summary and introduction of
their request. If you have any questions, I would be glad to answer
them and Mr. Jonathan Wocher is here. He is the Speedway/Marathon Oil
representative and he would be glad to answer any questions that you
might have.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. James said I would say it is about 200 feet.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. James said that is something that I was unable to determine.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail said I think we had some in-depth conversations about this particular corridor and around U.S. 40. It was already zoned General Commercial and we anticipated this type of development on that corner.
Mr. Brandgard said (inaudible).
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. James said Mr. Valanzano has it.
Ms. Whicker asked, would those be on line?
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Ms. Whicker said the HVAC is showing the DRC?s concerns have been alleviated.
Mr. James said that is correct with the revised plans.
Mr. Jonathan Wocher with McBride Dale Clarian at 5725 Dragon Way,
Suite 220, Cincinnati, Ohio said I?m the representative for Speedway
Super American Marathon Petroleum on this and I was sworn in. If I
could address a couple of issues on this application. We are requesting
a Primary Plat approval as well as a Development Plan approval by the
Plan Commission. We have been to the Board of Zoning Appeals at which
time we received authorization for the sale of alcohol for this use. I
bring that up so that the Plan Commission understands that we have been
working with the Town for quite awhile on this application and we have
been of the understanding, based on the Town?s representations and
based on the Board of Zoning Appeals? approvals, that this is a
permitted use in the General Commercial District and on this site
specifically. We are zoned GC, General Commercial.
Mr. James already showed you several of the plans. If you will
bear with me, I would like to go through those and cover a couple of
things. While I put some boards up I would like to pass out to you a
reduced copy of material that was provided. This plan shows the
elevation and shows the screening of the HVAC equipment as required.
It also shows a lighting plan on that. This board was shown to you.
It is a little bit easier to see I think here because it shows the
brick columns and the brick building. On the slide it got a little
faded out. The building is constructed of brick except for the glass.
It is a pitched roof building so we believe we comply with the
development standards.
This is the plat that we are requesting. The Speedway lot will
be 1.1 acres and it will be located at the intersection of Halliburton
and Main Street, U.S. 40. There will be approximately 2.4 acres
remaining. Marathon has a contract to purchase this entire property
and are at this time creating the lot for Speedway. There are no plans
for the remaining portion of this site. As I understand it, this would
be the Ronald Reagan Corridor, which would leave an ?L? shape property
still remaining. That is the 2.4 acres that I referred to before. And
there would also be property of a similar depth to the lot we are
creating still remaining to the north before you get to Bradbury. So,
that shows the Primary Plat. I?m not aware of any conditions or issues
related to the Primary Plat.
This drawing here is a large version of what I handed out to you.
Mr. James also showed that on the screen and the item of concern at the
DRC was in this area here. We previously submitted the screen but it
did not go the full length of the HVAC units. This drawing has been
revised to show that and we will comply with that so that full
screening of the HVAC roof-mounted equipment will be provided. We have
also indicated the gate. There was a gap in the initial submission so
when you walk up on the roof, there was a 30? gap or whatever it was
for the access and now that is shown screened as well. So, that
material has been submitted.
This is a colored landscape plan and this shows the overall site
plan. We have worked with your Staff and have at this point a landscape
plan that complies with the standards, which is no small undertaking so
we have done that including foundation plantings. I believe it was
mentioned that we have increased the landscaping. I believe we have
twice as much landscaping as normally required in order for the
development incentive and that was strictly for the pavement being
closer than 30?. We have added sidewalks on this plan and that was an
issue raised at the DRC.
Regarding the outdoor display we would request the Plan
Commission to approve that as a condition to submission of our
Improvement Location Permit. Speedway?s policy is to have outdoor
display and storage or sales as permitted by town regulations. So, we
don?t have a specified location but we understand that is something
that you want us to provide so we will work towards that, if that is
acceptable to the Plan Commission.
Those are the issues that were brought up. I believe we have
resolved the lighting. This is the lighting plan. It is terribly
difficult to read even if you have it in front of you. The area that
we are in some non-conformance is strictly at the driveways, which
would be right here and right here. The property line cuts through the
driveway. You will see, if you look at the plan, that as you progress
just past the property line, the light levels do diminish. The revised
plan that you have reflects cut-off fixtures for the area lights as
well as recessed fixtures for the canopy. So, this is an accurate
representation so we would ask the Plan Commission to approve the
lighting plan as proposed. We think lighting at the access point is a
safety issue and while we do exceed the standards of 0.5 I believe at
the property line we are not excessively over that. I mean it?s really
a safety issue for us making sure that people can see that driveway and
enter and exit.
The item that I would request the commission give me a little bit
of time on has to do with signs. Please bear with me. This is a little
bit weird. This is not your typical approach here. I?ve been
struggling with your sign regulations with Mr. James and before I make
my presentation I would like to say that Staff has really worked with
us on all of our issues and landscaping and everything else. But we
seem to be continually off connection with signs. So, if you will bear
with me, what I have done is I have blown up your sign regulations and
I just want to present how I interpret them and you can help me out.
What I?m really asking you is please tell me what we are allowed to
have here as far as freestanding signs. This first board I will go as
quickly as I can; the first board, Section 5.5 is the section that says
the overlay corridor, the architecture site design review and it says
that there are development standards including signs and you are
probably familiar, that is actually seven or eight pages apart before
you get to this header and this sign section. And in the sign section
it says that there are freestanding signs allowed and it talks about
new construction and it talks about a hierarchy including ground signs,
pylon signs and pole signs. Pylon signs it says are permitted and as I
interpret that, that refers to we are allowed by a district because as
you get into the 7.4, the sign regulations, it specifies which
districts are allowed to have them.
So, then if you go to the sign regulations in 7.4, it talks about
on premise signage and this is where it starts to get a little
complicated and where I start to get confused because we have a couple
of scenarios. One is a single use lot and then there are some other
alternatives if you are an integrated center. You are probably pretty
used to dealing with that and I?m getting up-to-speed on that. This
first section talks about single use sites and it talks about the types
of signs and it says pylon signs are permitted for the General
Commercial. So, that would be the pylon and it talks about the number
of signs permitted and it says one freestanding sign per street. So,
that would be two signs for this lot because it?s on two frontages.
So, no matter how you calculate the center or the single lot it is one
per frontage there and then you go down farther and it talks about the
size of sign and it says ?shall apply individually to each frontage?.
So, here we are with the General Commercial District and it says 100
square feet applied to each street frontage so what that seems to be
saying to me is two signs, 100 square feet each. I have just cut and
pasted these together. We are missing Section IV, which doesn?t apply
but then in Section V it talks about height and then it talks about
ground and pylon and it says pylon 20 feet tall. So, if we are up here
in the General Commercial, pylons are accepted. Hierarchy says pylons
were permitted 20? so this section seems to be saying if it is a single
use, you would be permitted two 100 square foot pylon signs; one per
frontage 100 square foot each.
The next section talks about an integrated center. We have kind
of shifted a little bit. We are still in Section 7.4. Again, it says
pylon signs are permitted as a type in the General Commercial District.
The number of signs it says the same language. It says one per street
frontage for an integrated center. So, two frontages would be two signs
for an integrated center. We are talking about an integrated center
sign and then the maximum sign area again applying to each street
frontage and we get basically the same table. So, it seems to be saying
that two integrated center signs 100 square foot each and then the
pylon sign permitted for the integrated center. It gets a little bit
more complicated by the fact that then in Section C it says if you are
in an integrated center and you have an outlot, there is an additional
freestanding sign allowed and then this provision number five says
outlots that are gas stations are allowed one per street frontage. So,
that again seems to be saying two signs, I?m sorry I skipped this, if
you are an outlot, you would be allowed a ground sign, and now we are
at a ground for an outlot of 48 square feet. So, even under this
scenario you would have an outlot of two ground signs at 48 square foot
plus we have the integrated center, which would be two 100 square foot.
I guess the bottom line is if we are an integrated center, two 100
square foot signs plus two 48? signs for this outlot and then if you
are a single use, two 100 square foot signs and then you have that
hierarchy, which I expect would be explained to me a little bit but it
seems to be saying as I go through this, and that?s why I wanted to
present your regulations, that it seems to be saying throughout the
codes that pylons are permitted as a hierarchy in General Commercial.
The reason for going through all of that is to really try to get
some clarification from the Plan Commission of what signage we are
allowed. We have requested a 20? tall 100? pylon sign at the corner.
Frankly, after going through this I think we are probably allowed more
than that. I think we have all of our other issues resolved. I?m here
to ask for approval of the other items that I talked about and try to
get some clarification on that and I think this is going to be a
quality development. We have quality architecture and a high level of
landscaping and control on lighting and control on access; all of the
elements that lead to a quality development are in place. And I think
we are really down to trying to clarify the signage issues and I would
ask for you to consider that. I know I have thrown a lot out to you
and I appreciate your time.
Mr. Brandgard said that area is covered by two overlay zones;
what do the overlay zones say relative to signage?
Mr. Wocher said as far as I understand it I only have the
corridor overlay. Apparently the Ronald Reagan Corridor is not
published and I don?t know to be honest with you. That item has never
been brought up to us at any point so the only way I can answer your
question would be that the corridor overlay indicates that there is a
hierarchy and says the Plan Commission shall approve the signs. That
is how I interpret it and then it sends you to the other.
Mr. McPhail said I know how we have consistently interpreted this
Sign Ordinance and I can point you to any development that has been
developed along this corridor since I have been on this Plan
Commission. I can tell you we have a Walgreen?s; we have a CVS; we
have Marathon Gas Station and they all have ground signs and that is
all that we have ever allowed. I think our Planning Director gave us
the proper interpretation; they get one ground sign with 100 square
foot and two at 48?. I think it is pretty simple. I think that is the
way that it has been interpreted from day one and I know that is how
the DRC interpreted it.
Mr. Brandgard said I agree with you. We have a DP down at the
corner at Perry and U.S. 40 with a ground sign. There is no reason to
permit anything other than a ground sign.
Mr. McPhail said they have signage on that canopy. I have no idea
why they even want a pylon sign. You are going to see the canopy sign
before you see anything else. The canopy is high in the air and it has
signage on it and you aren?t going to have any trouble finding your
sign.
Mr. Wocher said, which is why I went through this. The reason
that someone might think that they should have a pylon sign I believe
is based on reading the code. I think as I went through that, that you
could come to the conclusion that I just presented. There is nothing
up my sleeve. What I read is what your code says but we are here to
ask for that approval so that we can move on from that issue.
Mr. James said this is in the Gateway Corridor and that is why we
are reviewing this request tonight. It is my understanding that new
construction has to adhere to the alternative hierarchy. That means
the first option is ground signs, then the pylon signs and then pole
signs. So, that is where I was going to need the waiver to allow a
pylon sign instead of a ground sign. As far as the square footage of
the signs and the number in the footnote it says if you have more than
two signs, it has to be divided between the total amount of signage you
are allowed based on the amount of frontage for that lot. So, if it is
less than 300? of frontage, you get a total of 100 square feet but if
you are going to have more than one sign, you have to divide that
between two signs or you could have one sign that is 100?. That is the
way that it is written and that is the way that we have interpreted it
in the past and that is my interpretation tonight. As far as an
integrated center, there is some grey area there. Just because these
two lots share one access drive is that considered an integrated
center? I told Mr. Wocher that and now maybe I might be reconsidering
now looking at these lots maybe these are separate lots but if they are
separate lots, they are still limited to 100 square foot. If it is an
integrated center, then he would be limited to one ground sign at 48
square foot but he could have an integrated center sign, if allowed
according to the hierarchy. There is some confusion and some grey area
there and it is a matter of interpretation and how it has been
interpreted in the past.
Ms. Whicker said the footnote that you mentioned of the total of
100 square foot divided into two signs that weren?t represented in the
cutting and the pasting you did or did you find that?
Mr. Wocher said I think that footnote is right here. It shows up
in a couple of different places.
Ms. Whicker said then in the General Commercial District you have
a total.
Mr. Wocher said there?s no footnote for General Commercial
District that directs you to that. We have been confused about signage
and what is allowed for some time and we are at a point really of this
issue. I have obviously given my interpretation.
Mr. James said for a single use site in a General Commercial it
does say that it can be an all one freestanding sign or divided between
two.
Mr. Gibbs said (inaudible).
Mr. James said (inaudible).
Ms. Whicker asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care
to speak on this petition?
Mr. Floyd Beckley said I?m 90 years old and I have lived in the
addition of Medallion Meadows for the past 25 years and I have some
questions that I want to present to you. This gentleman has presented
his side and I want to present mine. One question I need here and I?m
not aware of what he had to say except I don?t agree with it. I guess
that is a good enough excuse. We need an access road along the west
side of Ronald Reagan Parkway from Bradbury Drive to CR200S. This was
suggested by Mr. Carlucci. This will allow us a better access to the
territory without the bottleneck of U.S. 40. This bottleneck is a
bottleneck; I don?t care how you slice it. We come out and it only
allows us to come out on Halliburton Drive. We have the proposed
traffic at the Speedway Station and I didn?t know about these other
entrances over here. You are going to have three things now here I
understand; a filling station, a proposed lot for whatever they want to
put in and you are combining us down into a little narrow place here to
try to get out of there and when we try to go east, it is a no, no.
Try it yourself sometime. Just look at this situation. He is going to
put a big filling station in here and divide it into two lots and put
something else in there. We already have ADESA down the road that adds
to the conflict with no stop sign. We need a stop sign there. I see
no benefit to having a filling station right in a proposed living area.
You are delegating us to second-class citizens in that area. You
didn?t ask us. I didn?t get a letter from him about this. I know he
is a businessman. He came all the way from Cincinnati. That?s a long
ways to come; I couldn?t drive that far but anyway left turns will be
very difficult for residents at Medallion Meadows, which has 60 homes.
Many of the homeowners are getting up in years. This was established
before 1959. Come see for yourselves the difficulty going east without
a stoplight. You tell me you can?t put a stoplight because you have
one at ADESA and one at Ronald Reagan Parkway. You?ve got them all up
and down the street here. Some are a block apart and some are two or
three blocks apart and this is becoming a Town with the need of
stoplights. You are limiting us to one exit, one entrance and traffic
from the filing station and from the other two lots and we have nowhere
to go. You are interfering with our exit and we have enough problems
already.
Mr. Floyd Beckley said I?m 90 years old and I have lived in the
addition of Medallion Meadows for the past 25 years and I have some
questions that I want to present to you. This gentleman has presented
his side and I want to present mine. One question I need here and I?m
not aware of what he had to say except I don?t agree with it. I guess
that is a good enough excuse. We need an access road along the west
side of Ronald Reagan Parkway from Bradbury Drive to CR200S. This was
suggested by Mr. Carlucci. This will allow us a better access to the
territory without the bottleneck of U.S. 40. This bottleneck is a
bottleneck; I don?t care how you slice it. We come out and it only
allows us to come out on Halliburton Drive. We have the proposed
traffic at the Speedway Station and I didn?t know about these other
entrances over here. You are going to have three things now here I
understand; a filling station, a proposed lot for whatever they want to
put in and you are combining us down into a little narrow place here to
try to get out of there and when we try to go east, it is a no, no.
Try it yourself sometime. Just look at this situation. He is going to
put a big filling station in here and divide it into two lots and put
something else in there. We already have ADESA down the road that adds
to the conflict with no stop sign. We need a stop sign there. I see
no benefit to having a filling station right in a proposed living area.
You are delegating us to second-class citizens in that area. You
didn?t ask us. I didn?t get a letter from him about this. I know he
is a businessman. He came all the way from Cincinnati. That?s a long
ways to come; I couldn?t drive that far but anyway left turns will be
very difficult for residents at Medallion Meadows, which has 60 homes.
Many of the homeowners are getting up in years. This was established
before 1959. Come see for yourselves the difficulty going east without
a stoplight. You tell me you can?t put a stoplight because you have
one at ADESA and one at Ronald Reagan Parkway. You?ve got them all up
and down the street here. Some are a block apart and some are two or
three blocks apart and this is becoming a Town with the need of
stoplights. You are limiting us to one exit, one entrance and traffic
from the filing station and from the other two lots and we have nowhere
to go. You are interfering with our exit and we have enough problems
already.
I believe the fire department requires two exits for an addition
of this size, is that true or not? With that many homes there ought to
be two exits and entrances. We are limited here for access for the fire
department. They would have to come down the new road if it ever gets
built and they have to come up to Plainfield and they would have to go
around Raceway Road or come down Dan Jones Road somehow to get to our
addition. In the meantime the house is gone. We have had one fire in
there and it destroyed a house but anyway that is an idea. The
Speedway Station will compound the problem. Mr. McGillem wants to take
out a house at the west end of the Medallion Drive and Medallion Court
and then exit and enter from the ADESA properties? stoplight. That
depends on what ADESA says. I don?t know what he has investigated
there. We would have to drive around on the west side down through the
ADESA property to get to the stoplight and we ought to have one of our
own down there at Halliburton Drive. We have some problems.
I have been following the progress and results of the Ronald
Reagan Parkway since 1996. I have papers here to show here. I?m
concerned about the problem with a station like Speedway also due to
the fact that they propose to sell packaged alcohol. To sell alcohol
or beer to patrons so that they can drink and get DUIs; it doesn?t make
good sense does it?
The original plat for Medallion Meadows includes the property in
question. It is zoned Commercial; I understand that. It has been
since 1959. Who has control of this property? Hendricks County?
Washington Township? Plainfield? State Highway? INDOT? Does the
board?
Mr. Carlucci said the Plan Commission does not.
Mr. Beckley asked who does? I?m talking about this addition up
here. Somebody has to have control and say this is either going to
happen or not going to happen. May I suggest a better use would be a
playground for the citizens to use. We are in a bind there. I?m going
to drive as long as I can and I have that right as long as they allow
me to but I would ask you to consider this very seriously. I would be
careful what I put in there folks. Try driving out there now without
any filling station getting onto U.S. 40 and go east. I can turn right
and go easy to Plainfield but try going east. You have a median over
there to get into, if you can and then you have a stop sign for the new
Ronald Reagan Parkway. ADESA traffic stops, they try to turn left,
where are we going to turn to? Think about it folks. Thank you very
much.
Ms. Dorothy Thompson at 10253 Bradbury Drive said what the
pictures are not showing is the traffic hazard that is already created
there; as the gentleman mentioned; the problem getting out onto Highway
40. On either side of the Halliburton Road there is a curve so when
you come up there, you have to wait for the traffic to clear from
either way because as the cars come around the curve, it is very
difficult to judge their speed. On top of that the pictures do not
show the fact that the road slopes up to Washington and it does not
drain. When there is rainwater, it will collect there. In the
wintertime the snow collects there and then as the snow melts a little
bit there is ice that forms there because there is no proper drainage.
So, on top of the difficulty on getting out onto Washington Street we
also have to contend with ice collecting down there in any cold
weather. That will create an issue if we have additional traffic coming
from a gas station and perhaps since they are selling liquor other
people will already have started drinking their liquid and we can?t
tell. But I can see it happening as they come out of the gas station,
they cannot get onto Washington Street. The traffic will back up there
so there will be people who get angry and go down through our
neighborhood trying to find another exit and they probably will not be
watching their speed because they are already angry at not being able
to get out onto Washington Street.
Our neighborhood does not have sidewalks so the people that
exercise by walking or riding their bikes have to do it in the street
and that is putting everyone who tries to get a little bit of exercise
at danger of this additional traffic looking frantically for exits and
getting angrier and angrier because there is nothing to do but wait in
line trying to get out on Washington Street. I think these issues need
to be addressed seriously before a gas station is put in there. If it
were a business that did not have their basis as high traffic such as
an office building, etc., it would be different but when you are
considering a gas station that thrives on the more traffic the better,
these issues have to be addressed. It is for our safety being able to
get out. As the gentleman mentioned, fire trucks can?t get in and out
so we are all being put at risk if there is a gas station there.
Ms. Zainal Van Horn at 10190 Bradbury, in the back half of the
circle, said you will have to bear with all of us. I know you said have
a speaker for the group but we all live in different parts of the
subdivision. I think really what it boils down to is that really the
main concern is the traffic on Halliburton. There are a couple of
things that I think are not really spoken to right now is that as you
are approaching Six Points Road where the stoplight is now from
Plainfield, there is a cement division for the left turn lane. It is
quite a long one. They are normal size but when Ronald Reagan Parkway
becomes the intersection, that is going to have to be built back
farther and I?m pretty sure that will come back to Halliburton. If you
move it the same distance as Raceway and the corridor, it is going to
come back so I think the only way to go east from the gas station or
any development in there it is going to be to use Halliburton if the
left turn lane still allows us to get right around the end of it. But
that is creating another thing that when we come out and want to get in
that turn lane, there is not going to be any turn lane there because
the left turn I?m sure will come back to that point at that time. So,
where people are going to get out to wait I?m not sure either. There
is a traffic issue right at that point that really needs to be
addressed. I think the traffic commission, somebody who deals with
traffic, has to look into that. I drew a map for my friends that live
in the subdivision and with the amount of arrows coming in and out if
I?m at Halliburton wanting to turn left onto U.S. 40 and go east and
someone is coming out of the Speedway Gas Station driveway, which those
two places are pretty close together, he is going to be looking east to
see when he can join and I may not see him. And if we go out and go
like this, who is at fault? It is really going to be a mess and you
have the trailer park coming in and out. It used to be that when the
stoplight turns red, we get a break to get out to the turn lane. Now
when that stoplight turns red, the amount of traffic off the parkway
into Plainfield is going to be non-stop. So, there is going to be a
backup on Halliburton from the gas station?s traffic and from our
traffic. I think the way the gas station is squeezed into that corner
let?s me know that there is a definite plan for that other part of that
land. I see that. I mean the last pump looks like it was right over
almost at the driveway like you could just drive right in and get to
the last pump over there. So, I think it is shoved way down in there. I
was expecting at least that we would find a way to have somebody put
money into Halliburton to at least make a left turn lane that it would
have to be widened. So, when you came up to it, at least if the people
waiting to turn left and turn right, would have some choice.
Otherwise, we are all going to be backed up there and the ice issue I
really hadn?t thought about that; that was a good point. It has good
drainage but the asphalt is dipped.
That would be my issue is increasing traffic. In Marion County
they brought on the news one night about the five most dangerous spots
in Indianapolis and what it boiled down to is all these spots were
close to intersections in the turn lanes when there were too many ins
and outs and that is exactly what this is. They were going to be
trying to figure out how to solve those problems so I believe there is
a traffic issue, please consider it. Thank you.
Ms. Whicker said with no one else coming forward would the
petitioner care to make any closing statements.
Mr. Wocher said I don?t have any specific comments other than to
say that we worked with the TAC on several occasions and I believe the
Staff presented in their report that access is adequate. As I
understand it, there are some overall plans that go beyond this tract
and this 3.5 acres to address some of the over-arching access issues.
Ms. Whicker said with no one else coming forward the public
portion of this matter is now closed. It is now open to the board for
discussion or a possible motion.
Have we looked at this intersection Mr. McGillem in the past? Is
there a history at what we have looked at or done?
Mr. McGillem said what you are hearing from people in this area,
I don?t disagree with them, is something that we have identified as we
got into looking at the way the Ronald Reagan Parkway has been designed
and the way the existing Six Points Road is cut off going down. The
reason for us coming up with this Thoroughfare Plan was situations just
like is being talked about here. There is a problem with once Ronald
Reagan gets opened with accessing at Halliburton especially coming out
and going back east to the left just as they have indicated. The
median on U.S. 40 will not, at this point and time, extend any farther
to the west than it currently is. However, the raised median where it
starts right now once it is just to the east of where Halliburton
intersects with U.S. 40 the drive into the Speedway Station, the
existing drive off of U.S. 40 that they intend to use, is the existing
drive that the median does go beyond that point and that is a right
in/right out. This area is not going to get any better as far as
access goes to U.S. 40 until some of the improvements that we are
proposing on being the extension of ADESA Drive all the way to CR200
between the west end of Medallion and ADESA, which our intent will try
to be to get an access to that extension out of the west end of
Medallion. The other as development occurs and the large Wamsley
parcel north of Medallion Meadows would develop potentially it would
allow Halliburton to be extended to the interior street system, which
then will also have an access point to Ronald Reagan Parkway, which
essentially what we are looking at is giving additional outlets for
this area to them other than just being a single outlet at U.S. 40.
So, my feeling is I?m not sure that we are going to see the
intersection at Halliburton and U.S. 40 get much worse than it is even
with the station there until Ronald Reagan is extended onto U.S. 36.
Once Ronald Reagan is extended onto U.S. 36 then the eastbound left
turns I feel are going to increase on U.S. 40. Eastbound there is one
to turn left on Ronald Reagan. Even though the raised median on U.S.
40 does not extend past Halliburton you are going to have stacking that
is going to extend back to Halliburton, which is almost at that point
and time going to completely restrict traffic from coming out and
making a left onto U.S. 40. The one individual that said that once
Ronald Reagan is opened to U.S. 40 and with the signal the amount of
turns that is going to want to turn westbound on U.S. 40 and Ronald
Reagan coming into Plainfield is definitely going to increase also,
which is also going to make it more difficult for those people to get
out on U.S. 40 to make a left. Even though you have a red light on U.S.
40 you have a green light northbound on Ronald Reagan, which allows for
the left turn movement so as soon as that light changes you are going
to have a constant stream of traffic.
I guess where I?m going with this is I don?t disagree that we
have a problem and these people have a problem in here and it is going
to continue to get worse. To be honest with you I think the County is
pretty much controlling the Ronald Reagan Parkway but my feeling at
least in the interim even though it might be a temporary fix on this
situation until some of these other connections are made is to get at
least a right in/right out on Bradbury to the Ronald Reagan. This
would allow the individuals to come out. Where they are wanting to
turn left on U.S. 40 they could come out on a right turn onto Ronald
Reagan southbound to the signal and then turn left at U.S. 40 at the
signal on Ronald Reagan. It might not be an access point that we want
to maintain for the long-term once we got the other connections in but
I don?t disagree; there needs to be something done for this area
because it is going to continue to get worse and you are going to
eventually get to the point as Ronald Reagan continues to go northbound
the only way in and out for this area is going to be a right in and
right out. It is going to be forced to that situation but we have the
same situation that is going to exist pretty much on the northeast
quadrant of the Ronald Reagan. Even on the northeast quadrant of the
Ronald Reagan and U.S. 40 along Six Points Road the only way they are
going to have to get out is to go north on Six Points Road and CR200
and go east on CR200 and Raceway Road and come back south to get onto
U.S. 40. It is the only outlot that they are going to have on the
northeast side.
Ronald Reagan is creating a significant problem for access. The
big question that comes to my mind I guess is the service station going
to add this much more traffic? The nice thing about a service station
is you don?t really have a peak of traffic. The one lady indicated
well maybe if you had an office building. To me I think an office
building would be worse than the service station going in there because
when you have the highest traffic on U.S. 40, is when you are going to
have the highest peak traffic from the office building exiting and
entering. So, an office building or a bank or something would be a
much bigger added problem to this area than I think the proposed
service station. We do have a problem and I don?t disagree. I think we
have a long-term solution but how we solve it in the short-term is the
question.
Mr. Brandgard said there has always been an issue with
Halliburton coming out on U.S. 40 as long as I have lived here and that
has been a long time because of the traffic on U.S. 40 and trying to
get out and make a left turn towards Indianapolis. It was worse when
the overpass was there than it is now when you have more sight on there
and quite frankly the Town does not control the signalization on U.S.
40; the State does and in order to get a traffic signal you have to
have what they call warrants and it is very difficult to get that.
Mr. McGillem said and the State would not approve a signal that
close to Ronald Reagan I can assure you.
Mr. Brandgard said and what they are doing they are moving the
signal from Six Points over to Ronald Reagan. They are not adding a
signal but they are just moving one. The way that the County has
designed Ronald Reagan and the way that they put it through they cut
Bradbury I think is the name of that north road. So, Medallion Meadows
no longer has access to Six Points or to Ronald Reagan. Quite frankly
they have done a good job of isolating a community, which is not in the
Town as yet but we need to fix it. The reasonable fix at the moment is
to put a right in and right out on Bradbury and Ronald Reagan temporary
until we can get it up farther to where you have a signal at the new
road going across there. I agree as far as a filling station on that
corner people that use it are going to have more than one way out.
They are not necessarily going to go out on Halliburton especially if
it backs up. I think most of the traffic there is going to be coming
from the east rather than coming from the west but there is a problem
there and we need to come up with a solution to fix it.
I?m inclined to ask for a continuance, if we can, to deal with
the sign issue and also try to fix this road issue.
Ms. Whicker said the proposal of the western road of the addition
to a proposed future north/south corridor.
Mr. Kirchoff said it is very long-term.
Mr. McGillem said we have met with ADESA and they are not opposed
to us getting them through there but it would need to probably be tied
into either a change in the usage of ADESA moving or ADESA deciding
that they are going to stay there where they want to modify the current
operations. They have a traffic problem right now with everything, all
of the transporters and everything trying to get to that southeast
corner where they have their actual auction and where they are loading
the vehicles. As much property as they have everything is focused
right in that southeast corner. So, essentially I really think that
will happen sometime in the future but it?s not going to happen within
probably the next three to five years.
Mr. Carlucci said continuing it would at least give Staff a
chance to talk to the County about a right in/right out on Ronald
Reagan. They were involved in the whole process of putting this
together. We should make that effort before we approve something and
then try to do it after the fact but that is certainly up to the Plan
Commission but we have relationships with the County. John Ayers, the
County Engineer, was involved in this and my friend who comes and pays
his water bill personally every month always comes in and talks to me.
He was right; they have isolated that area there. They have also
isolated some other people on the other side of the road. At least
they have access up to Six Points where they can go north and come back
around but they have no choice here whatsoever.
Mr. McGillem said (inaudible).
Mr. Wocher said I?m not clear how that right in/right out would
affect the application before the Plan Commission.
Mr. Carlucci said I think it will add more cars to Halliburton.
Mr. Brandgard said that is why they put an entrance/exit there.
It is something that we have to deal with; the use of that land and how
it impacts the use around it.
Mr. Wocher said I just wasn?t sure if the Plan Commission was
considering that it be a condition for Speedway. It doesn?t seem like
we have the control of that nor the relationship to it.
Mr. Brandgard said we are not asking you to do anything here.
Mr. Wocher said I?m trying to figure out what the relationship of
the right in/right out.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. Brandgard said what I was suggesting is continue this to give
the Staff the chance to deal with this. I don?t think it should be that
big of an issue but we have to deal with it with the County and the
Ronald Reagan area to put that cut in there that they closed off.
Mr. Carlucci said this is really driving us back to the County
and saying this is really what should have been done a long time ago as
part of the planning process. Your project just highlighted the fact
that is why that is needed again, the right in/right out on Ronald
Reagan from Bradbury.
Mr. Wocher said I see; I didn?t have that understanding.
Mr. Brandgard said as Mr. McGillem said, your business is steady;
it?s not peak like an office complex or shopping area can be. So, the
business that you are going to have you are going to have a
considerable number of people that are going to come in off of Main
Street and then come out on Halliburton and come out to Main Street.
So, we have to deal with it because it is going to back up and affect
your business too if people can?t get in and out.
Mr. Wocher said it sounds like a continuance and the status of
this application may get an opportunity to talk to the County. We want
to have access that works for the community too. Thank you.
Mr. Kirchoff said my point is when we talk to the County, I think
we also need to talk about this because within the overlay zone the
prohibited uses include filling stations.
Ms. Whicker said so you did find that verbiage there.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. Brandgard said quite frankly this is right on the edge of
that overlay in this area, if you look at the map. It is within the
overlay area but if you look at the way the map is drawn, if you went
to the other side of Halliburton, it would be outside the overlay, the
way that I interpret the map.
Mr. Kirchoff said we shortened it down because of the overlay.
Ms. Whicker asked, would a member like to ask for a continuance?
Mr. Brandgard asked, Mr. McGillem would 30 days be enough?
Mr. McGillem said (inaudible).
Mr. Brandgard said if we can?t do it in 30 days, we won?t be able
to do it at all.
Mr. McGillem said right.
Mr. Brandgard made a motion to continue PP-06-011 and DP-06-032
until the February 5, 2007 meeting while we try to resolve this access
situation. Second by Mr. Gibbs. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Matrana ? yes
Mr. McPhail ? absent at this time
Mr. Brandgard ? yes
Mr. Gibbs ? yes
Mr. Kirchoff ? yes
Ms. Whicker ? yes
5-ayes, 0-opposed, 1-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Daniel said I will mention to the citizens also that since
this is being continued to February you will not get any new notice.
You are getting your notice tonight so don?t expect a notice in the
mail; just make sure you have that date written down.
Ms. Whicker said that will also be at 7:00 p.m.
The next petition is RZ-06-010 with Airwest Partners for a
request of rezoning.
Mr. James said due to a problem with the notice to interested
parties we have asked that the rezone case be reopened for public
comment and if there is no comment or remonstrance, we will close the
case and proceed.
Ms. Whicker asked, wasn?t there proper notification given?
Mr. James said this is the rezone for the PepsiCo site and, as
you know, it straddles the county lines and we believe some property
owners in Marion County did not get their notice through certified
mailing.
Ms. Whicker asked, do we make a continuance to the February
meeting?
Mr. James said no; they have been noticed since. That has been
corrected so we wanted to reopen the case to give them an opportunity
to comment if they wanted to do so.
Mr. Daniel asked, has this already been heard?
Mr. James said yes.
Mr. Daniel said so this is an opportunity if someone who did not
get notice the first time and has something to say about that.
Mr. McNaught said it can be a little confusing; what happened is
my colleague, and I should have caught it when I looked at some maps,
but there were two property owners southeast of Flynn Creek and Marion
County. So, to correct that we gave them the full notice for tonight.
The two property owners are in Marion County so we wanted to correct
the record. I think by doing the notice we provided the affidavit of
notice and the green cards. They received them, signed them and sent
them back. That is the procedural part. There is a second item on your
agenda but the procedural thing needed to come first.
Ms. Whicker asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care
to speak on RZ-06-010 Airwest Partners? Being no one coming forward
the public portion is closed.
Mr. James said I will move forward with the other two requests
involving this same property. This is a Development Plan for
orientation of loading space and depth of yard with development
incentive for approximately 1.1 million square foot distribution
center. The site is about 105 acres located south of Ameriplex
Parkway. This property was rezoned earlier in the fall of 2006 and
rezoned 71 acres on the Hendricks County side and it got annexed and
that was why we had to reopen this case because this request just split
the Hendricks/Marion County line and I believe these property owners
failed to get notice. I wanted to explain that to you.
So, this is two requests tonight for the orientation of loading
space and depth of yard incentive and then the Architecture and Site
Design Review for the proposed 1.1 million square foot distribution
facility. They have also proposed a half million square foot expansion
that would be to the west down in there, which would be all in
Hendricks County and the Plainfield jurisdiction. An interlocal
agreement is needed to determine standards, etc. This is a unique
development that straddles two county lines. With the rezone and
annexation they committed to Gateway Corridor standards except for sign
standards. They would like to use the Ameriplex sign standards to keep
it consistent with the Ameriplex industrial park and then a variance
was granted to allow Indianapolis off-street parking standards and also
to reduce perimeter landscaping.
Here is the site. Access will be off this road here from
Ameriplex Parkway and they have proposed to build roads to the north
and to the south. Other than the variances and commitments it complies
with the Gateway Corridor standards. DRC recommended approval with
revised elevations and minor changes to the landscaping plan. The plans
have since been revised. All setbacks are greater than what is allowed
for the depth of yard. There is a power line easement across the north
part of the property and then Flynn Creek to the south and it does
restrict the use of berms. The power line easement also restricts the
type of plants for the perimeter landscaping. They would have to come
back for the expansion to go through this process again for the half
million square foot expansion. Rose Road and Flynn Creek would provide
additional buffering to residential properties to the south. Signs
will be approved by Indianapolis and then the road connection is key to
provide access to the Ameriplex Parkway.
Here is the site plan. This is the road to the north and it will
connect to CR600S. That is why we have to have the orientation of the
loading space and development incentives because the loading docks will
be facing these two roads. Here is a rendering of the building. The
elevations comply with the two color percentage requirements. It?s
pre-cast concrete; here is the landscaping plan. With the variance they
only did like a Level 3.6 down here and I think about a 3.5 here.
According to our standards they would only have to do a one but I think
they are still doing a Level 3.1 for the perimeter landscaping. They
were unable to do berms because of the creek down here and the power
line easement across here and then the foundation landscaping planting
that would be required has been added onto the perimeters, which can be
approved as alternative landscaping. There is a retention pond down
here. They put some landscaping around the pond and at the corner of
the intersection.
This is an Ameriplex sign. This is an integrated center sign
that will not be on the site. I think this will be out by the Ameriplex
Parkway. I just wanted to show it to you to see what their sign types
are like. These are the dimensions for the signs. It is very big; it
is 40 feet high. And then this would be an example of the on site sign
what they would be allowed by the Ameriplex standards. It could be
eight feet high and 24 square feet.
Then last week we looked at the transportation plan update and
the importance of this connection, south road connection, to the County
Line. Here is more of a regional view and how it shows how vital this
connection is to provide access to this area south of I-70 to the
Morgan County Line.
The remaining issues are approval of the interlocal agreement by
the Town Council and how do we guarantee the proposed south road that
it gets improved to the County Line?
Mr. Brandgard said the two issues remaining you said the Town
Council approving the interlocal agreement. Has Marion County approved
it yet?
Mr. James said they are in the process of doing another draft of
the interlocal agreement so they are the ones putting it together so it
will be their language. We have been able to take a look at it and
provided them our comments with what we feel is needed in the
interlocal agreement but I don?t believe it has been officially
approved.
Mr. Brandgard said the issue is both entities need to approve an
interlocal agreement. What I?m saying is it is not just the Town that
needs to approve it.
Mr. McGillem said we have pretty much got everything identified
in the interlocal agreement. I think I gave a fresh copy to Mr.
Daniel. (Inaudible). The only thing that is kind of remaining out
there and that they would be waiting on us is provide wording
associated with how we want to go forward with the commitments on the
extension (inaudible) roadway. Essentially we had a meeting yesterday
that I think helped us to come (inaudible). Then it will go back for
approval.
Ms. Whicker asked, does this include what you came to agreement
on yesterday with what Mr. James just gave out?
Mr. McGillem said the roadway issues have still not be resolved.
The interlocal agreement is between the Town and the City of
Indianapolis. What we are looking at is Marion County in this section
of the roadway (inaudible). They just want the right to review the
contract plans for compliance to their standards and they will except
the Town inspection (inaudible). That is kind of where we are going
with that issue between us and the City in that interlocal agreement.
Mr. Mac McNaught with Airwest Partners said Mr. James and Mr.
McGillem have given you an excellent background. I?m really here to
answer any questions. Mr. James if you could go to the site plan,
Stanstead Road is this main road that has been planned to provide
access, not only to PepsiCo, but to begin the critical access to parts
west. The standard that Plainfield and Indianapolis had agreed upon is
a three-lane road section and that road would under the current plans
stop here and then we would have, what at this point is called Orly,
it?s still subject to this body?s determination. I have no particular
vested interest in Orly as a name but the Ameriplex has used
international airports as their theme in naming roads. But this new
road would extend north and then west and connect with CR600. From the
site plan you see initially that was not part of the design but we
recognized early on that this north road, Orly Road, would continue on
and connect to the intersection and connect with the existing CR600.
What has been highlighted is what was not anticipated until we got the
Staff comment. Staff comment was any discussion of further commitment
as to the extension of Stanstead to the southwest and would eventually
follow from the creek and meet up with CR1075 and improve and connect
with Camby Road, which parallels essentially Flynn Road east and west.
So, you have the beginnings of this major arterial and the point is
when will this property open up for future development and allow this
road to continue to Camby Road, which would then allow access to SR67
and Kentucky Avenue?
We have had several meetings. The most recent one was yesterday
and I appreciate the time devoted by Mr. Kirchoff and your Staff and I
believe there was a warm reception by Indianapolis to amending the
interlocal to confirm that, not only will the right-of-way be dedicated
from the beginning point, but Indianapolis would agree that the road
could proceed based on Marion County standards and Plainfield
inspection and then there was a fair amount of discussion about
funding. Indianapolis agreed to work with Plainfield and approach the
metropolitan planning organization, the MPO and put this in the cube
for federal funding. That could be a long process but it is also
probably a fairly lengthy process for this area to open up for future
development but it is on the plan. I think it is a recently adopted
amendment to your Thoroughfare Plan. HNTB has it in draft form. It
shows you that it is still in the presses and not even hot off the
press.
So, I?m here to answer questions and I think if I understand what
I heard, is that with the cooperation of Indianapolis and the wording
of the interlocal, and that is subject to the Town Council approval,
that we have met all of the conditions. The key one that popped out is
condition number two. If you do have a motion that recommends
approval, it is condition number two that would be modified such that
the proposed south road shall be extended in a manner consistent with
the interlocal agreement. That would be one way to approach it but
obviously number four would tie into number two.
Just by way of background so that you can understand as you have
been through all of this, two-thirds of the PepsiCo is located in
Plainfield and one-third in Marion County, which is of some benefit.
And probably the most important thing I think you all recognize that
with the beginnings of this Stanstead road connecting to the south leg
of Ronald Reagan Parkway you begin the processing that this road will
eventually be connected providing access to this area, which at this
point is pretty hard to do. Flynn Road would be your access existing
today and that is a little difficult to find but in terms of
development it will not be an appropriate road. With that I would be
happy to answer any questions. Also, Andrew Churchill with JRA
Architecture is here to the extent if you have technical questions or
questions beyond my capability. Mr. Churchill has been the architect
director on this project and he has done an outstanding job with the
elevation and the site design so he is available as well.
Mr. Andrew Churchill said I will spare you a lengthy presentation
but would be happy to answer any questions.
Ms. Whicker said DRC had mentioned a change in the elevation.
Mr. Churchill said after the TAC meeting we had addressed those
issues and actually we have revised our initial submission and
submitted it to DRC. I know it was approved as presented. The changes
essentially involved the west elevation, which faces nothing now, bat
habitat and unfortunately on the building size it is a little hard to
see but we added more features. Since it was an expansioned wall it
was initially a blank wall more or less as it was submitted so we
dressed that wall up and then also around the east end of the south
wall we added some treatment to that also.
Mr. Kirchoff said you commented that two-thirds was in Hendricks
County and one-third in Marion County. (Inaudible).
Mr. McNaught said (inaudible).
Ms. Whicker 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 (inaudible).
Mr. McGillem said (inaudible).
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. Brandgard said I think the key thing is to get this section
on the Development Plan in agreement that it can be built to this. I
think that is the key piece.
Mr. McGillem said and that is what we are looking at in the
interlocal agreement.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion that the Plan Commission approve DP-
06-028 as filed by Flynn Creek Partners, LLC requesting Development
Incentives for the orientation of loading space toward a front lot line
and for the reduction in the depth of a required front bufferyard
finding that:
For the orientation offloading space toward a front lot line that:
The required front yard is effectively screened with perimeter landscaping approved with a variance.
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 for the reduction of the depth of a required front bufferyard that:
The Plant Unit Value to be provided in the required yard or required bufferyard is adequate based on what was approved with the variance.
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:
1. Substantial compliance with the site plan and landscape
plan file dated November 17, 2006.
Second by Mr. Matrana. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Matrana ? yes
Mr. McPhail ? absent at this time
Mr. Brandgard ? yes
Mr. Gibbs ? yes
Mr. Kirchoff ? yes
Ms. Whicker ? yes
5-ayes, 0-opposed, 1-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion that the Plan Commission approve DP-
06-029 as filed by Flynn Creek Partners, LLC requesting Architectural &
Site Design Review approval for the development of a 1.1 million square
foot warehouse distribution facility with a proposed 0.5 million square
foot expansion 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 it 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, landscaping plan, light plan and light fixtures file dated November 17, 2006.
The proposed south road shall be extended to the county line in the manner consistent with the interlocal agreement.
Required Level 2 perimeter landscaping along the west property line shall be delayed until time of development of the 0.5 million square foot expansion.
The interlocal agreement shall be approved by the Plainfield Town Council and the Consolidated City of Indianapolis.
The Development Plan shall be approved by the Indianapolis Department of Metropolitan Development.
The Development Plan shall be filed and approved by the Plan Commission for the proposed 0.5 million square foot expansion for compliance with Gateway Corridor standards.
A final plat will be recorded both in Marion County and Hendricks County dedicating public right-of-way for the roads serving the subject parcel, the platted lot, existing easements, covenants and easements provided for utilities and drainage.
Second by Mr. Matrana. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Matrana ? yes
Mr. McPhail ? absent at this time
Mr. Brandgard ? yes
Mr. Gibbs ? yes
Mr. Kirchoff ? yes
Ms. Whicker ? yes
5-ayes, 0-opposed, 1-absent. Motion carried.
OLD BUSINESS/NEW BUSINESS
None.
OTHER COMMENTS
Mr. Carlucci said the Town Council yesterday evening approved
Gary Satterfield as the replacement for Herb Thibo on the Plan
Commission. Mr. Satterfield actually served several years ago. He
will begin in March.
