TOWN OF PLAINFIELD
PLAN COMMISSION October 6, 2008
The Plainfield Plan Commission met on Monday, October 6, 2008. In attendance were Mr. Satterfield, Mr. McPhail, Mr. Dunkin, Mr. Kirchoff and Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Brandgard became in attendance at 7:25 p.m.
ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM
Mr. Carlucci administered the Roll Call.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Dunkin made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 4, 2008 Plainfield Plan Commission meeting as submitted. Second by Mr. Kirchoff. Motion carried.
OATH OF TESTIMONY
Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Testimony.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mr. Gibbs reviewed the Guidelines Governing the Conduct of Public Hearings.
Mr. James said before we begin I need to take care of one item. The second petition for public hearing tonight is DP-08-009, Rajwinder Kaur, which will have to be continued. The petitioner failed to comply with the interested parties' noticing.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to approve the continuance of DP-08-009, Rajwinder Kaur until the next Plan Commission meeting. Second by Mr. McPhail.
Mr. James said our only petition tonight is DP-08-008. The petitioner is Santosh Patel. This is for a proposed Best Western Hotel for the former Wendy's site. It is at 6109 Cambridge Way. The proposed hotel will be 67 rooms and four stories. The area is zoned General Commercial and surrounding uses are interstate support uses like hotels and restaurants. The site is within 600 feet of SR267, which is why it has to comply with the Gateway Corridor standards. Because it is an outlot and in an integrated center, which abuts another outlot the side yard setback is reduced to five feet.
Here is the site, Cambridge Way and Manchester Drive I believe it is. The site is 1.24 acres. It is a small site for the proposed use and in order to get this to fit they had to seek a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals to not have the required loading space and the BZA did grant the variance.
Here is the site plan. It is a corner lot so you have two front yard setbacks. This front setback is 30 feet off of Cambridge and then 30 feet off of Manchester. They have a canopy out here and it does comply with the 30 foot setback. The perimeter yards since it is along a street frontage it still has to comply with the 10 foot green space requirement, which they do. The old Wendy's site did but the side yard setbacks reduced to five feet here and five feet over here. Since it is an old site they want to use the existing parking lot and the existing perimeter landscaping, which has matured trees that have a caliper width that more than makes up for what is required for perimeter landscaping. Then they want to use the existing pole lights too and I will go over that in more detail later.
Here are the elevations. The elevations comply. Only the west, north and south elevations have to comply but all four elevations do. The primary material would be the EIFS and the secondary material will be stone and they did bring a sample of the stone. The colored renderings really don't show the true color of the stone. They have at least 20% stone for all elevations. That is the colored rendering for the stone and then there is the EIFS. This isn't your typical Best Western style hotel; it is a new design. I think it is something that they are going to nationwide. All elevations do comply. Here are the building material percentages; all elevations have at least the 20% required brick or stone and then the primary material is above 50%.
Here is the landscaping plan. They have existing trees that have a caliper width that exceeds what we require so using the existing trees the perimeter landscaping is met. The foundation landscaping we are going to use an alternative plan but it does comply. They have the required plant material and they also have their required area for foundation landscaping and then this is the only parking area that has to comply. After DRC they did add 20 more shrubs along here so that now complies. All the landscaping does comply.
They are not going to have a typical six foot ground sign. Instead they are going to use these two incidental signs and it does comply with width and height. The use of the pole lights they would like to use; they are legal nonconforming. These were the types allowed before our current standards. The only thing that doesn't comply is the lens. It is a concave lens instead of a flat lens.
The variance was granted by the BZA to not require the loading space. DRC recommended approval with conditions that the pole lights must comply and submit a photometric plan. But all plans comply with the Gateway Corridor standards except for the pole lights except just for the lens but I wanted to get your thoughts on that. Since they are legal nonconforming should they be allowed to use them or would you like to see pole lights that comply with our standards as recommended by DRC. So, if the lights are okay, we will strike condition number four. Then which color does the Plan Commission prefer for the canopy? DRC recommended the dark color or color that would match the darkest tone of the stone so they have provided two options of the dark color and then the light color. Here is the dark color option “A” and the light color option “B”.
So, with that the proposal does comply with the gateway standards except for the pole light lens. So, I will have a seat and the representatives are here and I'm sure they would be happy to answer any questions that you might have.
Mr. Dale Kruse said I'm with Kruse Consulting and my office is at 7384 Business Center Drive in Avon. I'm here this evening on behalf of the petitioner. I think I said this at the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting and at the DRC meeting that Joe does a good job introducing a project and explaining the details. There really isn't anything that I can really add to what he has already said. So, I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have.
Mr. McPhail asked, why can't you change the lens in those pole lights?
Mr. Kruse said I just asked our architect here this evening and he has checked into that. The lens can't change; we have to change the whole fixture for some reason. I don't know if it is the way the bulb is in the fixture or what it is but there is something in the fixture that doesn't allow a flat lens.
Mr. Kirchoff said it's probably a function of the heat that is generated by the lamp.
Mr. McPhail said we have been really firm on those projected lens. We need the flat lens to keep the reflection and those things out.
Mr. Kirchoff said with Dennis' background I'm sure he can explain that better than I can not being an engineer like he is.
Mr. Gibbs said it probably does have to do with the heat but you would still get the ambient light from that bubble.
Mr. McPhail said it has been an issue with us for a long time and we really have been pretty firm on maintaining that. I would think that at least they could maintain the pole and change the fixture.
Mr. Kirchoff said my assumption is just change the head.
Mr. Kruse said the petitioner doesn't have a problem with changing the fixtures out. I think there are eight of them that would have to be done but if we can use the same pole and swap out the fixtures, that would be okay with them and just leave the poles where they are.
Mr. McPhail said I'm glad to see a redevelopment project on that site. It seems restaurants of different varieties have tried that site and that building and have been unsuccessful. This is certainly an improvement to the site for the area.
Mr. Kruse said I might also add that the proposed color of the canopy would be the darker color.
Mr. Carlucci asked, when do you anticipate construction to begin?
Mr. Kruse said tomorrow; they want to start very soon. In fact, they actually have made application I think for a foundation release. Plans have been submitted to the DPW for review and they have a foundation release. In fact, I said tomorrow; the contractor wants me to state that they are building tomorrow. So, they would like to start as soon as they can. They want to try to get everything enclosed at least before the weather gets bad so they can work inside after the weather is crummy.
Mr. Carlucci said the only reason I brought that up had more to do with the number of vehicles that park there overnight; semi tractor trailers, cars, trucks use it as a parking lot. If it was going to drag on any length of time, I wanted them to secure the property better. It sounds like it is going to go pretty quick.
Mr. Kruse said that is their intent.
Mr. Gibbs asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak about this petition? Being no one coming forward I will close the public portion of this meeting and open it up to the commission for any motion.
Mr. Kirchoff said could you go back to the site plan and help me think this through a little bit. You made some comments about the five foot and I assume that's on the east. Is that standard or is that a variance?
Mr. James said that is a standard.
Mr. Kirchoff said that looks awfully close to the property line for something else that might go in there.
Mr. James said we will see this next month with an inn. They are going to be at least 30 feet of this side and it is not going to be an issue.
Mr. Kirchoff said we had two four-story buildings close to each other was an issue that we needed to anticipate but you're telling me that is not the case.
Mr. James said correct.
Mr. Kirchoff said then if you could show us those two choices on the color.
Mr. James said the option “B” was the light color and option “A” the dark color.
Mr. Kirchoff said I thought all of it changed. The dark canopy makes it look darker throughout but it blends and that is their preference.
Mr. James said yes and DRC preferred it and I believe they preferred it as well.
Mr. McPhail made a motion that the Plan Commission approve DP-08-008 as filed by Santosh Patel requesting approval of a Development Plan for a 67 room Best Western Hotel at 6109 Cambridge Way finding that:
1. The Development Plan complies with all applicable Development Standards of the District in which the site is located.
2. The Development Plan complies with all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Control Ordinance for which a waiver has not been granted.
3. The Development Plan complies with all applicable provisions for Architectural and Site Design Review for which a waiver has not been granted.
4. The proposed development is appropriate to the site and its surroundings.
5. 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:
1. Substantial compliance with the Site Plan, Light Fixtures, Landscaping Plan, Trash Enclosure details and Sign Plan file dated September 19, 2008 and Canopy Light Fixtures submitted file dated September 29, 2008.
2. Substantial compliance with building elevations and colored renderings file dated September 25, 2008.
3. Substantial compliance with Canopy Color file dated September 22, 2008 with option “A”, the dark color.
4. All lights shall comply with Gateway Corridor standards and a photometric plan shall be submitted with the Improvement Location Permit (ILP).
Second by Mr. Satterfield. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Satterfield – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Dunkin – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Brandgard – absent
Mr. Gibbs – yes
5-ayes, 0-opposed, 1-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. James said our next item on the agenda is TA-08-002. These are the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance we have been reviewing for the last couple of months. A minor change has been made to Article 4.2.K-10, temporary storage units. We added the phrase “duration was limited to 30 days”. And then we added “can be extended by the director for just cause shown”. And then we made slight amendments to number 11, Article 4.5; special regulations for adult entertainment business. We added requirements for a public restroom, a dressing room and a sanitation room or a janitor's closet. So, those are the only changes that have been made since you last reviewed these at the last meeting. I would like to submit the proposed amendments as Exhibit “A”. With that I'm prepared to answer any questions that you might have.
Proposal to amend the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance in the following respects:
1. Amend Article 1.20 D. – Parking and Storage of Recreational Vehicles in Residential Districts – Recreational Vehicles shall include motor homes, campers, boats, ATVs and jet-skis, etc.
2. Add Article 1.20 E. – Restrict the parking of operable motorized vehicles to the garage, parking space, driveway or public or private street where parking on the street is allowed.
3. Amend Article 2.3 B.4. – R-2: Low Density Residential District – to allow 35% lot coverage.
4. Amend Article 2.4 B.4. – R-3: Medium Density Residential District – to allow 35% lot coverage.
5. Amend Article 2.5 B.4. – R-4: Medium Density Residential District – to allow 40% lot coverage.
6. Amend Article 2.8 – TC: Town Center District – add Farmer's Market as permitted use.
7. Amend Article 4.2.G. – Additional Regulations for Temporary Seasonal Retail Sales – allowed once per year per lot, require two (2) week inspection, change duration from ninety (90) days to sixty (60) days.
8. Add Article 4.2.1.: Additional Regulations for Model Homes and Sales Trailers for Residential Subdivisions – creates standards for model homes and temporary sales trailers for residential subdivisions.
9. Add Article 4.2.J. – Additional Regulations for Temporary Tent Sales in all Commercial Districts – creates standards for Temporary Tent Sales.
10. Add Article 4.2 K. – Temporary Storage Units in All Districts – creates standards for Temporary Storage Units in All Districts.
11. Amend Article 4.5 – Special Regulations for Adult Entertainment Businesses – amend and update the entire ordinance regulating Adult Entertainment Businesses.
12. Amend Article 5.4 B.4.a – Development incentives for all Commercial and Industrial Districts (except for TC: Town Center District) – to require a development incentive for loading space orientation only when the loading spaces are facing a Gateway Corridor or non-industrial zoning district.
13. Amend Article 7.3 K. – Prohibited Signs – change the duration of message change from six (6) times per hour to once every ten (10) seconds for Changeable Copy Signs.
14. Amend Article 7.4 A.6. and 7.4 B.6 as well as Tables 7.4 A and B – On-Premise Signs: Commercial, Industrial Districts (Except for the TC –Town Center District and MU – Mixed Use District) – to define freestanding sign standards for the Ronald Reagan Parkway.
15. Amend Article 7.4 D.3. – On-Premise Signs: Commercial, Industrial Districts (Except for the TC – Town Center District and MU – Mixed Use District) – to limit building signage in size to a facade plane rather than the elevation as a whole.
16. Amend Article 7.8K – Signs: General Regulations – to change the requirements for sign base landscaping.
17. Amend Article 13.2 – Definitions – add Facade Plane definition, remove food and live plants from definition of Temporary Seasonal Retail Sales; and add definition of Farmer's Market.
Mr. Gibbs asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this matter? Being no one coming forward I will open it up for a motion by the board.
Mr. Dunkin made a motion to forward TA-08-002, amendments per Exhibit “A” to the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance to the Plainfield Town Council with a favorable recommendation. Second by Mr. Satterfield. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Satterfield – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Gibbs – yes
Mr. Dunkin – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Brandgard – abstained
5-ayes, 0-opposed, 1-abstention, 0-absent. Motion carried.
OLD BUSINESS/NEW BUSINESS
Mr. James said we invited Mr. Eduardo Guzman at 10823 Emery Drive in Bentwood to the Plan Commission. Mr. Guzman has been accused of operating a landscaping business out of his residence. I was provided these photos and I did go out and take some photos myself. You can't have one truck that is a three-quarter ton or less that you use as your primary source of transportation even though it is for a business. You can see here that he has two trucks; one in the garage and then he has the trailer that is being stored out in the open. Trailers are allowed but if you have a trailer, it has to be parked in the garage. So, Mr. Guzman called me last week and we talked about this and he said he is parking the trailer in the garage now and that other employees are not coming to his residence. So, there will not be other vehicles parked on the street. So, with that I think we have taken care of the issue.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, where is this?
Mr. James said Bentwood, Raceway.
Mr. McPhail said this is certainly a pretty common problem around the community and we need to make sure that we enforce that because it can be quite a nuisance when you have two or three vehicles like that. That is a pretty short driveway and he can't even get the trailer and the truck in the driveway. If he can get it in the garage, I guess that is fine.
Mr. Carlucci said the houses in Bentwood are pretty dense so there is not a lot of space on the street especially when you get three or four other vehicles on there.
Mr. James said given that I have met with Mr. Guzman and he did show up tonight. He has said that the other vehicles will not be parked on the street and the trailer will be parked in the garage. So, with that I'm satisfied.
Mr. Brandgard said very good.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, will you be monitoring that?
Mr. James said yes we will monitor the situation.
The next item is 435 Harlan. If that address sounds familiar, it is because we have had several issues with this property. Our latest issue is they have this trailer parked right here in the side yard setback. The neighbors have complained about it. They have done work on vehicles out in the open. The ordinance requires that vehicles should be entirely screened by a fence or within the garage. He did give me a call and I tried to call back and was unable to speak with anybody about this situation. Based on the history of this property I'm going to keep on them until they clean the property up and improve the looks of the property so that they don't bring down the surrounding property values.
Mr. McPhail asked, are we at the point that we need to start the fining process?
Mr. James said yes I think we need to start the fining process again.
Mr. McPhail said they have been here and if you drive by, all your efforts seems like they are not making any progress. With that I make a motion to start the fining process for the property at 435 Harlan Street and direct Mr. James to notify them and start the fining process effective immediately. Second by Mr. Brandgard. None opposed. Motion carried.
Mr. James said our next item is 638 Tucker Avenue in the same neighborhood, Duffey/Gibbs. Based on the neighborhood plan that we did over the summer and you recently approved we have sort of concentrated on this neighborhood. So, violations are more noticeable when we are looking for them and 638 Tucker was another case where we had a trailer parked out in the open. It had two axles and it was over 12 feet in length, which our ordinance does not allow to be parked out in the open in a Residential District. I sent a letter to the property owner and again the actual resident and the owner of the trailer did not receive the letter because he is renting the place. But I mailed another letter last week and he did receive that. I addressed it to the resident so the owner of the trailer is Dave Smith. He came by and talked to me this afternoon. I asked him how much time he needed to get rid of the trailer and he requested two weeks. I said okay and told him I would take that to the Plan Commission and see what they say. So, he has agreed to move the trailer; he just needs a little time to find a place to store it.
Mr. Gibbs asked, is there consent? Consent given.
Mr. James said the next item is old business. This is 202 Vestal Road, Mr. Hutchinson's place. We talked to Mr. Hutchinson at last month's meeting. The issue is a trailer and items being stored out in the open in his driveway. We were going to give him 30 days to make efforts to clean the place up. I went by and took a picture this afternoon and in my opinion he has made no improvements to the property. This is the photo that was taken August 12th and this is the photo taken today. Not much improvement has been made.
Mr. Carlucci said this isn't under the Zoning Ordinance; this is under a separate ordinance.
Mr. James said no we have a provision for junk, trash and debris stored out in the open in a Residential District, Article 12.6.
Mr. Carlucci said we also have a junk, trash and debris ordinance don't we?
Mr. Daniel said yes a separate ordinance.
Mr. Carlucci said if the Plan Commission wants to go forward on this, there are two ways that you can go. If you go with the Zoning Ordinance, you end up in the Hendricks County courts. If we do it under the other ordinance, then you go to the Town court, which I think would be easier and quicker than going to the County court.
Mr. James said Judge Spencer has heard other zoning cases.
Mr. Daniel said he is hearing zoning violations.
Mr. Carlucci asked, can he do that?
Mr. Daniel said yes, the Town court can now.
Mr. Carlucci asked, he can now?
Mr. Daniel said yes.
Mr. Carlucci said so it doesn't matter which one we use.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, which one would be more affective?
Mr. Daniel said probably the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Carlucci said we did amend it over an incident on the northeast side of Town after the guilty plea.
Mr. McPhail said I think we should move forward. He was here last month or two months ago and told us that he was going to clean it up. I drove by the next day and that picture looks like it did the day I drove by. What you can't see is there are more things behind the house too; there was when I drove by; just lying up against the back of the house. With that I make a motion to authorize Mr. James to start the fining process for violations of 202 Vestal Road. Second by Mr. Brandgard. None opposed. Motion carried.
Mr. James said I wanted to update you on a couple of things. I have inserted a copy of the letter I sent to Gunstra about Blackthorne about their violations last week. I haven't heard anything from them. Hopefully, I will hear something from them soon.
Another issue is the Wal-Mart landscaping. I got a phone call this afternoon and they are putting a landscaping plan together and they hope to get the landscaping in this fall. So, that was good news.
Mr. McPhail said on Gunstra one of the residents, Jim Bridges, stopped to see me today. He is getting ready to leave to go to Florida next week; he goes to Florida in the wintertime. He told me that they had closed the sales office and there is nobody on site. They had an interested party to stop to look at one of the units but couldn't find a salesperson so he showed them his unit. The lady apparently is very much interested and a couple of days later still had not been able to contact anybody from Gunstra. I did notice Sunday the sales office was not opened and there were no vehicles out. It doesn't sound very good to me.
Mr. Carlucci said this is pretty consistent every single day. Unfortunately, I hope somebody takes care of that before it gets too cold.
Mr. McPhail said he was concerned about winterizing the sprinkling system and winterizing the unit next to him because those are all connected. He's worried about it because he is going to be in Florida and he didn't want his pipes freezing because of the unit next door was freezing and those types of things. He did say he got a hold of a salesman at his home and the salesman told him he had been laid off. We need to really stay on top of that situation. As a matter of fact, even the residents' lawns haven't been cut for a couple of weeks either. It appears to me they aren't doing anything. He tried to get a hold of the homeowners association and they told him they no longer had the contract. I don't know what is going on but it's not good.
Mr. James said I know they closed their northeast Indianapolis office.
I got a request from Verus Corporation to change the name of the primary plat from East Plainfield Business Park to GreenParke at Airwest. One reason for the name change is they are going to promote the Green development design for their industrial park off of the Ronald Reagan Parkway. I don't think we have any issues with any other names or anything like that to change the name. We don't really have a procedure to change the primary plats but I thought I would at least bring it to the Plan Commission and let you know about this request.
Mr. Satterfield made a motion to approve the request from Verus Corporation to change the name of the primary plat from East Plainfield Business Park to GreenParke at Airwest. Second by Mr. McPhail. None opposed. Motion carried.
Mr. McPhail said I do have one question; Nottinghill, is there anything that the Plan Commission needs to take any action on the issue of Nottinghill on the sidewalks and that type of thing?
Mr. James said no. I talked to Tim and we typed up a letter for Tim and we sent that off to the insurance company in Ohio last week.
Mr. Kirchoff said going up U.S. 40 before you get to Vestal, that little strip center, we had issues about the signs. They have rented another unit and it is a Baptist church or some kind of church. I thought we were trying to set the tone for that and they continue to make changes there. I wondered if you could take a look at that.
Mr. Brandgard said especially regarding the signage.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to adjourn. Second by Mr. McPhail. Motion carried.
