The Plainfield Plan Commission met on Monday, December 1, 2008. In attendance were Mr. Satterfield, Mr. McPhail, Mr. Brandgard, Mr. Dunkin, Mr. Kirchoff and Mr. Gibbs.
ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM
Ms. Sprague administered the Roll Call.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 3, 2008 Plainfield Plan Commission meeting as submitted. Second by Mr. Satterfield. 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. Our first case this evening is DP-08-009, Rajwinder Kaur.
Mr. James said this petition is going to have to be continued again. We have not heard from the petitioner. We don't know if he has done the proper noticing. We haven't received the affidavit of notice from the petitioner so I guess we will have to continue this for the third time. Since this is the third continuance the petitioner will have to re-notice. It can be continued twice without re-noticing but I'm at the point now where I'm ready for the citation process. We haven't heard from him. He has missed two meetings.
(Inaudible).
Mr. Daniel said you can do multiple things here. I mean it is set for a public hearing tonight I believe isn't it Joe?
Mr. James said yes.
Mr. Daniel said if he fails to appear, you can deny the petition, you can continue the petition, you can withdraw it. There are multiple things that you can do.
Mr. Satterfield asked, have the people been notified of the hearing?
Mr. James said we don't know.
Mr. Satterfield asked, is that a problem if they haven't been notified, could we have the hearing?
Mr. Daniel said he filed a petition to begin with and he asked for it to be continued once or twice.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, (inaudible).
Mr. James said I think we just continued it since he wasn't here twice.
Mr. Daniel said technically he is responsible to keep track of his petition. Obviously, he filed it and to the extent that the Town has continued this, which the Town didn't have to do he is technically responsible to keep track of what is going on with his petition one way or the other.
Mr. Satterfield asked, is “no action” the same as a denial?
Mr. Daniel said no. “No action” means it has neither been approved or denied.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, did he actually initiate the petition or is this a response to us for citing him for some concerns?
Ms. Sprague said it is a response.
Mr. Daniel said Jill I think he was given a citation and under our rules then he applied for this seeking relief in this petition to solve the noncompliance issues for which he was given a citation.
Mr. James said that is correct.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. Daniel said I believe you will have to act on that one way or the other. You will have to move to deny it or move to order it withdrawn; you have to take some action on this before you can start the fining process since this is filed in response to his citation.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. Daniel said that is correct.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to deny DP-08-009 as filed by Rajwinder Kaur. Second by Mr. Brandgard. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Satterfield – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Dunkin – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Gibbs – yes
6-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, would we notify him or recite him or start the fining process?
Mr. Daniel said either but he should be notified that it has been denied.
Mr. James said we will notify him that it has been denied. We have 10 days before we can actually start the fining process.
Ms. Sprague asked, would we want to start fining him if he is not even capable of refiling?
Mr. Daniel said my suggestion would be that Joe notify him that it has been denied and invite him to come to the January meeting and explain to him what his options are. If he is unwilling to get this resolved, then the commission can take up the fining process.
Mr. James said our first petition for a public hearing tonight is DP-08-011. The petitioner is Prock Enterprises. This request is a development plan review for compliance with the Gateway Corridor standards for a proposed 7,000 square foot structure on 2.29 acres. The property is zoned C-I, Commercial/Industrial. The address is 4620 South CR600E. If you will recall, in 2006 there was another development plan for this site. It was an addition to the office in front of the existing building and then a 7,200 square foot addition to the warehouse space. The building was legal nonconforming in regards to the Gateway Corridor standards. That means it was built before the Gateway Corridor standards went into place. It was also built through Hendricks County before it was annexed in Plainfield. So, it was a legal nonconforming structure with regards to the Gateway Corridor standards. This existing building is setback over 300 feet from CR600E and the new building will be in front of the existing building. It will be set back only about 95 feet from CR600E. It was rezoned in 2006 to allow the expansion from General Commercial to Commercial/Industrial so this is a permitted use in the C-I District. When the expansion was done for the existing building a waiver was granted to allow metal siding as the primary building material because since the building was legal nonconforming with regards to the building material the petitioner wanted to match the existing metal siding with that addition. As I already mentioned, several buildings in this area are legal nonconforming in regards to the gateway standards.
This is the site. This building right here is the site of 2.29 acres. The proposed building will be approximately right up in here. There is existing self-storage mini-warehouse units to the north. To the south is Matrix Labels. They just did a 6,000 square foot expansion to the back and it was rezoned from I believe AG to C-I. This is the site right here. It has the C-I zoning and then this Matrix Label is to the south. Over here is the correctional facility and this back here is undeveloped zoning, Agricultural.
So, this proposed building, 7,000 square foot building will set approximately right here so it will be partially screened from the view of CR600E by the mini-storage warehouse buildings to the north. Then this is why the Design Review Committee made their recommendations, which I will go over. There is the existing building back here. This will be set back about 95 feet and this is set back over 350 feet. This is the existing building. They are going to use the same amount of siding and the same color and the same color of brick that was used for the office addition to the existing building. The petitioner wanted to match the existing building with this EIFS knee-wall but the Design Review Committee made a recommendation to change the EIFS knee-wall to a brick knee-wall for the south elevation. Color changes made; this is the east elevation. It will be the most prominent from the view of CR600E based on the orientation of the building. This will be all brick, 100% brick with brick matching the existing building and then to provide more detail for this elevation the Design Review Committee added two windows framed with solders course. That is the solders course band across the top to give the two architectural elements, which is required for the Gateway Corridor standards.
This is the south elevation. So, the Design Review Committee instead of doing the EIFS they thought it would look better if they did brick but by doing the brick, wainscot or knee-wall the DRC agreed to let the north elevation be all metal because it will be mostly screened by those dimensioned orange buildings to the north.
So, the changes that were made at the DRC meeting was to give more detail for the east and south elevations because those are the most prominent elevations from CR600E. They approved the plans with conditions and they supported the waiver for the metal siding for the south and north elevations. The west elevation is exempt due to the building's orientation. It will only be the north, south and east elevations that have to comply and then the north elevation will be screened by the existing structure to the north.
The landscaping plan has been revised and it complies. I met with the petitioner and we came up with a landscaping plan that would meet our standards and then for the lighting he is going to use the same wall-packs he used for the existing building and they comply. We just approved a sign permit for an integrated center sign and it complies and it has the required landscaping around the sign. So, the existing building was allowed to have metal siding. When the addition was done, a waiver was granted. It was a legal nonconforming structure with regards to the Gateway Corridor standards and then the elevation changes were made at DRC so these factors support the waiver. Is the Plan Commission satisfied with the changes? With that the petitioner, Mr. Prock is in the audience and I'm sure he would be happy to answer any questions that you might have.
Mr. Richard Prock at 1928 West CR571S, Clayton, Indiana said I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have.
Mr. McPhail said I'm looking at the site plan and in the building plan there are access doors to the north. I'm assuming those are emergency doors or something.
Mr. Prock said yes.
Mr. McPhail said there will be no service on the north edge of the building, is that correct?
Mr. Prock said yes.
Mr. Gibbs asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this petition? Being no one coming forward I will close the public portion of the meeting and open it up for additional questions or a possible motion.
Mr. Brandgard said I have a little bit of a concern in what you are doing here. I understand when we allowed the expansion of the original building, to have the same material (inaudible). Now that we have the new building (inaudible). Why would we approve a legal nonconforming building? (Inaudible). (Inaudible) all metal on the north side because it is screened by new warehouses but what happens if something else goes in there? That's where I have concern.
Mr. James said I take it that you are not in favor of the metal siding.
Mr. Brandgard said my concern is what we did on the original building made sense. (Inaudible). But now we are being asked to do a waiver to allow a nonconforming building (inaudible).
Mr. James said that was not a question raised. The east elevation will be all brick. DRC asked for the brick knee-wall for the south. They compromised to allow the metal siding.
Mr. McPhail said if the mine-warehouses weren't there, there would be a lot more exposure on the north elevation.
Mr. Brandgard said (inaudible).
Mr. Satterfield said in your comments you say similar waivers have been granted in this area. How many new projects have gone in there?
Mr. James said the Matrix Labels did an addition and they were granted a waiver in the rear. (Inaudible).
Mr. Dunkin said that is to an existing building, is that right?
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. James said they were connected. The mini storage expanded onto these back buildings. They didn't have to seek a waiver because it did not meet the threshold that kicks in the development plan review. It was less than 10,000 square feet plus the 20% addition to the existing floor. That was approved just with an Improvement Location Permit. And then the existing building (inaudible). So, really just two waivers have been granted.
Mr. McPhail said the metal is a material that is not allowed in the Gateway Corridor, is that correct?
Mr. James said that is correct as a primary or a secondary material.
Mr. McPhail said even if they had the brick on the north side part way up it would still need a waiver.
Mr. Prock said that is correct.
Mr. McPhail said on three elevations, is that right?
Mr. James said the west is exempt; just the north, south and east.
Mr. Brandgard asked, why is the west exempt?
Mr. James said because of the building's orientation to CR600E, the gateway road. If there was residential back here all four elevations would have to comply.
Mr. Brandgard said I would feel a lot more comfortable (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail asked, would you go back to the original, the current building?
Mr. James said this is EIFS, this is the brick that will be on the east elevation and the wainscot. The addition is back here and then also (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail, asked what is the height?
Mr. James said this building is 29 feet and the new proposed building is I believe 25 feet.
Mr. McPhail asked, how much brick is on the south side?
Mr. James said 25%.
Mr. McPhail said it seems to me if you did that on the north side, at least that (inaudible) building and it is going to have the same appearance all the way around. It will still have to have a waiver, is that right?
Mr. James said that is correct. Would you care to hear from the petitioner about adding the knee-wall?
Mr. Prock asked, do you have a question?
Mr. Brandgard said the question is would you add the knee-wall to the north elevation?
Mr. Prock said I will add them if I have to yes. It was my intention to use the EIFS to begin with all the way around the buildings but they shot that one down.
Mr. Brandgard asked, what was the reason (inaudible).
Mr. James said (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail said I believe the brick certainly is a contrast with the office of the building.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. James said and strike building elevations from number one. I guess we can leave that but just add the condition about the knee-wall.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion that the Plan Commission approve DP-07-011 as filed by Prock Enterprises, LLC requesting development plan approval for compliance with Gateway Corridor Development standards for a 7,000 square foot structure at 4620 S. CR600E 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 regarding a waiver to allow metal siding as the primary building material for the north and south elevations the Plain Commission finds that:
1. The proposed development represents an innovative use of building material and brick color which will enhance the use of value of area properties.
2. The proposed development is consistent with and compatible with other development located along the Gateway Corridor.
3. The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
And that such approval shall be subject to the following conditions:
1. Substantial compliance with the Site Plan, Building Elevations, Light Fixtures and Landscaping Plan dated November 14, 2008.
2. One ADA parking space is added to the site plan for the Improvement Location Permit (ILP).
3. A sidewalk connection is required when and if CR600E is improved to urban standards with a sidewalk on the west side.
4. Matching brick will be installed that matches the east elevation with knee-wall on both the north and south elevations.
Second by Mr. McPhail. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Satterfield – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Dunkin – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Gibbs – yes
6-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Gibbs said the next item on the agenda is DP-08-012, Plainfield Eye Care.
Ms. Sprague said this is for the Plainfield Eye Care at 1855 Stafford Road. It is zoned R-2 but it is a legal nonconforming use. It was approved at the BZA meeting. They requested a Variance of Use to do this expansion in September and it was approved at that time.
The plan is to add on a 1,641 square foot addition to the east side of the building and then also to change their site plan so they have some more parking to go with it as well. They have proposed to put some landscaping out there.
They have also requested a waiver. Their building currently is made with stone and cement siding and they want to use hardi-plank out there. Hardi-plank is not permitted as a primary building material and that is the waiver that they have asked for today.
There were a couple of issues that we had when they first brought it in. There was no sidewalks out front so they didn't have a pedestrian connection. We had been informed that it would be good for them to put some sidewalks out there. After speaking at the TAC meeting Staff determined that it would be best if they just had sidewalk from the drive to the west end of the property line because the east end goes to a bridge across the creek. Our transportation director was afraid that people would be walking into Stafford Road to try to cross the creek so that was a safety issue. So, we requested that they put sidewalk just to the west of that drive and they have also added a pedestrian connection to the sidewalk there.
In addition, they have added some landscaping. We asked that they put some parking lot screening against the west side of their parking lot, which is actually where they added to some parking. And also it was one of the faces that was directly facing residential. None of their parking faces Stafford Road.
Here is the location. As you can see, it is surrounded by residential. Its most dense use is the apartments south. It is relatively near a General Commercial area.
They have also shown roofing options and I will get to those in just a minute; whether or not they want to use asphalt shingles or a metal roof. DRC went through that and they felt the asphalt roof would be more appropriate for the location being residential.
They have some HVAC units that they are going to put in the rear. The question was whether or not they would need to be screened with landscaping since the creek is behind there. DRC felt that they already had a good enough natural buffer. Those are the little blue boxes down there or where each HVAC are going to be. Those are the ones that we are going to be technically screening. This is the pedestrian connection they have put out to the sidewalk there and then this is the parking lot screen that we have asked that they add and they did. They were having some parking out here and I believe at this end or at this end they are adding here and the addition itself is just this portion up here.
These are the two different things; I just showed the north elevation. This is where the hardi-plank side would be here and here and then they will have some on the other elevations as well but this is just to give you an example. The example of that asphalt shingle is on the top verses the metal roof on the bottom.
In this case they are asking for the waiver for the hardi-plank and there are three elevations where it will be a primary building material and the west elevation will be a secondary building material. And then do you prefer asphalt shingles over a metal roof or do you feel that it is even necessary for us to choose which one they use? Then also the other question is whether or not we feel that HVAC screening needs foundation landscaping? The petitioner is here if you have any questions.
Mr. Ryan Lindley with Banning Engineering at 853 Columbia Road, Plainfield said with me here this evening I have Dr. Beth Groninger and we can answer any questions that you might have. One amendment to Jill's fantastic job there is the current building has wood siding and I think it was the architect's intention to make a more maintenance free structure. That is the reason for the cement siding. I think today the cement siding has really come leaps and bounds in the effort for a good product. So, that is why I think the DRC was favorable to it. Other than that Jill did a great job and I can answer any questions that you may have.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. Lindley said the architect likes the standing seam nail roof and I think it looks sharp. There is cost involved and metal is a little more expensive so if you put the stipulation on it for the asphalt, I don't think anybody is going to be upset about that. But I think everybody felt the metal really made it stand out. I don't think it is a deterrent from the residential neighborhood in my opinion.
(Inaudible).
Mr. Lindley said either way.
Mr. Brandgard said a thought relative to the asphalt roof. Personally I think it should be (inaudible). As far as metal roofs you can have them on houses. (Inaudible).
Mr. McPhail said I think the whole building, regardless of the roof, looks residential and it blends in.
Mr. Brandgard said (inaudible). This building blends in better than the current one.
Mr. Lindley said yes. It will be quite the project actually but to meet our floodway commitment we had to actually raise the finished floor to this building, which in turn requires us to take the roof off.
Mr. McPhail asked, you had to raise the current building?
Mr. Lindley said yes.
Mr. McPhail said it is a nice looking building. The architect did a good job.
Mr. Lindley said I think they want to put it out to bid with both options for the asphalt and the metal.
Mr. Gibbs asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this petition? Being no one coming forward I will close the public portion of this meeting and open it up for discussion or a possible motion.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. James said actually you can eliminate both of those.
Mr. Brandgard made a motion that the Plan Commission approve DP-08-012 as filed by Cory Shaffer of Plainfield Eye Care requesting approval of a Development Plan for a 1,641 square foot expansion and building materials waiver at 1855 Stafford Road 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 regarding a waiver to allow the building materials of the structure to include cement siding the Plainfield Commission finds:
1. The proposed development represents an innovative use of building materials which will enhance the use of value of area properties.
2. The proposed development is consistent with and compatible with other development located along the Gateway Corridor.
3. 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, Landscaping Plan, Building Elevations and Colored Renderings file dated November 14, 2008.
Second by Mr. Kirchoff. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Satterfield – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Dunkin – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Gibbs – yes
6-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Gibbs said next on the agenda is DP-08-013, Town of Plainfield.
Mr. James said this request is for a new fire station; this will be fire station number three. The location is off of Airtech Parkway. It is between Clover Drive; the Clover Drive residential area in Airtech Parkway. The property is zoned I-2, Office Warehouse Distribution. It will be on about two acres of a 6.7 acres site just off of Airtech Parkway. It does abut the Clover Drive residential area to the west, therefore, bufferyards are required and has to have a 50 foot side and rear bufferyard. In our Zoning Ordinance we have no standards for public facilities so the commercial standards of the Gateway Corridor are used as a benchmark even though the zoning is I-2. We had to use a depth of yard development incentive to allow a slight encroachment to the front setback. Airtech Parkway is an industrial collector so it requires a 60 foot front setback in the I-2 and the building slightly encroaches the 60 foot setback so we used the depth of yard development incentive, which means we had to increase the perimeter landscaping. We are going to need another waiver because waivers seems to be the theme for this evening's meeting.
The primary building material is a combination of brick but the secondary material is going to be these metal panels but they really do create a unique and an attractive building. All elevations must comply since we have the residential in the rear.
Here is the site. This is the 6.7 acre tract. It will be about two acres on the north end, which is the Clover Drive residential area, which is an I-2. It will have a connection to Clover Drive but it is going to be just an emergency egress connection. That means if it will not be a full ingress/egress. If there is a call say to the west of this site and it would be quicker to go out Clover Drive to get there quicker, they would not come back in Clover Drive; they would still come back in from Airtech Parkway. Here is the 50 foot bufferyard that is required. This is the R-2 on Clover Drive lots back here and the interior access drive is allowed a bufferyard. The site plan complies with the required bufferyards for the R-2 District.
Here is a colored rendering of the building. These are the metal panels to be used as secondary material. The primary material is a combination of the brick. All elevations have multiple colors of material and textures, which is required.
Before DRC we didn't know how the rooftop mechanical units would be screened or where they would go. The architect confirmed that they would be on the roof but these renderings don't show them. I will show you a line of sight analysis and also the elevations and cross sections. They have located where the units will go. From the south they wouldn't be seen because this portion of the building will block it and then you have some parapet here that will help screen the mechanical units. They can't be 100% screened so they have proposed these metal screened panels on the roof. DRC had a concern with that at the meeting because they wanted to see the use of parapets and the rooftop mechanical units could be incorporated with the original design of the building. So, instead of using the metal panels they preferred that they be located on the ground behind the building. The architect said that wasn't possible so then they provided us with a line of sight analysis. Just to show you this is the east elevation; this would be the view from Airtech Parkway and that is part of the metal panel that we used to screen the rooftop units. It will match the color and texture of the metal panels on the building so in essence it is going to look like it is incorporated with part of the building. That is the south elevation. They won't even be seen from the south because of this roofline. Here they are from the west, the metal screens or panels, and then right there is from the north. And then the line of sight looking from the north right there is where they would be. It shows how they would be screened from Airtech Parkway and from the rear property line. The south elevation shows the same and then how they will be screened from the south and from the north. After seeing the line of sight analysis DRC felt a lot more comfortable with the use of the metal panels to screen.
Here is the landscaping plan. The perimeters comply. They have about 48% more landscaping than what they need. Because this is a bufferyard back here you have to have a Level 3 landscaping. They had some extra dirt so they went ahead and did berms back here. Even before they used the berms the landscaping complies. They have more than enough landscaping and it has been doubled to allow the depth of yard development incentive.
The trash enclosure will be screened to the brick to match the building with cedar gates. They are also going to have a backup powered generator and it has been walled and screened appropriately.
The sign plan complies. It will be individual letters and they are going to have pinned on letters on the canopy on the east elevation and that is allowed.
To summarize the fire station it is a permitted use in the I-2 District. DRC supported the waiver with conditions. At first they didn't like the panels but then after seeing the line of sight analysis they felt a lot better and a lot more comfortable about using the metal panels. Due to the distance the roofline and the parapet and the color it makes them fairly noticeable from the east and west and north elevations. All plans have been revised to address DRC's comments except for the material waiver for the metal panels. Landscaping exceeds what is required and one last question or issue is the Plan Commission satisfied with what has been done to screen the rooftop mechanical units. So, with that Ryan Lindley is here with Banning Engineering and I'm sure he would be glad to answer any questions that you might have.
Mr. Ryan Lindley with Banning Engineering said Mr. James pretty much reviewed our trials and tribulations through DRC so I think we made them happy. We would just like to point out that when you look at the elevations, you are looking at a flat view and I think that is what we had a hard time with essentially. But thank's to the architect who is here, Dave Johnson, and Chief Byron Anderson came up with this analysis and it seemed like they were satisfied. The screen will look exactly like the other portions of the building if you could see it. Other than that we tried to enhance the landscaping to achieve the development incentive for the setback, which we only encroached by three or four feet. As well as we provided a real good buffer for the residents in Clover. Other than that I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
Mr. Gibbs asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this petition?
Ms. Cheryl Phillips said I live on Clover Drive (2994 Clover Dr.) and I have two questions. Do I understand that the fire station is only going to be 150 feet from the existing residential homes, did I understand that correctly?
(Inaudible).
Ms. Phillips said and there will be something there to buffer the loud noise. I mean I don't understand how the buffer works.
(Inaudible).
Ms. Phillips asked, what about the noise? I thought there was supposed to be a buffer for the noise.
(Inaudible).
Chief Anderson said (inaudible).
Mr. Gibbs said for public purposes why don't you address us with the questions and then we will have Chief Anderson come up and answer the questions.
Ms. Phillips said I don't know how alarms and so forth will work and if there is just going to be 150 feet from people who are going to be sound asleep and all of a sudden alarms are going off I don't understand how landscaping buffers that. I just want to be on record; I want to be sure this is on record; if you are going to use Clover Drive as access to go west, there is a safety factor because there are small children especially in the summertime and Clover Drive is not very wide at all. There are places in the ditches where the school buses have gone down into the ditch and had to come back out (inaudible). So, that is still an issue and it stills needs to be on record that Clover Drive is very narrow for a fire traffic safety issue.
I would like to ask one other question. This time the only people within 600 feet of the fire station got a notice of the Plan Commission meeting. I just happened to walk by and see the sign that it was going to be this evening. Can I get on a mailing list to receive notification when they are going to do planning? Is that allowed? I don't know anything about this process.
Mr. Daniel said the Town has to comply with the legal requirements of the State law or the local zoning ordinances and we are required to give notice 600 feet or two property owners deep. When you get beyond two property owners, even though it maybe within 600 feet, that is all that the law requires and that is what the Plan Commission requires.
Ms. Phillips asked, at each planning committee meeting forward will there be discussion about the fire station on Clover Drive and how often will that planning committee meeting occur?
Mr. Daniel said it just depends on what public hearings are required as the project goes forward.
Ms. Phillips asked, do the planning committee meetings occur monthly?
Mr. Daniel said yes the first Monday of each month.
Ms. Phillips asked, is there a notice in the Flyer of what is going to be presented at the planning committee or could I call and ask?
Mr. Daniel said yes.
Ms. Phillips said okay; thank you so much for your time.
Ms. Jody Arthur said my husband and I live at 3101 Clover Drive. I really just had some questions that I was hoping that the council could address for me. I'm kind of getting up-to-speed on this. My questions are pretty much similar to Cheryl's. I won't belabor those points but I do worry about the safety issues; it is one of my questions. It is a very narrow street and I do worry about the kids that play in the street. It is really not built to accommodate a fire engine. That being said I don't think a fire station is a bad thing back behind Clover Drive. I think it will keep us a lot safer to have it that close. We do have some questions, my husband and I, regarding the entrance, the back entrance. Is there anyway first of all that it can be a thoroughfare that just any person could drive through there or is it really restricted just to fire station staff? That would be one question. The other question does have to do for lack of a better term to say “standard operating procedures” for fire stations with respect to the alarms and how that will impact our quality of life. Again, I echo Cheryl's concerns about not getting woke up at two in the morning with fire alarms. I suspect that there are probably procedures that fire stations that are in residential areas or what very near residential areas do to minimize that impact but I would just be interested to hear about that.
Mr. James said I would like to answer their questions. This is actually the building right here. This is the 50 foot bufferyard. It will be a four foot berm and a double three landscaping on top so that is a pretty significant landscaping screening. The building will be on the property line that is at least 100 feet from the edge of the building just to the property line. Beyond that it is still a pretty good distance to the north and south to any residences along Clover Drive. There will be a knox gate. That means it is not a full access gate, which will not be a thoroughfare. It will cut through Airtech Parkway. It will be locked with a special key. Chief Anderson can tell us a little more about that if you would like but it would only allow egress for the fire trucks. Chief Anderson can tell us about the alarm system also.
Chief Anderson with the Plainfield Fire Department said as far as the noise issue receiving alarms they are received by radio. There is a tone that comes through that. Currently how we operate speakers throughout the building is we have external speakers. Those will be kept to a minimum to be an issue with the neighbors. We know we have to be more sensitive to that. This fire station will be the first fire station that is adjacent to a residential area. As far as operationally responding there is no siren on the building as such. All of the sirens will be on the vehicles themselves when they make an emergency response. Those vehicles most of the time would be exiting onto Airtech Parkway. The only time that we would go onto Clover Drive is if the emergency is on Clover Drive or is in the proximity of Clover Drive and U.S. 40. This would be preprogrammed in our computer aid dispatch that would take us up Clover Drive. The concern of a narrow street in a residential area with small kids is a valid concern but we respond on similar streets like that on a regular basis. So, our drivers are trained to drive at reasonable responsible speeds for the type of street and the area and the occupancies and the weather conditions. We take all of those factors into consideration.
Mr. Brandgard said I think relative to the sound issue (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail said I work next door to a station every day and the only noise that we hear are the vehicles and, of course, they hit those pretty quick to get out on U.S. 40 but other than that there is no noise pollution at all from this station. I can't imagine it being any different here.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Chief Anderson said that would be another situation. That is pretty rare.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Chief Anderson said something weather related, snow. We have seen vehicle accidents that have blocked four lanes. We would have to go a different route just to get out.
Mr. McPhail asked, how does the gate work?
Chief Anderson said either by key or we are actually looking at a remote wireless control.
Mr. McPhail said but it will be closed and you will open it when you access it.
Chief Anderson said if we would need to use that, we would open it at that time.
Mr. McPhail said that would eliminate anybody else.
(Inaudible).
Chief Anderson said correct; all of the return would come back down there too.
Mr. Brandgard said I think the other piece of having that in there is Clover Drive is narrow and if you have something obstructing the road during an emergency to the north, you have another way out. This would give another way out in an emergency. That was all part of the planning. (Inaudible).
Mr. James said a couple of more comments about the noticing we did do the noticing by law. The required noticing is either two lots from the site or 600 feet whichever is less. In this case on Clover Drive it would be two lots and this will be the only public hearing for approval of these plans.
Ms. Phillips said it just occurred to me while it is new everybody is going to be sensitive to what we are discussing tonight. But two or three years from now as it becomes more developed and more and more convenient to access Clover Drive for whatever reason we just need to be really sure that we don't forget. Because as it becomes easier and easier to use Clover Drive and we are just a small group and many of the people don't have a lot of money on Clover Drive. I want to make sure that it doesn't become easy to take advantage of us because we aren't always able to speak for ourselves for various reasons. Just keep that in mind so it doesn't become easier and easier to access our road. I'm concerned that it will be forgotten for the residents as time goes by. Thank you.
Mr. Brandgard said my answer to that is the planning that we went into this (inaudible). The use of the road where we have written the operating procedures for that station from the Town's standpoint we won't be forgetting your concerns.
Ms. Phillips said I am thankful for another way of exiting out in emergencies.
Mr. Gibbs said with no one else coming forward I will close the public portion of this hearing and open it up to the board for addition discussion or a possible motion.
Mr. McPhail said just a quick comment on the screening of the rooftop units. That has been a standard way that we have accepted them in the past so it isn't anything different with that screening from issues that we have addressed with other buildings. And the metal panels are something that we have approved in other situations.
Mr. Dunkin made a motion that the Plan Commission approve DP-08-013 as filed by the Town of Plainfield requesting development plan approval for compliance with Gateway Corridor Development Standards for a 14,699 square foot fire station at approximately 400 Airtech Parkway 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 regarding a waiver to allow the secondary building material to be metal panels the Plan Commission finds that:
1. The proposed development represents an innovative use of building material and brick color which will enhance the use of value of area properties.
2. The proposed development is consistent with and compatible with other development located along the Gateway Corridor.
3. 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, Building Elevations, Colored Rendering, Lighting Plan, Light Fixtures, Trash Enclosure details, Landscaping Plan and Sign Plan file dated November 18, 2008.
Second by Mr. McPhail. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Satterfield – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Dunkin – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Gibbs – yes
6-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Gibbs said next on the agenda is TA-08-003, Proposal to amend the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. James said this is a proposed amendment to the Plainfield Zoning ordinance. Back in October the Plan Commission approved several amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. This was part of those amendments. This is an amendment to Article 4.5, which regulates adult entertainment businesses. So, it was certified to the Town Council but at the Town Council meeting it was brought forth that we thought it would be better that the Town Manager approve and review adult entertainment business licenses as required by Article 4.5 in the Zoning Ordinance. So, that is what this change is. Because the change was recommended at the Town Council it has to come back to the Plan Commission for a public hearing. It has had the proper noticing so this is an amendment to Article 4.5 to change the review and approval authority from the Clerk/Treasurer to the Town Manager for an adult entertainment business license. So, this is what this amendment is about. If there are any questions, I would be glad to answer them for you.
Mr. Gibbs asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this matter? With no one coming forward I will close the public portion of this meeting and open it up for discussion or a possible motion.
Mr. McPhail made a motion to approve TA-08-003, an amendment to Article 4.5 of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance, a special regulation for adult entertainment business and amend and update the entire ordinance regulating adult entertainment businesses. To change the review and approval authority from the Clerk/Treasurer to the Town Manager for an adult entertainment business license. Second by Mr. Satterfield. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Satterfield – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Dunkin – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Gibbs – yes
6-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
OLD BUSINESS/NEW BUSINESS
Mr. James said under new business I provided you with a memo. At the November 17th Board of Zoning Appeals meeting we had a petition that was on the agenda. The petition was to seek a variance for a wind turbine. When the petitioner brought this to us, we thought this was an accessory use like a radio antenna or satellite dish in a Residential District. Staff thought it was and then when we got to the meeting, legal counsel told us that in his opinion he thought it was not a permitted accessory use in a Residential District. So, with that we tabled the petition and thought it would be best to bring it before you tonight to get your thoughts on this and see in your opinion if you thought it was an accessory use or thought it was an accessory use. If you think it is an accessory use, we will do some research and come up with some standards to allow these and bring them back to the Plan Commission for your review and comments. But then if you don't think it should be an accessory use, we will leave it at that.
Mr. Brandgard said just as a quick comment relative to that I don't think it should be an accessory use. We don't allow cell towers as an accessory use. This is not much different (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail said I don't think it has any business in a Residential District.
Mr. Brandgard said that is industrial.
Mr. Satterfield asked, what is it?
Mr. Daniel said it is a tower that would have a big propeller; you have seen these wind farms. This would be a single on a 51 foot pole for your house that would generate electricity.
Mr. Brandgard said again I don't think that is an appropriate use in a residential area. If somebody came in with a farm and wanted to put it up on farm land, (inaudible). Again, that is a whole different issue.
Mr. Satterfield said but it is green.
Mr. Gibbs said (inaudible).
Mr. Brandgard said I've seen those but that is not what they are asking for. I have seen those (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail said it doesn't have a place in a Residential District.
Mr. Brandgard said (inaudible).
Mr. James asked, do you want us to look at maybe allowing these in an Agricultural District? Of course, we don't have much AG zoning left in Plainfield.
Mr. Brandgard said yes we do have Agricultural.
Mr. James said we do have some but there is not much left.
Mr. Daniel said even though it appears the Plan Commission doesn't think this is an accessory use under a Residential District I think probably, and Joe probably sees more of this than I do, that sooner or later the Town is going to be confronted with dealing with this one way or the other. So, this may not be the appropriate time but it might be worth thinking that sooner or later the Town is probably going to have to, through Joe or an aesthetic committee or whoever else, take a look at this type of generation of power and decide if there are some areas where you would allow it and if so, under what circumstances; height requirements and all of that even though you don't want them in a residential area.
Mr. Brandgard said I agree. I think it is something that we need to look into and see what is being done (inaudible). I guess you have to look at how things are changing and how it affects everything around you. There are different technologies out there (inaudible).
Mr. Daniel said and those will change over the years. The first satellite dishes were a lot different than the ones that we have now. I remember when we dealt with the big ones in screening and front yards and back yards and all of that. We don't deal with that anymore.
Mr. Brandgard said (inaudible).
Mr. Daniel said right we can't do much with them anyway.
Mr. Brandgard said you can't do much with them (inaudible).
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. James said yes there have been some ordinances written to allow these. There are several news articles and zoning magazines so there is a lot of research and material out there.
Mr. Brandgard asked, in Indiana?
Mr. James said not that I have seen in Indiana but mostly out west.
Mr. Satterfield said the next thing they will be in a residential community.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail said yes I think we have to address it because we are going to see more of them.
Mr. Gibbs said actually there is a lot of technologies out there related to the green issues.
Mr. James said yes; solar panels.
Mr. Gibbs said we are going to be asked that same question.
Mr. Kirchoff said maybe the better generic topic is green technology is out there that we ought to be sensitive to (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail said a good example is the solar panels.
Mr. Satterfield asked, did any of the neighbors show up at the meeting?
Mr. James said yes; several of the residents in that area showed up. They were opposed.
Mr. Brandgard said (inaudible).
Mr. Kirchoff asked, can we do that with consensus?
Mr. Daniel said yes.
Mr. James said the next item is these are the wall-packs at the Airwest Distribution Center at 1250 Whitaker. I talked to the developers back in the late summer. We had never done a zoning compliance inspection for this building. This building was completed in 2006 so they had some landscaping issues and then one issue was the type of wall-pack on the building. The building was approved before I became director I think in 2005 with the development plan so I didn't know the history behind this building. But I did approve the ILP and when I approved the ILP, they wanted to use this small one right here. I said no that has to be fully shielded so they said okay we can do that and we can retrofit to fully shield it and they changed the photometric plan to be the fully shielded model. So, what they installed was this light but it has an internal shield; it is not external. I was of the opinion that it was going to be an external shield so they installed the internal shield and I hadn't seen this building at night so I went out and looked at it tonight before the meeting and I didn't like what I saw. You could see the light source and our ordinance requires that wall-packs 400 watts or over have to be fully shielded; it has to have a flat lens and it has to be a shoebox style. I'm going to let them know that they are going to have to change out these wall-packs. Do you agree?
Mr. Kirchoff said I agree with you.
Mr. McPhail said we have tackled that issue more than once.
Mr. Brandgard said they knew that going in.
Mr. James said our next one is the Metropolis Self-Storage at 2176 Metropolis Parkway. This is the self-storage units that Herman and Kittle did. I don't have any renderings or anything but on the west elevation they were to put a brick wall down the entire length to the west elevation. They have an internal storage building for large vehicles and it has a metal siding so that metal side is exposed to the west elevation. They contended that they built what was approved but what they approved were the building plans approved with the building permit and not the building plans approved with the development plan and the Improvement Location Permit. I called them on it and didn't get much of a response so then I invited them to the Plan Commission and got a pretty quick response. The contractor came out to see me last week and he said we will build the brick wall so it is going to be taken care of.
I have one more item that was not on the agenda. Mel had e-mailed this to me early last week. I didn't get to it in time to get it on the agenda. These are amendments to the campaign sign ordinance and also an amendment to Article 12.6 and penalties for violation. It is to be more specific about which court you have to seek to get judicial relief in. Be reviewing that and what we will do is we will go ahead and advertise that for the January meeting. I believe that covers everything for tonight.
Mr. Kirchoff said I have been advised by some of the developers that we were well behind on inspections, etc., etc. How are we on that?
Mr. James said we are getting caught up. We have just a few left to do. We have done a lot this past fall so we are almost caught up.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, (inaudible).
Mr. James said I would say maybe three of the old ones.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. James said no.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. James said yes before I got here. We have just a couple left to do of new projects. I was hoping that we would get them done this fall before the cold weather hit.
Mr. Kirchoff said I had forgotten about it but (inaudible).
Mr. James said most of the issues are landscaping so the planting season is already past; I believe it is October 30th; what it says in the ordinance so we will continue doing the inspections when we get a break in the weather. It is just we won't see any new landscaping until next spring.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. McPhail made a motion to adjourn. Second by Mr. Brandgard. Motion carried.
