The Plainfield Plan Commission met on Monday, December 5, 2005.
In attendance were Mr. Thibo, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Brandgard, Mr. Kirchoff,
Ms. Whicker and Mr. McPhail.
ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
MINUTES
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Gibbs – abstained
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Matrana - absent
Mr. Carlucci said we have a couple of items to take care of
before we get into the public hearings. First I would like to have Mr.
Daniel give the Oath of Office to Mr. Gibbs.
Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Office to Mr. Dennis Gibbs.
Mr. Carlucci said we have been without a Chairman of the Plan
Commission since the resignation of Mr. Haase. The Vice-Chair person,
Mr. Matrana is also the Chairman of the BZA. So, you would need to
open up nominations for a new Chairman of the Plainfield Plan
Commission. I would suggest any nominations for a new chairperson
please make the nomination.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to nominate Ms. Whicker as our new
chairperson. Second by Mr. McPhail.
Mr. Carlucci asked, is there a motion to close the nominations?
Mr. McPhail made a notion to close the nominations. Second by
Mr. Brandgard. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Gibbs – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Matrana - absent
6-ayes, 0-opposed, 1-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Carlucci said Ms. Whicker is now, as far as I know, the first
lady chairman of the Plainfield Plan Commission.
The Plan Commission’s appointment to the BZA was Mr. Haase for a
calendar year appointment for one year. We have one BZA meeting this
month and the Plan Commission needs to appoint Mr. Gibbs to the BZA for
the balance of 2005. I would need a motion to that affect.
Mr. Brandgard made a motion to appoint Mr. Gibbs as an
appointment from the Plainfield Plan Commission to the Plainfield Board
of Zoning Appeals for the balance of the year 2005. Second by Mr.
Kirchoff. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Gibbs – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Matrana - absent
6-ayes, 0-opposed, 1-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Carlucci said we do have with us tonight our new Director of
Planning, Joe James.
Mr. Joe James said with your past leadership and guidance you
have left the Town in a very good position to handle any future
potential growth that the Town may have. The essential planning tools
are in place to provide needed planning for the Town as the Town grows.
With your guidance and leadership I look forward to implementing these
tools to the best of my abilities to help create a better quality of
life and the type of Town that you have envisioned.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Ms. Whicker reviewed the Guidelines Governing the Conduct of
Public Hearings. We will start off this evening with some petitions
that were continued to this day. Mr. Valanzano would you walk us
through the first petition RZ-05-017, Republic Development.
Mr. Valanzano said the first two positions you have on the agenda
RZ-05-017 for Republic Development on Stafford Road and Stanley Road
was filed timely to be at tonight’s hearing but they did not file a
traffic study that was required for this project in time for review and
analysis. So, that petition RZ-05-017 on behalf of Republic
Development needs to be continued to the January 5, 2006 meeting of the
Plan Commission.
The second petition on the agenda DP-05-036 by Duke Construction
Limited Partnership at 1570 S. Perry Road the Design Review Committee
had asked for some revisions to the building elevations. The petitioner
did not have those done in compliance with DRC’s request in a timely
manner to be at tonight’s meeting. Plus there was an issue with
respect to access and traffic flow around the site that they needed to
go back and do some redesign. So, as opposed to trying to cram things
through at the last minute Duke decided to step back and do a more
thorough job on the review. So, they are requesting that the petition
be continued to the January 5, 2006 hearing of this commission. I
believe a motion on behalf of the commission to continue both of those
cases would be in order.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to continue to the January 5, 2006
hearing RZ-05-017, Republic Development and DP-05-036, Duke
Construction Limited Partnership. Second by Mr. McPhail. Roll call
vote called.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Gibbs – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Matrana – absent
6-ayes, 0-opposed, 1-absent. Motion carried.
Ms. Whicker said we have a few expedited petitions this evening,
RZ-05-019 Mann Properties.
Mr. Valanzano said this petition is a rezoning request for this
lot on Perimeter Parkway and Hartford. I don’t want this to sound more
than it is but we almost wrote the C-I District for this type of
project at this type of location. They are requesting a C-I rezoning of
nine acres at this location as a transition between a commercial area
and the light industrial area. Staff is unaware of any remonstrance on
this petition and we believe the zoning fits with the intent of the
area and what we are looking for when we designed the district. So, we
believe that this petition fits the Plan Commission’s guidelines for an
expedited petition and suggest an approval, if you see fit with that,
based on the Staff Report that you have read, an approval per the
recommendations of the Staff Report assuming there is no one in the
audience who would care to speak on this issue otherwise.
Mr. Greg Ewing said I’m the development coordinator for Mann
Properties at 8653 Bash St. I have a packet that gives you some flavor
for the proposal that we have and I would be present to answer any
questions that you may have.
Mr. Valanzano said there is also a development plan that has also
been filed for this project, which will be on your agenda for next
month, which will have all of the details about the buildings, the
landscaping, the signage, etc. That will be before you next month.
At this time we are just talking about the rezoning of this ground from
the GC District to the C-I District.
Ms. Whicker asked, is there anyone in the audience that would
care to speak on this petition? Being no one coming forward the chair
will entertain any discussion from the board or a possible motion.
Mr. McPhail made a motion to approve RZ-05-019 for rezoning per
the recommendation in the Staff Report. Second by Mr. Kirchoff. Roll
call vote called.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Gibbs – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Matrana – absent
6-ayes, 0-opposed, 1-absent. Motion carried.
Ms. Whicker said the next expedited petition is DP-05-038,
Premier Properties USA.
Mr. Valanzano said again this is an expedited petition. There are
two types of signs that they wanted to put at the Metropolis. One is a
type of incidental sign that if there was a roof over the mall and you
were walking down the hallway in a mall, you would expect to see signs
that are about this tall telling you which way to go to different
stores. That is exactly what they want to do here. Since it is an
outdoor they need permits to do that. This was not submitted to us for
review as part of the original sign package program so that is why it
is here before you tonight.
The other one is a ground sign that would be as soon as you drive
in on Futura Parkway before you get to the Futura Park itself a ground
sign out front that says Futura Park. Again, if this was a public
street, there would be encroachments being requested of the Town
Council and Board of Zoning Appeals. But again as part of the PUD on
private streets this is a sign package that simply needs your review
and approval for them to be able to put those signs in. The Design
Review Committee looked at these and recommended favorably for the
package that you have in front of you.
Ms. Whicker asked, is there anybody in the audience that would
care to speak on this petition? Being no one coming forward the chair
will entertain a motion.
1.
The final detailed plan satisfies the development
requirements and development standards specified in the PUD
District ordinance establishing such district.
2.
The final detailed plan accomplishes the intent set forth
in Article VI of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
3.
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 substantial compliance
with the Sign Locations Plan, Directory Sign Elevations and
the Futura Park Ground Sign Plan dated November 17, 2005.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Gibbs – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Matrana – absent
6-ayes, 0-opposed, 1-absent. Motion carried.
Ms. Whicker said a continued public hearing for this evening is
RZ-05-018, Town of Plainfield.
Mr. Valanzano said before I do that I would like to step back for
a second and do something for the record that I forgot to do. On the
Mann Properties rezoning, RZ-05-019 I wanted to bring to the Plan
Commission’s attention that when they sent the notice out on that
petition, the applicant had two petitions that they were processing at
the same time. I believe you have the letters in your packets. They
sent one packet for Avon and one packet for Plainfield. They had the
wrong information in the wrong packet. They sent them to the wrong
one. They sent the people in Avon the Plainfield notice and the people
in Plainfield the Avon notice. They caught that and resent the notice
but as a result of doing that they didn’t have the 15-day notice that
was required by Rules of Procedure but they did comply with the
statutory 10-day notice. So, for the record I believe it would be
appropriate to have a waiver of the rules in that particular matter to
reduce their individual notice, their individual mailed notice to 10
days. If we could just do that for the record, I believe it would be
appropriate.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Gibbs – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Matrana – absent
6-ayes, 0-opposed, 1-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Valanzano said the next case you have on your agenda for a
full public hearing tonight is RZ-05-018. This petition, as you may
recall, was continued from last month to tonight because there was a
deficiency in the notice to one immediately adjoining property owner.
There were some errors in the County’s property records that when the
paperwork was put together by Banning Engineering for this based on the
records they were able to find, they thought there were five acres and
actually there are only 3.8 acres. When the property owner saw what
was going on with the acreage, they did some more research and they
found the correction. So, that is why it was delayed from last month to
this month to get the acreage and to also get the notice sent to that
one individual property owner. We have the certified receipt that the
notice was sent to that property owner so I think we are in good shape.
Mr. Belcher asked, is this north of Morris Street?
Mr. Valanzano said yes. So, what we have before you now is this
piece of ground was annexed into the Town fairly recently with the
understanding that the zoning that would be put on this property would
be a zoning that would be consistent with what the applicant had
obtained over the years from the County. In the County zoning they had
an interesting history there. It was zoned C-1 in 2000 for
Neighborhood Commercial District and they had a self-imposed condition
that prohibited liquor stores and any establishments that served liquor
or had adult entertainment or adult bookstores. In 2004 the County
changed their zoning ordinance to a Neighborhood Business District and
then the property was annexed into the Town in 2005. They had to find
another district that fit and our Neighborhood Retail District fits
very closely to what the County’s Neighborhood District was.
The property that we are talking about this is Morris Street,
Raceway Road at the northwest corner. We are talking about this
irregular shaped 3.8 acres through here. This is the property that had
the notice problem that was originally part of the five acres, which
that has been worked about. So, we are talking about this 3.8 acres in
here.
The Neighborhood Retail District that we have in place for the
Town of Plainfield already does not allow any use that sells alcoholic
beverages unless you come before the Board of Zoning Appeals and get
approval there. In the County there was a distinction as to whether
liquor sales was beer and wine or whether liquor sales meant hard
liquor and they went through a whole interpretation thing. That
doesn’t apply here in Plainfield. Under our rules our ordinance says
anything whether it is a sale of beer or wine or hard liquor, it is all
alcoholic beverages so all of that needs an approval from the Board of
Zoning Appeals.
They had an approval under the County for development on this
property of a small strip shopping center. That approval had an
condition on it that it was good under a certain period of time, I
think it was 12 months, either six months or 12 months. That period of
time has elapsed. So, basically they have a zoning on that piece of
property for their neighborhood business type developments but they do
not have a specifically approved development plan. So, they have to
come back before this Plan Commission for Architectural and Site Design
Review for any development that goes on this property because it is
within 600 feet of residential and we have residential obviously to the
north, east, west and southwest of this property and it turns to the
south. They also have to come back to this Plan Commission under
Neighborhood Retail if they want to put a gasoline sales of any type on
this property, which was a concern on the site. So, that would also
require it going before the Board of Zoning Appeals. If they want to
do anything with alcoholic beverages, they would have to come back
before the Board of Zoning Appeals and get an approval there as well.
So, they would have to go through steps before this Plan Commission and
before the Board of Zoning Appeals if there was anything either for
alcoholic beverages or gasoline sales.
The Town’s Zoning Ordinance does allow a slightly bigger retail
center to go in as a maximum in a Neighborhood Retail District. While
the County had a limit of 15,000 square feet we would go up to 24,000
square feet as a maximum. But again when you have a site this size,
when you have your setbacks and buffer yards and landscaping and your
parking ratios, as a practical matter, you are only going to cap it as
to what you can do. And I venture to say on a site like this they
already had approval for something in the range of 12,000-15,000 square
feet. I doubt if you can fit a whole lot more than that on this site
anyway just by the property configurations.
In the Staff Report I have listed in there in italic if you would
want to pursue imposing a condition. The only reason I put that in
there would be to keep the zoning as same as it was coming into the
Town. But on the other hand it is somewhat redundant because our
ordinance already does not permit the uses that would have been
regulated by that commitment anyhow unless they go through some public
hearings for prior approval. So, there would have to be public notice
to all surrounding property owners and public hearings either in front
of here and/or in front of the Board of Zoning Appeals before anything
like that could happen.
The only other item that was in the initial condition was our
ordinance does not allow for adult uses within, I think, 500-600 feet
of a Residential District. So, even the adult uses that were listed by
commitment are also not permitted in here as well. So, in our
ordinance I really think, in the retail classification, addresses the
concerns and keeps the zoning as close to what it was under the
County’s, anything that you could possibly do. I would be happy to
answer any questions that you might have.
Mr. Thibo asked, is this the only property north of Morris Street
that has been annexed into Plainfield?
Mr. Valanzano said yes that is correct.
Mr. Thibo asked, just that corner?
Mr. Valanzano said yes.
Mr. McPhail said I do have a comment and I think I made this
comment when the petitioner first started this process. I think this
Plan Commission has been very consistent in the restriction of the sale
of alcohol within the proximity of a church. And any approval we give I
would want to make sure that it includes the commitment that there will
be no sale of alcohol, including carry-out, beer and wine, at this
location because of the proximity of the church, which is directly
across the street. When it is time for the motion to be made, I will
include that in my motion.
Ms. Whicker said as Mr. Valanzano stated, I believe the
Neighborhood Retail District does restrict that currently, is that
correct?
Mr. Valanzano said yes but our ordinance allows it by Special
Exception. I think Mr. McPhail was going a step further in saying
let’s take it out so even by Special Exception you could not get it.
Mr. McPhail said that is my intent yes.
Mr. Kevin Cavanaugh with Banning Engineering at 698 Tower Road,
Suite 100, Plainfield said I really don’t have any further comments. I
think he has given a very excellent summary and I would be happy to
answer any other procedural questions that you may have from the work
that we have done for the Town for this. I think we have a good
application for the zone use in this location.
Ms. Whicker asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care
to speak on this matter? Being no one coming forward the chair is open
for a motion.
1.
There will be no sale of alcohol beverages on this site.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Gibbs – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Matrana – absent
6-ayes, 0-opposed, 1-absent. Motion carried.
Ms. Whicker said we have a petition for an initial public
hearing, PP-05-012, Shawn Denny.
Mr. Valanzano said the next case that you have before you is for
the division of approximately a one acre parcel along U.S. 40 just
south and east of the Cinergy complex. It is pretty much just west of
the entrance to Walgreen’s, as you can see from the graphic on the
first page of your Staff Report. The reason that I put this photograph
on your Staff Report is to draw your attention to the fact that if you
look at each one of the lots between Lawndale and Holiday on the west
and the east respectfully, you can see every lot along this stretch had
already been split north/south for one residential lot facing U.S. 40
and another residential lot facing Buchanan. The sizes vary quite a
bit as you go through there but each lot over the years have been split
up except for this particular lot. This request would divide the
property that is owned by Mr. Denny into two lots. Both lots would
comply with the standards of the R-3 District.
The only concerns that we really had is there is a minor concern
that I need to work out with the secondary platting process with this
petitioner on what exactly the land area to be claimed that was on the
drawings actually refers to. I think it is going to be more of a
technical real estate issue than anything else that we have to deal
with. We do know that there is a sanitary sewer lateral that runs from
the house heading straight down to Buchanan. That will need to be
rerouted and wherever that gets rerouted we do need to have a sewer
easement provided for the benefit of Lot 1 across Lot 2 to make sure
that it properly works. The Town also has plans on the books to do
some storm sewer and sanitary sewer separations along Buchanan Street
and there will be a need for a 15-foot easement along the north side of
Buchanan Street that we would ask to get from the petitioner as part of
the Secondary Plat.
Also, just do to Mr. Belcher’s intimidate knowledge with the Town
of Plainfield and how every drop of water flows when it rains in Town,
we do want to make sure that, as the petitioner gets ready, should this
plat be approved and they get ready to develop the second lot, that
they provide drainage studies to Mr. Belcher to show how the drainage
on the site will work and make sure that everything continues to work
properly. Especially should a development be proposed before the
Town’s project to improve the drainage occurs in the area.
Again, the only thing we wanted to note for the petitioner is
because of the drainage issues in the area and what’s likely to be
going on in that area in the future that a little bit more scrutiny
will be involved by the Town’s Staff on the review of the Secondary
Plat in terms of the construction plan approval. And it will be taken
through a little more normal process at least until we know that all of
the utilities are in place and all of the drainage situations have been
properly resolved. Until that time we would anticipate a little bit
more detail in the construction plan review process as they might move
forward with getting the Secondary Plat recorded and bringing forth
building plans for the second lot. I would be happy to answer any
questions that you might have.
Ms. Whicker asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care
to speak on this petition?
Mr. Shawn Denny said I just wanted to address what Mr. Valanzano
said, the land to be claimed issue, it was actually something that went
way back to the interurban. There is a slight .02 acres that was never
deeded to anyone. I worked that out and now I claim deed to that and
without that we didn’t have enough frontage to have the lot divided but
we have resolved that. We do have plans to get the sewer moved. We
are just trying to figure out where the lateral is at and with that I
would take any questions, if there are any.
Ms. Whicker asked, does the board have any comments or questions?
Being no further comments the chair would accept a motion.
1.
Adequate provisions have been made for the regulation of
minimum lot width, minimum lot depth and minimum lot area.
2.
Adequate provisions have been made for the widths, grades,
curves and coordination of subdivision public ways with
current and planned public ways.
3.
And that such approval shall be subject to the following
conditions:
1.
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.
2.
Compliance with the standards and specifications of the
Plainfield Subdivision Control Ordinance.
3.
A sanitary sewer easement shall be provided across the
south lot for the benefit of the north lot.
4.
A 15’ Drainage & Utility Easement shall be added on the
Buchanan Street frontage of the site.
5.
If a Secondary Plat is requested prior to the completion of
the anticipated storm sewer improvements along Buchanan
Street, a Drainage Report shall first be submitted to the
Town Engineer for review and approval prior to the Town
approval of the Secondary Plat and release of said plat for
recording.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Gibbs – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Matrana – absent
6-ayes, 0-opposed, 1-absent. Motion carried.
Ms. Whicker said next on the agenda is DP-05-035, Panattoni
Development.
Mr. Valanzano said this case that you have before you is for
Panattoni Development. I’m sure you are all familiar with the existing
building that is out there. It is in the vicinity of a 530,000 square
foot building. They want to add 100,000 square foot on the far west
end of the building. The landscaping, site design, architectural,
pretty much everything is going to be an extension of the existing
building.
Metropolis Parkway is going to be cutting through in this area
and then coming through and kind of go in this direction through the
area. As a result, when this building gets expanded, this west facade
of the building is going to be highly visible from the eastbound
traffic. So, we looked at that from the DRC prospective and asked them
to dress up the west facade of the building, more in keeping of the way
they dressed up the east facade of the building to address Perry Road.
Now they don’t have spandrel glass and office fronts there but they
have replicated that in terms of a paint scheme and some architectural
features with the appearance of having office fronts on that side
similar to what we have done on the southeast corner of the Epson
building and some other buildings around Town to kind of up the bar a
little bit and give a better presentation on Metropolis Parkway. So,
really from the Design Review Committee point of view what they have on
file is consistent with what we are looking for and DRC is satisfied
with how they dressed up the west side of the building to address the
Metropolis Parkway.
The one concern that Staff did have that we wanted to bring to
your attention was a concern that during the development of the Epson
property we have had a lot of issues with dirt being tracked out onto
Stafford Road and with entry points being developed onto Perimeter
Parkway with the condition of those entry points and the maintenance
and the street cleaning. Mr. Belcher and I put our heads together and
we thought it wise to bring those concerns and that information to the
Plan Commission. And ask the petitioner to address to you what happened
in those projects and how they will take steps for your comfort level
that those types of situations will not occur in the future as
development moves forward on this or other sites. And that the street
network will not be interfered with as part of the construction
project. If that didn’t make any sense, I would be happy to answer any
questions or let Mr. Belcher or Mr. McGillem chime in for you.
Mr. Andrew Churchill with JRA Architecture said we are the
architects on this project and I did the original building. I think
Mr. Valanzano addressed the issues really well and I think we came to
good solutions and accommodations on the issues. The senior project
manager with Panattoni Construction is also here and could answer
questions or address the street maintenance issues, etc. I would be
happy to answer any design questions or issues that you may have also.
This is an elevation of the east side of the building. We
basically used that same elevation. There aren’t the entries there,
it’s just a warehouse expansion. There are no offices or anything but
we used the same colors. We just don’t have the actual projecting
canopy and then we also brought some additional medallions in the top
middle portions of the building and on the west elevation also to break
that up a little bit more. Due to the proximity of the property line,
the way that the geometry worked out, there was such a steep angle on
the site lines for the mechanical equipment. We only needed to have
them setback six feet or something like that to obscure them from the
property line. But we ended up moving those back there also in response
to the site lines from the Metropolis Parkway.
Mr. Brandgard said I have a few questions. Relative to the road
cuts and the amount of debris that is on the roads one thing that we
try to do especially on traveled roads is to keep them clear and clean.
Mud when it gets wet, becomes very slippery. Not only that it gets
your cars pretty dirty also. So, we have complaints from both ends of
it. From a personal note when you look at where you made the cuts to
the road, you have here barrels up in the road on Perry Road for
several weeks. You finally got all but one cut cleared of that but if
you go along Stafford Road on the Epson building, you have the same
thing. In fact, on the weekend you started work on the center turn
lanes and now we have barrels and deep cuts there. I guess kind of
where I’m at is it’s one thing having the barrels out there for a short
time while you are doing it but to have them sitting out there with no
activity where you are blocking the road is not a very good thing for
traffic. I guess I’m going to ask the question why would you,
especially on the Epson building, be working on it for several months
where you have had good weather, why would you wait this time of year
to make those cuts to where it is going to be difficult to get them
filled in and done right? It is just a case that those are heavily
traveled roads and we have a lot of people coming in Town and it is
unsightly.
Mr. Nathan McClure with Panattoni Construction said to answer
your question it was strictly a timing issue, coordination with the
subs. We are making every effort to get that turn lane installed as
quickly as possible. From start to finish it really should be less than
a 15-day process to get that road cut in and have it back up to working
order and we are feverishly trying to get that done as we speak.
We are aware of the issues and concerns relative to the street
maintenance. We are making every effort possible to keep that road
clean. We have a street maintenance sweeper sweeping two to three
times a day and we are working closely with the local inspectors to
address that issue. We want to do everything we can to be neighborly as
possible and keep it safe and keep it clean. So, we have stepped up our
efforts, should we say, to address that and will continue to do so.
So, I make that commitment.
Mr. Carlucci said that is the Duke building right there. I think
this is the big John Deere building. As I recall, Duke was actually
washing their vehicles off before they came out on Stafford Road. And
we have an ordinance about dirt and mud on the road and I think
probably some of your people probably got a ticket for it. Our
ordinance doesn’t say you can put mud and dirt on the road and then
clean it up later. It is to keep it off the roadway. But it makes it
difficult to convince Duke to do the same thing later if they see that
you are out there putting the mud and dirt on the road. The idea is to
get it off the trucks before you let them go back out on the roadway.
This is not necessarily the best time of year, given how late it is, to
be washing trucks off. When there was better weather, that should have
been an option.
Mr. McClure said I’m hoping this is going to be more of a nonissue
sooner than later. We are just about to have the site complete
with binder. We are just about wrapped up with activity so it should
be a non-issue fairly shortly within the next 10 days. We will do
everything that we can to keep the roads clean and keep the dirt and
debris off the road before it gets there. Anything that we can do we
certainly will.
Mr. Brandgard said on your building two I think last week you
were pouring the floor inside the building. When I go to work, I’m
heading down Perry Road between 5:30 and a quarter to six and it was
like driving down a gravel road with all of the rock and small pea
gravel that was being thrown up on the car. I think it is because the
trucks were in there and then carrying it back on the road. Even
though you had the binder down they were getting into the building but
that is something else to watch. It is dark and you can’t hardly see
anything but they were out there doing that. We are not especially
picking on you, you just happened to come in here.
Mr. McClure said I understand. I will address that with our onsite
superintendents. We will work with the local inspectors and do
everything that we can to mitigate that as much as possible.
Mr. Brandgard said we don’t want to put in extra non-value added
cost into any project but I know I have been in various cities where
they have somebody washing the vehicles down to make sure that you
don’t track anything out on the streets and highways. We have not done
that yet but if we can’t get everybody working to keep figuring out a
way to keep it off, we would rather have you to do it than us tell you
how to do it. Again, we appreciate your efforts.
Mr. McClure said I will certainly continue to honor that and
rectify that as quickly as I can.
Mr. Kirchoff said for clarification the access for this will
continue to be on Perry Road, it will not be off any other point?
Mr. McClure said that is correct.
Mr. Kirchoff said nor is the Epson site tied to it in any way.
Mr. McClure said that is correct.
Ms. Whicker asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care
to address any questions to the petitioner? Being no one coming
forward the public portion of the hearing is now closed and the Chair
would accept a motion on this matter.
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.
1.
Substantial compliance with the Site Plan, Landscape Plan,
Building Elevations with color selections, Lighting Plan
and Light Cut Sheets and rooftop HVAC location line-of-site
drawing indicating a minimum setback of 25’ all file dated
November 18, 2005.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Gibbs – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Matrana – absent
6-ayes, 0-opposed, 1-absent. Motion carried.
RE-HEARING ITEMS
Mr. Valanzano said on the re-hearing items listed on your agenda,
which is about two pages worth of cases let me tell you what happened
with those. The normal process for getting legal notices published in
the newspaper we send them to the Flyer and they provide the notices
and they send the proof of publication directly to the billing
department at the Town Hall and we have not been in the loop to see the
proof of publications coming back. And what happened was sometime in
September right about the time we sent notices to the newspaper for
publication for the October hearing the person that all of the notices
were sent to left. And the person who was responsible for picking up
those notices and taking over that job’s responsibilities, items from
that person, were never sent to the second person. So, I started to
get a little suspicious and finally got around to checking with them
and asked why I hadn’t been getting confirmations that you have
received the notices like you have always done. When I called for that
person, they were no longer there. I got to that person’s replacement
and low and behold found out that the notices for the October and
November Plan Commission hearings were never published. We did have
all of the certified mailings out to all of the surrounding property
owners but we didn’t have published notice for any of the hearings that
we had conducted in the months of October or November. The same issue
applied to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Fortunately, I caught it on
the day the notices were due for the Board of Zoning Appeals so there
were only one month’s worth of notices at the BZA that are in the same
situation. So, all of the items that we have here on the agenda listed
under re-hearing items they all fall within that problem area that I
just explained. So, I would ask if there is anybody in the audience
for any of these cases that we consider their comments and reevaluate
any recommendations that the Plan Commission may have made over the
last few months based on the comments that they might have. Depending
on what those comments might be we might want to recall that petition
for a hearing next moment, if the issue so warrants. If not, if there
isn’t anyone here or they really don’t have any objections and just are
asking questions, I might want to ask that the Plan Commission reaffirm
your prior votes based on testimony given for all of those prior cases
that were heard the last two months.
Ms. Whicker asked, will we be stating a motion again for these
items?
Mr. Valanzano said I was thinking, depending on whether there is
anybody in the audience who has a comment, we could do a blanket motion
to reaffirm the prior decisions and except out any cases that anybody
might be here on and then focus specifically whatever those cases might
be.
Mr. Daniel said I agree with Mr. Valanzano. I know when I looked
at this earlier today, I think the first thing that we should do is if
there is anybody here in the audience is here to comment on any of
these re-hearing items, we ought to know who they are and have that
first. And then deal with the rest of them in a group. So, to the
extent we can have our new chairperson ask if there is anyone in the
audience to speak on any of these items and tell us what item it is and
go forward.
Mr. Valanzano said I think we have four people here so maybe if
we could just ask which case specifically they are here for, that will
save us some time.
Gentleman from the audience asked, is there any modification to
what has already been prior to the meeting on?
Mr. Valanzano said no. There has been no change to any of the
petitions that we have on that agenda.
Ms. Whicker asked, may I ask what petition you were coming to
hear?
Lady from the audience said the Comprehensive Plan update.
Ms. Whicker said as well as you sir in the front, were you here
for the Comprehensive Plan update as well?
Gentleman from the audience said (inaudible).
Ms. Whicker asked, did you have any specific questions or
concerns that you would like to address the board?
Gentleman from the audience said no.
Ms. Christine Owens with the Town of Avon said I had previously
submitted a letter on the Comprehensive Plan and that was read into the
record. I have copies of that and I’m happy to reread those comments,
if you wish. Also, I received this morning a letter from the Avon
Community School Corporation to provide to you. I’m not sure if you
want me to do that at this time. I went ahead and sent my comments
around again so they can get entered into the record again.
Essentially, what Dr. Ogle has provided for you from the community
schools is just recognition that both communities are doing
comprehensive plan updates looking at future land use for parts of
Washington Township. There is the concern over the impact on schools
with residential development. So, I will let you read it but
essentially he is urging us to work together to be consistent with the
comprehensive plan for the sake of the schools.
My comments again we are completing our process with the
comprehensive plan. Our comprehensive plan and future land use map
will be before our town council this Thursday, which we anticipate
being adopted. The area in question that we have discrepancy in review
are CR200S and the west side of CR900E. In that vicinity there is
residential zoning. We are proposing a R-land use map, a buffer and
green space to protect residential property owners in that area as well
as some office in that vicinity at the intersection.
Our process included a steering committee that included
representatives from the schools and of Washington Township. We also
surveyed both the Town of Avon and residents of Washington Township.
Essentially, we feel like we had a chance to gage the concerns of both
Washington Township and Avon and take that into consideration in
developing our land use map, which does show something different. We
would just ask that you take into consideration possibly either if you
want to continue a conversation or at least consider making those areas
the same so that we don’t get into a situation as development occurs
where our towns are competing. With that I will thank you for the
opportunity to speak and if you have questions, I’m always happy to
answer them.
Mr. Brandgard said as we said the last time, we usually, as
things are developed, look to how we separate different uses. I think
if you drive through this Town, you would see that. Also, relative to
the concern over housing and school I think this Plan Commission has
done more than anybody to try and mitigate what goes on in Washington
Township insofar as putting more clients in the school system with what
we have done. We spent a lot of time and effort trying to lower the
impact and seen other areas and districts in Washington Township go
right ahead and approve everything and anything. So, it is just a case
we are sensitive to what goes on in Washington Township both from the
Town and the commission realm and have asked to work with the schools
and that up there and have not had much reply back. In that case your
points are well taken but I think we are ahead of you.
Ms. Owens said and that is great. One other point in doing our
projections for population Avon and Washington Township are working on
a 20,000-25,000 population and our future land use map in looking at
the different land uses in this area, which essentially excludes an
area already in Plainfield but remain in Washington Township we meet or
exceed all of our projections and residential growth. We are at three
or four times that already so with another addition there is the
potential for further impact on schools as well as roads and other
things. So, we just wanted to point those items out.
Mr. McPhail said we have the letter from the Avon School
Corporation, and by the way I live in the Avon School Corporation area,
so I’m very sensitive to the schools. In the past I don’t feel like
the school corporation is proactive in trying to control residential
growth. Do you feel that you are seeing any change for that body and
are they being more proactive than they have in the past?
Ms. Owens said in the couple of months that I have been with Avon
I have started engaging in regular conversations with Dr. Ogle to start
building some dialog in understanding of the growth issues and the
potential impact on schools. I know that there are some concerns
there, however, I think they have decided or their thought is they are
not in the planning business so they are hesitant to tell us what to do
about growth. Whereas, we on the other hand hear from our constituents
all of the time, you are allowing more housing but my kids are in a
portable classroom. Whether that is the town or the school board you
can decide. In our conversations with Dr. Ogle we are trying to come
to some sort of understanding what each of us need to be considering
with growth. I think we are taking baby steps at this point with a new
superintendent. We are trying to build that relationship and work to a
point where we get to the ideal situation.
Ms. Whicker asked, did you have any concerns regarding the rehearing
items by chance or were you here just for the Comprehensive
Plan update?
Lady from the audience said (inaudible).
Mr. Tom Veatch said I live in the Lexington Woods Subdivision of
Avon, which is the residential area right next to the area that
Christine was talking about. It doesn’t really show there on the map.
It’s on CR100S. If you go right to the corner of Dan Jones and CR100S,
you have Hollow Brook and then just to the east of Hollow Brook is
Lexington Woods. It will abut up against that area of commercial and
industrial zoning that is going to be west of CR900. It’s about a year
to two and a half years old. I’ve been there a year. Obviously, we
are concerned, and what Christine was alluding to, was the area in here
of a greenway buffer between existing residential and the proposed
commercial/industrial buildings that are going to be going into here
and branching clear over to the Ronald Reagan. So, we are just
concerned, as residents, of having warehouses and things like that
right in the backdoor. I don’t really represent the neighborhood’s
association. We are not controlled by the residents yet. We are still
under the control of the developer but several of us have met and some
of the people that live right here in Turfway have said that when they
bought their property, they were told by the builder that this was
going to be residential and that’s not the case. It is zoned by the
County as commercial/industrial. So, they feel that they were mislead
so they are really on the edge of having something that they don’t
really desire in their backyard. So, they are just concerned with
having a greenway in there. So, we just wanted to express that to you.
Ms. Whicker said being no one coming from the public to speak of
the re-hearing petitions excluding the Comprehensive Plan update then
we will take a blanket motion on the other motions exclusive of the
Comprehensive Plan update.
Mr. Daniel said I think one thing that would help us down the
road because we will probably never come back and look at this again
but I think on the motion we should ask that the agenda for this
meeting be made part of the record in this case. Which it should be
anyway, and all of those items that are listed as re-hearing items that
the motion be made that the original motions made on those at the first
public hearing is reaffirmed by this commission tonight. And since our
new commission member, Mr. Gibbs, wasn’t present during those hearings
I think it would be inappropriate for him to vote on that motion so I
think that is where we are.
Mr. Kirchoff said I didn’t hear enough concerns that we not
include the Comprehensive Plan because the Town Council has already
approved that.
Mr. Brandgard said I think what we heard tonight reinforces what
we heard when we had the public hearing. I guess we should make note
of that. We normally handle those things at the time we do the
platting for anything going on in the area. So, that is what we expect
to see people come in and talk to us about during those meetings.
Mr. Valanzano said just so you know for any commercial and
industrial development in the Town of Plainfield that occurs within 600
feet of residential zoning notice will go out to all surrounding
property owners. And you will get notice of that development plan. You
will have an opportunity to come in here and talk to this Plan
Commission and see the specific designs for the building and see the
specific landscape plans and make comments to this Plan Commission.
They can address your concerns at that point and time. So, it’s not
that you will never see what it is that has been approved and once it
is zoned that’s it and you will never see it again and it is something
that will go up and we will never get a chance to review it. That is
not the way that the Plainfield ordinance works. Any commercial or
industrial development within 600 feet of a Residential District is
going to have to send notice to surrounding property owners, two
ownerships deep, within 600 feet of the property. So, you and your
neighbors, I don’t know if you will be particularly based on your lot,
but at least your neighbors along that street that you were pointing
out on the east side, all of them and all the people across the street
from them should get notice of any development that occurs just east of
that property line. You will have an opportunity to make any comments
that you want to the Plan Commission at the time of that public
hearing.
Mr. Brandgard said you might also add that any development that
has incentives on it also goes through the design review process.
Mr. Valanzano said the architectural reviews and anything that
might use a development incentive we also have a Design Review
Committee. Those are public meetings but typically there is no notice
of those meetings. So, if you were to find out that there is something
on file, you could come in and watch one of those meetings and here the
discussion that are going on. But the public hearing would be a setting
like this where you voice concerns.
Mr. Veatch said we appreciate that. What is adding to our
confusion is our subdivision is in the Town of Avon so we really don’t
know which direction to watch.
Mr. Carlucci said it could be County, it could be Avon, it could
be Plainfield.
Gentleman from the audience said I would like to make a comment
about notification. There have been two incidences that I’ve been the
second property owner and not received notice simply because it is not
straightforward on the front of the street or something of that nature.
And how do you interpret your 600 feet and/or second property owner?
Mr. Carlucci said it is 600 feet or two deep, whichever distance
is less.
Gentleman said I was the second property owner and 450 feet on
the Duke development on Reeves Road and I was never notified of
anything.
Mr. Carlucci said I can’t speak to what they did or didn’t do but
that is our requirement, 600 feet or two deep. We had one hearing
redone completely out there with the Mann Properties, no it was the
Opus project.
Gentleman said I was not notified on that one and what concerns
me is no one in Plainfield checks the developer’s notification. I
talked to Ms. Sprague about that and she said that is the developer’s
responsibility.
Mr. Carlucci said we used to do the notices here and we just
couldn’t afford to do them anymore. We didn’t have the time or staff
but you are right but there are other ways. I don’t know what goes on
at the County. We had an incident tonight with the Morris Street
project for Mr. Shrout that had to be completely redone because of a
bad legal description and notice. The developer came forward and said
this is a problem but there are three ways for someone to find out.
One, it is posted on the property, the second it’s in the newspaper and
third by certified mail. We hope within one of those three, if someone
didn’t get a certified mail, maybe they read the newspaper or saw the
posting on the property and then ask why didn’t I get noticed?
Gentleman said I saw the posting in both incidences.
Mr. Carlucci said which again proves that it did work in terms of
you being at the meeting but we do not have the staff time. They are
certifying to us under law and by notarized statement that they went
two deep or 600 feet, whichever is less. They are certifying that to us
and we take them at their word. But the other protection is to do the
legal notice in the paper and the posting on the site.
Mr. Daniel said another problem that occurs occasionally is the
County records. Sometimes they are either incorrect or they are behind
in getting the properties transferred. Sometimes the County gets way
behind on some of those property transfers.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Gibbs – abstained
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Matrana – absent
Mr. Valanzano said the last thing that I wanted to bring to your
attention was the Development Plan, DP-05-012, which was filed by Route
40, LLC, which you may remember more as Pierson Ford and the used car
lot at old U.S. 40 and new U.S. 40. In that particular case the Plan
Commission went ahead and granted an indefinite continuance on that
piece of property for a period of six months with the case to be heard
by tonight’s meeting with notice to have been sent. I did call the
petitioner’s attorney last week and reminded him of that obligation and
I gave them every opportunity and actually talked to them a week and a
half ago for that and again brought it to their attention and gave them
the opportunity, if they wanted to, to come in before this Plan
Commission and ask for any additional time or leeway on that particular
matter. I checked messages late this afternoon around 4:30 or a
quarter till five and still had no response from them. So, I believe
it would probably be within this Plan Commission’s jurisdiction to
dismiss that petition for lack of prosecution at this point and time
because they have not brought anything forward. Which means if they do
want to bring something back on that particular site, they need to
refile and start from scratch.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Gibbs – abstained
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Matrana – absent
