The Plainfield Plan Commission met on Monday, October 4, 2004. In attendance were Mr. Thibo, Mr. Matrana, Mr. McPhail, Mr. Brandgard, Ms. Whicker, Mr. Kirchoff and Mr. Haase.
ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM
Mr. Carlucci administered the roll call.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Thibo made a motion to approve the minutes of the Plainfield
Plan Commission of September 9, 2004 as submitted. Second by Mr.
Matrana. Motion carried.
OATH OF TESTIMONY
Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Testimony.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mr. Haase reviewed the Guidelines Governing the Conduct of Public
Hearings.
Mr. Higbee said we had two rezonings for the Clay-Clifton Farm
area and they have requested a continuance before so this would be a
second continuance request. They had not sent additional information
that was requested regarding compliance with the residential
guidelines. They haven’t decided whether they want to go forward with
the project since that time so they are requesting a continuance to
November 1, 2004.
Mr. Haase asked, have they requested a continuance to that date?
Mr. Higbee said yes. I have a letter on file.
Mr. Haase asked, what is the reason again that we are needing
this continuance?
Mr. Higbee said they have not submitted additional information
regarding the residential guidelines. I don’t think they have decided
how they want to attempt to come into compliance with those.
Mr. Haase asked, did you inform them that we needed those how
long ago?
Mr. Higbee said prior to the first continuance.
Mr. Haase said we would need a motion to grant that continuance.
I would grant it as a second and a final continuance if they fail to
give us the recommended documents that we have asked for. They have
had eight weeks or better to be in contact with us about it but the
motion can come however.
Mr. McPhail asked, what would be the situation if we did not
grant the continuance?
Mr. Carlucci said the hearing would go forward.
Mr. Daniel said we would have to have a hearing tonight.
Mr. Higbee said I believe another option would be to dismiss the
case would that be true?
Mr. Daniel said if they fail to show up here tonight and present
their information.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, how long of a waiting period would they have
to refile?
Mr. Higbee said I would have to check the rules of procedure on
that but I think it might be six months.
Mr. Daniel said it would be six months.
Mr. Higbee said it hasn’t happen in awhile.
Mr. Matrana made a motion to continue RZ-04-007 and RZ-04-008
concerning the Clay-Clifton Farms until the November meeting of the
Plainfield Plan Commission. Second by Mr. Kirchoff. Motion carried.
Mr. Haase said if there is anyone in the audience this evening who came to listen to the Clay-Clifton Farms hearing there will be no
more public notices and the hearing will be in this room on November 1.
The next request DP-04-025, the Residence at Towne Center appears
to be requesting a continuance also.
Mr. Higbee said this would be because of some ongoing issues with
determining how the infrastructure would be handled at the Metropolis
for the Metropolis PUD. They have their plan submittal and it is all
in order. That is sort of an over-arching issue that I think they
agreed with us and Flaherty and Collins agreed with us that it would be premature to hear this development plan until we had further resolution on the issues.
Mr. Haase asked, can we get a resolution by the next meeting?
Mr. Higbee said I’m not sure but we will see.
Mr. Haase said I was wondering if we needed to give this a 60-day
extension rather than keep dragging this out.
Mr. McPhail said I think that would be more appropriate.
Mr. Haase asked, would that be better for the petitioner?
The petitioner asked, would it give us the option if the deal on
the roads and infrastructure were completed, to come in back next
month?
Mr. Haase said no it would not. It would lock you into the time
that we state here tonight.
The petitioner asked, if we continue to next month and we are not
ready then, would it be six months before we can come back in?
Mr. Haase said no we can give you another continuance. I kind of
got a feeling from Mr. Higbee that this may take a lot longer than 30
days.
The petitioner said we are not party to any of the negotiations.
Mr. Brandgard said there are some issues outside his control.
The petitioner said so I don’t know. I hear from Premier that the
deal could be complete soon but obviously it is very complicated and
involves lots of parties. I guess my hope would be to come back next
month but since it is out of our control I don’t know.
Mr. Haase said I understand that you would rather get in sooner
rather than later and being that you have no control on this we will
hopefully take this on a 30-day basis.
Ms. Whicker made a motion to grant a continuance of DP-04-025,
The Residence at Towne Center to the November 1, 2004 hearing. Second
by Mr. Thibo. Motion carried.
Mr. Haase said if there is anyone here to hear that, there will
be no more public notifications and this is your only notice.
At this time we have two other items left on the public hearing
agenda. I’m assuming that those two are going to go forward. We will
do PUD-04-003, Sugar Grove Development Corp. first.
Mr. Higbee said this was at the last hearing and was continued as
well but we did have the opportunity to essentially fully hear the case at the last hearing before we decided to go to a continuance. So, I don’t plan to rehash my Staff Report or the comments that I made the last time. I just want to be brief and point out to you that the blue folders in your packets include an addendum right on the very top. That addendum lists revisions that have been made since the last hearing mostly in response to discussion that occurred at that hearing. In addition you should have gotten a one-page recommendation from the petitioners on how to handle our vinyl requirements. If you remember, the back of our residential design guidelines, Article 7, has a building materials requirement for a minimum vinyl thickness and ridged backings such as plywood or OSB board. The petitioner felt that it would be an issue to comply with that standard and desire to provide an alternative standard that they thought perhaps was equivalent. We had a meeting with them last week, myself, Mr. McPhail, Mr. Kirchoff and several representatives with the petitioner to talk about vinyl and different alternatives. So, you have the sheet with you with a couple of alternatives. I’m not going to make comments on that because it really involves construction and is not my area of expertise other than I could probably answer questions about what occurred in that meeting in terms of what they presented to us, if you are interested.
I want to make a few comments on what you have in your residential design guidelines portion in your blue folder that you received the revisions for. There are relative few comments but they are detailed comments. As you will recall the last time, I brought up the idea that we have a group one and group two and a group three architectural features that are requested by our residential design
guidelines to allow for variations in homes and articulation and they
added features to the homes. So, that it will create a more attractive streetscape in the neighborhood. There was some concern on my part and I think on the part of some others on whether we agreed with some of the items that they classified as substitution items for group one, group two and group three. That is for the front facades of each home. Then there is a separate section in the guidelines for the rear and side facades and that is just group one and group two. There are only two groups for the rears and sides. That is modeled after how our residential design guidelines are written. After I brought up a few items at the last hearing the petitioner made some changes to eliminate some items that we had concerns about, substitution items. So, that is good. One that I noticed tonight, and these revisions only came in a couple of days ago so I just got to reviewing them today, in group one tonight was the porte-co shed roof seemed to be stated in there twice. Maybe when they come up, they can explain if there was supposed to be a differentiation there. That was under group one of the front facades.
Under group two I mentioned this before but I will just mention
again that they included dimensional shingles, which are encouraged in Section 7 of our guidelines but they are not an additional credit item. I don’t know if they should be or not. I just want to point out to you that they are not included in our guidelines but they are included in these guidelines.
There are a couple of cases regarding garages where they talk
about one-car garages being allowed where you have the doubles. There
is one section that allows doubles in this proposal. And then in other areas where in some cases they could allow garages to be less than 480 square feet, which is a standard from our residential design
guidelines, they say that would only be subject to Design Review
Committee review. So, I wanted you to be aware that if you approve
that, unless you change that, those could be approved by the Design
Review Committee. I don’t know if that is your desire. You may want
those to come back to the Plan Commission because we haven’t seen the
home elevations that they are talking about for those structures with
those kinds of garages.
I mentioned the last time that I personally have some concern over perimeter areas on the north and south where you have small lots. Particularly on the north we don’t know what is going to develop there but there is nothing between those small lots and whatever is going to develop to the north. So, my question was should there be some kind of a buffer there? You might think the same thing about the south even though I think the lots are a little bit bigger.
I found a comment in there that said something to the affect that
the petitioner would prepare a certificate of compliance to be
submitted, the ILP, and building permits. The way that we would
anticipate the certificate of compliance working is that would be
issued after the permits are issued and after the building is in. We
want some kind of system that we are going to be setting up where we
can go in after the fact and either receive information about the homes that shows us that they are in compliance or go out and inspect the homes to determine that. I would say that since we haven’t created that process yet, we have started doing some ordinance amendments recently to sort of set the stage for that, but we haven’t done that because this is a new situation with these residential design guidelines. Perhaps they want to consider simply striking that
language and let us determine how to handle it later on. You have an
aerial map here and I would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Larry Moon with Republic Development, LLC said as you probably remember, and I think Mr. Higbee has pointed out, this petition was in front of you last month. We went through quite a bit about the site plan and so on. I will try to go directly into some of the issues and some of the changes that you have in front of you and the addendum that was handed out. What we have done since our last
meeting we had a meeting last week and brought in some representatives from two large vinyl siding manufacturers as well as an installer who has been in the business for a long time as well to get some expertise and some discussion on the vinyl siding issues. Over and above that we went in from the comments that we had at the last public hearing and made some changes to our guidelines, which you have both in the addendum as well as they are in the body of the revised design guidelines. I will just touch on those for you, if you would like.
The first few are just clarifications on page one where we talk
about the areas, the configurations. The first thing probably of
significance there was a concern, I don’t recall who raised it, that we had a proposal that the two-family area, which is Area “A” on the plan if we did not do two-family, we could develop with the “B” standards. The “B” standards were the smallest detached single-family lots. I believe there was some concern with respect to the additional area “B” lots. So, we have changed to say that if we do not go forward with two-family, we will develop that area with the “C” standards, which are larger lots. That was the first substantial change that we made.
The other change, again addressing Area “B”, is we looked at our lot sizing. We were comfortable increasing the square footage standard from 7,200 square feet to 7,500 square feet.
The rest of the changes on the first page of your development
standard revisions, numbers five through nine, really there were more
inconsistencies that we found to other standards that you had. We did
increase the lot frontage at the curb, which we would have complied
with that anyway. We just had a typo in our document.
Page two of the revisions get to the architecture that Mr. Higbee
mentioned a moment ago. Again, based on some concerns that we heard we have went through and eliminated some of the additional items that we previously proposed. The first being the multiple gables in the front of the home standards. The second item we tweak the wording on the side-by-side windows to say that it would be the entire front facade as opposed to each story independent of each other. To touch on that for just a second when we looked at a few home plans, we realized that some homes had a number of double windows and triple windows on one elevation and only one double window on the second elevation and three single windows that technically wouldn’t comply story by story with the 50% windows on every story being double windows. The solution to that would be to eliminate a window on that story. We didn’t really think that was the intent anyone wanted to get to so we just changed the wording to say 50% of the windows on the entire facade of the home as opposed to each individual story. So, that they will still be required to have 50% but in that case where you had on the second story, for example, we had one home plan in particular that we saw with one double window and three single windows. But on the lower level you had two sets of double windows. It would still comply where under the way that it was worded each story it wouldn’t. A solution would have been to eliminate a window, which I don’t think is the preferable architectural or from the interior of the home the way that you would really want to take it.
Mr. McPhail asked, what page are you on?
Mr. Moon said I’m reading off of the revisions but if you go to
the side by side windows if you look in group two on page four, in
group two, which starts in the middle of page four, there are two
columns of items. It is the first one on the right hand side. Going
on we have eliminated the roof pitch in section two, the dust to dawn
coach lights, again, in each story wording. And then we also eliminated the brick chimney chases, which I think were a concern. There was some duplications in the chimney chase area.
Also, to address one of Mr. Higbee’s questions on the porte-co shed roof the reason that it is in there twice is the standards call for four by 10 roof. And the addition that we added was four by eight
subject to approval of the elevation. Again, there was an example
shown in your book originally of a house that architecturally could not support a four by 10 based on where the gables ended and so on. It would just be architecturally unbalanced to do that. So, the four by eight was added subject to the logistics of the elevation not
supporting a four by 10. That was the difference there.
With that those are the highlights of the changes in the proposal. Otherwise, the plan remains the same. On the vinyl issue we had a meeting last week and brought in some experts. What you have in
front of you is a proposed outcome from that meeting. What we have
tried to do is provide equivalent substitutions. The vinyl siding that we had proposed originally, and I would say is still in the design guidelines, but if we agree these are the standards, this would then replace what is in the design guidelines. The amendment was drafted before these guidelines came off the presses over the last 48 hours since our meeting. So, we did not have a chance to get this in the guidelines. But the proposal provides two methods, one with the installation of OSB or plywood. In that case homes would utilize a point minimal thickness of .40 with a half-inch butt profile. To describe the butt profile on siding when you talk about the butt side of the siding it is this return. So, when they talk about the thicknesses of this, they can measure as small as three-eights up to three-quarters of an inch from what I have heard from different manufacturers. They provide additional rigidity based on the thickness. The thicker that they are the more rigid it is. The thinner they are the less they add to the structural integrity of the siding. Hence we have addressed that in the standards.
The other element that we will talk about in there is the nail hinge where the nails are provided for. This is really more of a partial rollover. Another thing we will talk about in there is the nailing edge, which is this. This is a full rollover. It really provides two places that the nails are being supported. It increases dramatically the wind resistance. I can’t quote you the exact numbers but approximately from like 115 mph wind to 180 mph wind by going from
a single to a double rollover based on one type of siding that was
quoted. That not only provides wind strength but it also provides more structural rigidity to the siding. This is educational to me as well because I didn’t know any of this until about a week ago. With that in mind though we created a proposed set of standards. Actually we asked the vinyl manufacturers, knowing what the goals of the Town were, stating that they wanted quality, they don’t want it to look flat, they don’t want to see any waviness, what standards do they feel will work. This was the proposal that came back after the discussions that we had. And again, if the OSB or plywood, which are hard surface and nailable materials are used as the backing, that a .40 thickness with a half-inch profile was felt to provide a flat laying panel. The other alternative if a builder chooses to not choose the OSB but more of an R-Board product, which is the foam sort of material that you would see, that in those cases there are a number of requirements that they would have to do to comply. They would have to make certain that their studs are 16 inches on center. Sometimes when builders do exterior walls, they will go up to 24 inches on center. So, this would require a narrower spacing. They would require a minimum thickness on the vinyl of .42, if it has a five-eighths inch, which is a wider butt height. Or a .44 thickness with a half-inch butt height. Those would also require the rollover, I believe it says it here, if it doesn’t, it should, it would require the rollover nailing hench as well. If it is less than .46, it would require the rollover on that. And all vinyl would have to meet or exceed the ASTMD3679, which I have found out that the vinyl siding institute has created an independent reviewing agency that has set standards for quality of vinyl to meet their certification process. So, we have included that in here as well that any siding would need to meet the independent certification of the standards that have been set.
Mr. McPhail and Mr. Kirchoff were involved in the meetings and
provided a lot of insight and I’m sure they can share that with you but from our mindset and from what the manufacturers have said we believe this would provide a good product. I will tell you from what I have ascertained this would be a state-of-the-art ordinance if not in the Midwest certainly in this general area. With that I will open it up for questions.
Mr. Haase said at this time I will ask the two gentlemen on the
board who met with you if they have anything that they would like to
share with us about the vinyl and what came out of that meeting. Did
you hear anything different and where do we go?
Mr. McPhail said I would indicate that during that meeting I believe that what they have proposed is what I think I heard from the two manufacturers a consensus of an opinion and probably the builder
involved. I’m not sure the installer was as forceful in his opinions
but probably would support this based on proper installation. A couple of things that we talked about that haven’t been brought up is when we talked about the installation of this product, the installer, and I think to some degree, the manufacturers and the builder, indicated that homes with the R-Board are not very stable until you get something else on the walls. In fact, the installer indicated that he preferred to have the drywall installed before the vinyl siding was installed to insure that they have some stability in the building.
Mr. Kirchoff said he more than preferred but he insisted. He pulled a crew off that day.
Mr. McPhail asked, was he one that insisted? I’m a little confused because I talked to other installers. I don’t know how in the world we could police that. I think in all cases that they indicated the hard surface would give us a better product. They indicated they felt like if it was properly installed, they could get a quality product without the hard surface. I am of the opinion personally that if there is indication that the hard surface gives us a better chance
for a better product, I think we need to stick to our standards and not back off of that. I did go out and look at a couple of installations in the general area where the builders are using the R-Board and even witnessed some homes that they quit using the structural components of plywood and OSB board on the corners and gone to metal straps. So, the whole wrap of the house had nothing but foam before they put the siding on. The homes were rather new so it is pretty hard to tell with a brand new home how long it has been on. I have done some more research and read some more data and am 100% convinced that if we do not enforce the hard backing, we are taking a chance of not getting the best quality installation that we can get.
Mr. Haase asked, was there any indication about mold being a problem on a hard surface?
Mr. McPhail said there was some discussion about that. I believe
from the builder I think he indicated that it might be a problem. It
was not convincing to me. I don’t know what Mr. Kirchoff’s response was to that. I continue to look at homes that if you drive anyplace right now and see OSB and plywood being used, it may not be on the whole surface but it is certainly on the corners. There is no indication from the vinyl manufacturers that I could find that indicated a problem. In fact, as I read one study where it said vinyl should give you a much dryer condition than wood because it is made to breath. I don’t feel that there was any substantial comments made that would convince me that you would have more of a mold problem with the product. Obviously, if wood gets wet and it is not treated properly, I’m sure you are going to have a condition there. But I think with all building materials you need to be careful and go through your building process. I’m not convinced that it is a problem. There is nothing in the general building standards out there and general practices that would indicate that it is a problem any more than anything else.
Mr. Haase said prior to the meeting you handed out a vinyl siding
proposal or counter proposal.
Mr. McPhail said I gave a copy to Mr. Higbee that you can share.
Mr. Kirchoff said one of the things that I had asked for that was
forwarded to me was I’m a visual person. I wanted to go see some
subdivisions so I was given three places to visit today. I actually
went to a fourth place. It says, “we have a couple of communities that have vinyl siding similar to what is proposed for Sugar Grove in case somebody wants to go out and look at it.” So, I went up to Oaks of Avon, which is at 10th and Dan Jones. It is 0.44 and it has the fiveeights inch butt and it has the rollover nail hem. So, it has all of those things that we said we wanted. I can tell you that is a very nice product. I don’t know what it is installed on.
Mr. Moon said it is on hardwood.
Mr. Kirchoff said when you drive through Oaks of Avon, they have a very nice product. I’m sure these are in descending order as far as
quality in my opinion because understand this is an untrained eye.
I’ve installed siding at Habitat houses but that is the extent of my
expertise. There are obvious differences in quality as I go down this. The next one was Bridgewater. I don’t know what it was. I don’t have the numbers on what that was but it would not be the quality that I saw at Oaks of Avon. Then the third one I believe is called Greenstreet Village, which is at SR267 and CR700N. It is also .044 but it only has a half-inch butt and does not have the rollover nail hem. So, it was not the quality and you saw more deviations than you saw in the other two. And then by far the lowest quality that I saw was at the Paddock. It is 0.42 and it only has a half-inch butt. I wrote down eight or ten places where clearly the quality of the Paddock is much lower than what I saw at the Oaks. The Oaks was a very nice product. I could support that type of an installation just from the untrained layman looking at it. The 0.44 with the five-eights butt and the rollover was a real nice looking product.
Mr. Thibo asked, Mr. McPhail in vinyl to say 0.48 do they have a
plus or minus tolerance like they do with steel?
Mr. McPhail said they do but I’m not sure what that is.
Mr. Thibo said it is usually zero zero two three so that would
bring it down, if they go on the low side.
Mr. McPhail said I’m not sure what the manufacturing tolerance
is. There is some ASTM specifications out there.
Mr. Thibo asked, you know what I mean though don’t you?
Mr. McPhail said absolutely because an 0.44, if it is on the low
side, might be 0.42 I don’t know but there are some manufacturing
tolerances. I don’t think we discussed that did we Mr. Moon?
Mr. Moon said the only thing that I recall was when we talked
about the virgin vinyl verses the manufactured and the surface layer,
there was some variation there.
Mr. McPhail said it’s easier to pass around but this is the nail
hem, which is this. When this product is installed, it cannot be
nailed tightly to the wall. It has to move. I read some data where a
12-foot length of this material will move up to five-eights of an inch. It will crawl that much during the expansion contraction of heat and cold. So, it has to be nailed where that material can move so this hem helps that because not only does it add strength but it gives that a little more tolerance when they nail it. But it has to be nailed solid enough that it doesn’t fly off of there either and, of course, this is the way that they lock together. I think one of the things that is important when we talk about the mill thing, and the profile is also the width of this profile, this one happens to be I think four to four and a half inches. You can actually get a six or an eight-inch panel with the same material. The wider the panel goes the thickness you need to stiffen the thing up. But most of them make a double panel like this and this I think it is the product that Mr. Kirchoff saw today. I will pass that one around. I don’t know which one it is because those are both 0.44. One kind has a double break in it and the other one has a single break. But certainly that makes a big difference when they nail the thing is it not only gives the extra strength but it also gives them a little bit more tolerance. It is more tolerant because it will still move if they get it a little bit too tight.
Mr. Moon said the Oaks of Avon had a wolverine product. It is the same manufacturer but it is just under two different names and I’m not sure what you are looking at there.
Mr. McPhail said if I remember right, that is an Estridge product.
Mr. Moon said yes, that and Greenstreet.
Mr. Thibo asked, will it look like this color after years?
Mr. McPhail said yes. I think all of the manufacturers say that you will get some discoloration.
Mr. Moon said it was 10% for the first three years and then it
stabilizes and shouldn’t discolor anymore for the next four years.
Mr. McPhail said there are some recommended ways to keep it clean. It’s not a maintenance free product. You are supposed to clean it once in awhile. Most people don’t do that and let the natural weather do it.
Mr. Haase asked, do you think the rollover nail hem should be full? I know they show it as partial.
Mr. McPhail said I have a sample here of a partial one. I think the full hem is superior to this one.
Mr. Moon said their proposal doesn’t say partial.
Mr. Haase said it says a rollover nail hem. I don’t know it depicts which one. I just think it would probably be anything that is there the way that it is stated actually.
Mr. Moon said I would like to address the OSB. We had a lot of
discussion with a lot of builders on the OSB and there are issues with that. And there are builders who I don’t believe will build with it. They believe the mold is an issue and I have talked to a mold litigator who is involved in a lawsuit and he absolutely will say that mold is an issue. It’s not an issue if it is installed properly but it is a material that can gather mold. One of the questions was is the Town going to be willing to indemnify builders if they force them to use this material and mold grows? The R-Board does not get mold. It is not a material that is natural that can product mold. So, whether it is installed properly or improperly one product does gather mold and one doesn’t. There are other issues though. The builder described that the installation value is significantly less with OSB or plywood than it is with R-Board. The installation value is significantly higher, which is better for the homebuyers’ heating bills as well as the builders goal is to become an energy star builder, which is a rating that they pride themselves in. And going to the OSB or plywood would take them out of that category. Maybe there is something else that they could do to get back into it but it is a significant loss. The other issue with the plywood and the OSB is it is a commodity product and the pricing jumps all over the board and the availability jumps all over the board. When there are issues like we have in Florida with a number of hurricanes, all the plywood is getting shipped to Florida. That product may not be as readily available or may double or triple in price. For all of those reasons as well as the fact that none of the manufacturers’ standards require that sort of backing and we have tried to provide higher levels of standards with the R-Board, provide an equivalent with higher mills, higher butt joints and the rollover nail hems. When you install over RBoard, the manufacturers believe it would provide the same look of
equivalent quality to installation over the OSB or the plywood. There
are some strong feelings out there that don’t force us to use a product that has potential hazards as well as not even required by the manufacturers. That is why we have provided higher standards for the R-Board installations than we have for the OSB, which the manufacturers I believe will agree said there is an equivalent trade-off.
Mr. Haase asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak in regards to the Sugar Grove proposal? Being no one coming
forward Mr. Higbee I’m going to ask you to redirect us beyond this
vinyl siding as far as other issues that you feel exists on this.
Mr. Higbee said as they mentioned, they made several revisions and some of them were to eliminate some items of concern that were
mentioned at the last hearing. So, those are in your addendum. He
mentioned the porte-co shed roof, which was brought up earlier tonight. I thought it might have been redundant. I understood this explanation, which is that he is saying that if they offer a smaller one, that would be subject to DRC review of the elevations. So, that would give us an opportunity to only allow it if we liked it basically. But that falls into the same category of the garages that I brought up earlier where there was a statement in the guidelines that talked about a one-car garage for the doubles I believe it was. And then for any garage that is less than 484 square feet elsewhere that would also be subject to DRC review and approval. I brought up just the conceptual question, do you want DRC performing that role or do you want that to come back to the Plan Commission because we haven’t seen the home elevations, what they would look like with the garages or in this case also with the porte-co shed roof that I mentioned.
Mr. Haase said or it doesn’t say what percentages would have 484 or greater square footage.
Mr. Higbee said right. It just says if it is less than that, it
would be subject to DRC review of the elevation is my understanding of what it says. I haven’t read it in awhile so that was something that I wanted you to think about. Do you want DRC in that position of
performing that role? I think they are fully capable of doing that but I don’t know if that is your preference that they do it. The perimeter buffer treatments on the north and south where you have some small lots going on along the north park of the subdivision, it’s not the part along U.S. 40 because they have a buffer treatment there, is an area where they have small lots coming across. Right in here is Area “A”, which is your doubles and then you have some smaller single-family lots and then you have large lots in this area. This is not the area that I’m talking about. I’m talking about here and possibly here. This area is where the existing homes are on the south side of that gravel road, if you have been down to the area. But they have a lake or some kind of drainage feature down in here. I call it a lake but it is really a drainage feature, and then you have a lot of buffering along here. So, I’m not talking about Moon Road but I want you to consider this area and this area whether you think the small lots backing up there without a buffer treatment is what you want.
Then I brought up just a procedural issue of how do we handle the
certificate of compliance? What we have been doing on several other
subdivisions for over a year now, Bentwood Park is an example, Paddock is an example, we have essentially been performing an architectural review on each and every house. It would be what we call an improvement location permit in my department and then it goes to a parallel building permit review in the building department. We are looking at completely different things. I’m looking at the
architectural and zoning commitments that you require and the building department is looking at structural, plumbing and electrical, all of those kinds of building code issues that I have no expertise with. So, it is kind of a parallel review process. The certificate of compliance would in my mind come in at the same time as the ILP. This would be something where after the home is built, we talked about a paper based review. It could be a photographic documentation that shows that the home met the requirements and do a paper based review or it could be an inspection process. I don’t think we have decided which way we want to do it yet. We are going to need to decide in the near future. One of my goals for this year is to make that decision after talking to Staff and the Plan Commission. I just made a statement that the certificate of compliance would come with the ILP and I don’t think that is the way that we look at it. So, I would suggest striking that language. Other than that I think they corrected the other items that I brought up the last time with the exception of the vinyl and we have already had that discussion tonight.
Mr. McPhail said I think there are a couple of issues that we need to readdress. I don’t know if all of you have the comparison sheet that I gave you at the last meeting. If you look at the residential guidelines on page 2.A2, as far as I could tell they had requested in the duplex area that they be allowed to build 50% of the facade be a garage door. I don’t know that they readdressed that issue. According to the guidelines that is not allowable so that will be a deviation from the guidelines, if we allow that.
I think Mr. Higbee addressed the garage sizes. Again, is DRC the
place that we do that? There was a request to go clear down to 400
square feet of garages on the duplexes if snow removal and lawn care
was part of the package. That is quite a reduction from 480 square
feet, which is the bases. If you approve what they are asking for,
those are deviations from the basic standards.
According to my notes they left in a 10-12 pitch roof.
Mr. Higbee said that is right.
Mr. McPhail said that is not a part of that now. They removed the
8-12 in group two. I think they left the sunburst in group two. We go
to group three they dropped the two-coach lights and the raised panel
garage doors as getting approval for that. They left a featured window and decorative columns. And the side and rear I believe they left that window in. Did they take the elevated deck out?
Mr. Higbee said I didn’t know that they were requested to. Did you take the elevated deck out?
Mr. Moon said no. There was already an elevated deck in your basic standards. What we proposed was I believe it was in category two with no size requirement we said if it was a 100 square feet or bigger, in other words a larger deck, that it go in category one for the side or rear elevations.
Mr. Higbee asked, is that still in there?
Mr. Moon said yes.
Mr. McPhail said Mr. Moon addressed the windows and I’m still a
little confused on that personally and then the chimney chases they
took out so that addresses those standards that are still in and out
according to my review of it.
Mr. Kirchoff said on page one your original proposal was 7,200 square feet on Area “B” and you have gone to 7,500.
Mr. Moon said correct.
Mr. Kirchoff said you are still showing 230 lots. How can you do that?
Mr. Moon said we just haven’t redone the site plan.
Mr. Kirchoff said it is also in your document you didn’t change the number of lots.
Mr. Moon said the lot count will probably go down but we have to
come through at the time with a plan.
Mr. Haase said if you will notice, even in his chart his lot count is plus 10-15%.
Mr. McPhail said I don’t know if at the last meeting if we even had much discussion on the density. It seems like to me we got hung up on a couple of other issues and didn’t have much discussion on density.
Mr. Carlucci said the only thing I have with density is how they
arrived at the calculations in terms of open space in density and what they are counting as open space. Because I think under our subdivision ordinance you are not supposed to count retention/detention ponds because they are not necessarily open space to everybody. And you don’t count floodways or areas that you can’t build in because you can’t build in them and you can use that as open space or you will eschew what the density is. You will pack a lot of things into a closed area and you will have a bigger area with a floodway and then what you have is a very tightly packaged highly dense smaller area. That is why we don’t allow the floodways because there are a lot of areas with floodways in there. Clearly there is a central place there where the ponds can be used as open space because it is adjacent to a park and a building. So, I would be curious how they came up with those numbers. Did they ever get you those calculations?
Mr. Higbee said there are some gross calculations in the standards. I don’t know that they are to a level that you are suggesting that they could be. I felt from reviewing what they had submitted that because the comp plan that is anticipated to be adopted, which is on tonight’s agenda for a possible certification by the Plan Commission, that it recommended a mix of low-density and medium-density development. Those are both ranges. Low-density goes up to two units
per acre and medium-density goes up higher. This met the spirit of
what the new comp plan would recommend if it were adopted. Obviously,
the old comp plan had the rural density residential, which wouldn’t
even be close. That is the 1993 comp plan that is still in affect
right now. But another thing to point out is the residential design
guidelines did give a ratio for open space and it did give some
allowance to include floodway but it gives a lesser allowance for
including a floodway area than it would for other areas. So, you have
to throw that into the mix but they had such a large amount of space
there that I really wasn’t concerned that even if you excluded those
retention areas, which he is right. Under our definition we are
supposed to exclude them because they aren’t really usable for the most part unless they design it so there is additional contiguous space around them that people could use. You are supposed to exclude those from the calculations as well as perimeter right-of-way, which is another thing.
Mr. Carlucci said I think there was one comment on density and that is I realize the developers need to buffer Moon Road and the State prison system over there but how far do you have to go back to buffer? It seems to me you are going almost three-quarters of the way back in that project to accomplish your buffering as opposed to what they have done with the doubles up front. I can understand that but that density goes pretty deep. The higher density goes pretty deep for a project. That is always a question. I don’t blame them in trying to get the number of units in there because at the end of the day it is can you get the cash flow out of those things but that is a dense project. And I can understand buffering but that is a lot of buffering and they are also buffering to the south side of that project pretty intense and that is not necessarily facing the prison system either. That is a judgment call on the Plan Commissions part if this is the kind of project that we are going to continue to see in Plainfield. That is the other thing that you have to look at is this the kind of project that you want based on some of the stuff that we discussed at the last meeting?
Mr. Thibo asked, did the fire department check out the cul-desacs?
Mr. Haase asked, Mr. Higbee has the fire department been privy to the plans that we have before us?
Mr. Higbee said yes they have and I believe that they were satisfied with the entrances that were shown here. We have an entrance on U.S. 40 and obviously and entrance on Moon Road.
Mr. Haase said Mr. Thibo’s question really went to the cul-desacs.
Did they look at those?
Mr. Higbee said he looked at the whole plan and he did not make any particular note of the cul-de-sacs.
Mr. Haase asked, has the school system been aware of what is going on?
Mr. Higbee said a school impact study was submitted. I didn’t have any personal contact with the school system.
Ms. Whicker said due to the density of the “B” area and of the long cul-de-sacs I would be interested in maybe their ability on the
transportation with the smaller lots or perhaps the smaller garages and parking in the street and the maneuverability of the school buses and their ability to pick up the children in the higher density areas. This is aiming towards younger families with lots of kids. Would it be possible to get some comments from their Department of Transportation?
Mr. Higbee said yes.
Mr. Carlucci said one thing that will compact it, and you see a
little bit of this in Claymont, you can’t with the smaller garages and the people parking on the street there’s no point in running the buses down the street. What you do is they have one spot where everybody gets on the bus because you just can’t get through there. One-car garages don’t lend themselves to a lot of on-site parking.
Mr. Moon said if I can address that quickly so we don’t spend a lot of time on garages, the only area that we propose the 400 square
foot garages is in the double areas where we are going to probably have an empty nester with no children. Those garage sizes were predicated on them having snow removal and lawn care so they don’t have lawnmowers and they don’t have snow blowers and they don’t have kids. When you do twins, there are some limitations based on their design to how large you can make a garage because sometimes they are on the interior and sometimes they are on the exterior units. Every place else the garage sizes are going to be larger. The garages are not smaller in any of the single-family areas. The request for the 400 square feet was only for the doubles area.
Mr. Haase said you also request 450 square feet.
Mr. Moon said that is correct.
Mr. Haase said, which is still smaller.
Mr. Moon said if you will note, there is a depiction in there of what could be stored in a 450 and it was again subject to review and
approval. There are some home plans that can’t be configured to
accommodate 484 feet without pulling the garage out too far and create too much of a snout or other issues that architecturally wouldn’t necessarily be good. It is still significantly larger than a standard garage and Claymont was referenced again tonight by Mr. Carlucci and this is not a Claymont. We talked about open space and we went to great efforts to create a project with a lot of open space. We were very sensitive to create a quality project that provides over 50 some acres of open space. I believe the requirement would be somewhere in the 17-20 acre range. Some of that might be floodplain but I believe it is seven to nine acres. We haven’t exactly calculated it along here but even excluding that we are probably double the open space requirement for the project. Part of the wants in the changing of the wording that we created here, the one concern about density, we pulled further into the project. We are going to look at pulling or maybe reorientating some of these areas so that the smaller lots move more up here and we move this down or something a little differently. We want the language to say that the areas may shift a little bit although the total lot count, total acreage will be within the margins that we have set. So, I just wanted to add those clarifications.
To the buffer on the north and the south we missed that point but we would be willing to establish like a 25-foot “no build” buffer on the north and south property lines. We would not create it as common area. I’m personally against that because I think you have created a
strip of nomads land. We would be willing to put restrictions of “no
building”, “tree preservation” on those areas so that they remain
preserved.
Mr. Haase said Mr. Higbee gave us names of Bentwood and then another subdivision down in Greenwood.
Mr. Higbee said I sent you some e-mail last week and that came before our vinyl meeting and then some more e-mail that came in today with some subdivision names in it. I don’t remember the names that were in the last week’s e-mail.
Mr. Haase asked, did you participate in the Bentwood addition?
Mr. Moon said in Bridgewater.
Mr. Haase said and then you have one down in Greenwood that is fairly new.
Mr. Moon said we have a project by the name of Woodgate in Greenwood where Davis Homes is the builder.
Mr. Haase said I drove through both of those and it was very
compelling to notice the difference in homes that are just being built in those subdivisions. The ones that had the majority of the front facade in brick irregardless of what the sizes were certainly dressed the whole subdivision up. You could tell when you went from one area of the subdivision into another one. I know we don’t have really anything here that stipulates a percentage other than I think it is 50% minimum of brick or stone on the front facade. You have pictures in the back here that they produced for us. The first one even though the return wall from the garage to the front of the facade is vinyl all of that brick on there makes it look much more desirable and what I would consider long lasting than probably the last picture on the page. They put in for a decorative porch but it has so much vinyl above it. I know there are some eaves you have to vinyl and some portions of some walls due to weight and support but the more brick on the front facade just really impacts the whole subdivision. I think that impacts the whole subdivision for years to come. I don’t know where we stand exactly on this vinyl siding. I know you have your proposal Mr. Moon. We have heard Mr. McPhail talk today about vinyl siding and he is gaining as much knowledge as you are as we all seem to be.
Mr. McPhail said I would like to do a little more research on this mold issue. Obviously, I would like to get the data that Mr. Moon has and the people that he talked to. I’ve only heard one brief comment from one builder and as I told them in the meeting, I have had other builders tell me they wouldn’t even install the vinyl siding without the hard backing. So, if mold is going to be an issue, I don’t know what those folks are going to do but obviously it is something that is pretty prevalent in Indiana right now with at least one builder who seems to have had a lot of trouble and I don’t know what has caused that. Obviously, if mold is an issue, there may be some other way to approach the issue but I don’t know what that is.
Mr. Haase said mold is kind of a hot button right now and I’m real concerned about it. It can cause a lot of heartache and a lot of
problems for everyone.
Mr. McPhail said I see builders using mixed products, what I call
the old Celotex board. I don’t know if it is more or less susceptible
to mold than R-Board but I see some builders using that particularly on garages where they think they are not going to be insulated. I just want to make sure that we are not trying to make a decision based on what I perceive to be, at least at this point, a cost factor. It is obviously going to cost more money to put some hard backing on there. I’m convinced in my own mind that is the issue with the builders but I can’t prove that. I would like to check this mold out but I think it is cost. When I got out and looked at homes that no longer have it on the corners even for structural when you have a small strip running one way and one the other that is obviously a cost reduction. Do we still have a quality product? Maybe the building experts say that but I don’t know. We have a product out here that has not been in the field that many years in terms of the number of homes that we are looking at. The oldest home I know in the area put vinyl on it 20 years ago and it was a very thick vinyl and you probably can’t even tell it is vinyl when you go by and look at the house. In the last few years with the really increase in the product homes and those moving the vinyl we are sitting here battling like I think most communities and it is the vinyl box issue. I happen to think vinyl is a good product if it is a good quality and properly installed. I want to make sure that we are right as we can be in this situation. I think I have mentioned this every time we have talked about this being the first test that we have with these new building standards and if we don’t get this one right, what are we going to do with the next one. I obviously don’t want to challenge the builders in terms of the mold issue. If that is real, then I think we have to consider that but I certainly would like to research that a little more.
There is one other issue that I think we need to bring up tonight and we talked about it very briefly at the last meeting was the fact of
easements for water and sewer and roads and those types of things. It
was my understanding late last week from our Town Engineer that we do
not have an agreement with these folks on those issues. I don’t know
if anybody can address those or not.
Mr. Higbee said I think Mr. McGillem can comment on that but in your motion I did put a couple of statements in there regarding what we think we need in terms of right-of-way and sewer easements. So, if
that is an issue, you can include that in your motion. I think Mr. Moon has that right now and he is discussing it with his engineer.
Mr. Haase said while he is discussing that Mr. McGillem is that
correct?
Mr. McGillem said I think it is set up that it does provide for a
50-foot half right-of-way and the easements that we need. We don’t
think we have, where Mr. Belcher is coming from, any easements without going forward with the platting of this development. I think the platting and the plan does provide for what we need for water and
sewer.
Mr. Haase said Mr. McPhail you said you wanted to study this a little further on the backing issue and the mold and I can agree with that. The next question is let’s take the siding off the table right now and forget about that. Then where does this project stand and what other questions do we have about this project for the developer?
Mr. Kirchoff said schools.
Mr. Carlucci said he has already said this is not the final site plan. Although it might be close it might not be a bad idea and it
might help them to see what it would like when he does tweak it and
what the reduction of the lots will look like. But right now what we
are looking at he is saying as long as we stay in those parameters it
may adjust one way or the other but you might want to see what it looks like but it is up to you.
Mr. McPhail said on these issues with the garage sizes is there some way that we can structure the language where it doesn’t jeopardize our standards? I don’t have a real heartburn I don’t think at this point if it is a little smaller garage if it is a maintenance free home and that type thing. But I would want to make sure that we are not setting a precedence for something else. I’m more concerned about the language than the issue with that and I don’t know how anybody else thinks about that.
Mr. Higbee said I think that was the intent of them putting in the statement that it would have to come back for another review and
approval. So, that this isn’t just going to happen on a home elevation that we have seen and we have been convinced that the garage area is adequate for the type of home that is being put there. So, I think you are okay if you like that concept but my question back to you is who do you want to review that when that occurs?
Mr. McPhail said we put a lot of work into these things and I don’t want to set a precedent that opens the door for an issue that they haven’t made a point for. Because I can tell you the next guy down the road is going to take these and we are going to have another set of issues to look at I believe. Would you agree Mr. Moon?
Mr. Moon said you have created something that you are probably going to have to look at with every project.
Mr. McPhail said like I said in this particular situation if they are going to build a duplex that is not big enough for a family with two cars and they want to have a nice size one-car garage, I don’t have a problem with that. I think that is what he has asked for but I also don’t want to set a standard by deviating from those guidelines that I have to defend when the next guy comes down the road. Am I making any sense?
Mr. Brandgard said yes.
Mr. Haase said a 400 square foot garage, and I’m not going to take any side, but it is probably deemed a two-car garage.
Mr. Moon said yes it would.
Mr. Haase said particularly if it doesn’t have any kind of mechanical in it or storage of lawnmowers or snow blowers or anything like that.
Mr. McPhail said and I think in some places you asked for a single car garage is that right?
Mr. Higbee said in the doubles area.
Mr. McPhail said, which I don’t have a problem with but I want to
make sure that we are not jeopardizing the language in the building
standards for the next guy to say you let him have it and I want to put a four-car garage on a single-family home over here.
Mr. Haase said particularly if it is a PUD that gets brought before us, we can say we didn’t like what we did that time and we are not going to do that again. So, I don’t feel uncomfortable with that.
Mr. McPhail said that was my only other issue.
Mr. Haase said taking those garages to the DRC is that the place where we think it should go?
Mr. McPhail said I don’t feel comfortable with that but I don’t know where to take it.
Mr. Haase said right here would be the place to take it.
Mr. McPhail said I would much rather take the time to look at it as to have to defend their decision.
Mr. Haase said it says, “except that subject to DRC approval of the home elevation the garage may be reduced to 450 square feet.” So, you are at 450 square feet but they are really not reviewing the garage. It is really the square footage as much as it is the overall
architectural features.
Mr. McPhail said does it have ample storage space and those types
of things.
Mr. Higbee said it actually should probably say floor plan and
elevation but I think the whole concern, correct me if I’m wrong
because it came from you to me, was that those garages were going to
have room for additional storage and we wanted to see what was in
there. If you have a smaller garage but it still has the water heater
and everything else in it, you may not have that storage space you are looking for.
Mr. Haase said it says, “providing no mechanical specifically
water heater and heater be located in the garage.”
Mr. Higbee said that is certainly helpful that is there.
Mr. Brandgard said I have seen several homes where they put the
furnace and water heater in the house but if you have a water softener, it is in the garage.
Mr. McPhail said the example that they gave us is pretty clear. It has wall space and those types of things but we would want to make
sure that they had wall space and storage space for that reduced
quantity. Somebody needs to look at that whether it is DRC or Staff or Plan Commission I don’t know.
Mr. Higbee said we could always do what we have done before, which is when in doubt, let it come here and then if we feel we can loosen it up later, we can do that on the next subdivision.
Mr. Brandgard said I was about to propose that. I think at least
initially we need to look at it and see where and how it is going.
Mr. McPhail said just cracking that door for the future is worrisome to me.
Mr. Haase said I think what we are looking at here tonight is another request by the board for a 30-day continuance or is there some way that we can take this forward with a recommendation for rezoning without the vinyl siding commitment and gain that prior to Town Council?
Mr. Carlucci said whatever the commitments are and the plan is I have to attach a certification. It has to be complete. You cannot just bring it with part of it missing especially on a PUD, which is critical.
Mr. Haase aid at this time the Chair would accept a motion to grant another 30-day continuance to the next Plan Commission meeting.
Mr. Thibo asked, is 30 days enough?
Mr. Haase said yes.
Mr. Kirchoff said I wouldn’t want to do it for anymore than that.
Mr. McPhail said if we continue it for 30 days, we have the vinyl
issue and the transportation issue to see if the school has a problem. I certainly can’t support their proposal as it is. So, I want to do a little bit more research. I hate to say that but I would just like to do some more research and bring that back to you. I would move that we continue PUD-04-003 to the November Plan Commission meeting.
Mr. Haase said I would like to make sure at the next meeting also we are looking at discussing the vinyl siding issue, the school bus
transportation issue and the rewriting of page three, Item “C” number
two about the two-car garages going down to 450 square feet coming back before the Plan Commission. Those three issues would be what we would be motioning for a continuance on.
Mr. McPhail said I would accept that as part of my motion.
Mr. Thibo asked, didn’t Mr. Carlucci have a question on the mounds?
Mr. Carlucci said no.
Second by Ms. Whicker. Motion carried.
Mr. Haase said we will continue on with DP-04-026, Premier Properties.
Mr. Higbee said this is an architectural review request for a site located right next to where the Starbuck’s and Panda Express are on East Main Street. You might remember a couple of years ago you
approved a development plan out at this site for a 15,000 square foot
building that is in many ways similar to this. The way that the lot is laid out and the footprint of the building that is proposed here is not much different. There’s your site. The petitioner indicated to me that it would be about a 13,500 square foot retail building with
perhaps five tenants. The one you approved two years ago they were
saying would be for one tenant but otherwise it is essentially the same project. The building materials on two facades noted on page one of your Staff Report would be less than 50% brick or dryvit or EFIS some people call it that are required by our ordinance. That would be the north and west facades but you have the power to grant a waiver of that if you like the materials that are being offered.
I should also point out that this lot was previously granted a
development incentive for a shared ingress/egress area, which would
eliminate one of the side yards. But that also requires a doubling of
landscaping throughout the site, which they have provided a landscape
plan that does that for both foundation areas and perimeters.
You see the typical comments from DRC. They recommended approval just as they did in the 2002 case. There is nothing unusual there. On many of the items that DRC commented on have already been addressed by the petitioner. In fact, they delivered some plans to me right before the hearing tonight that I obviously haven’t reviewed but they probably have adjusted some more of them. I will let Premier comment on which ones that they may have made adjustments for when they come and then I can review them after the fact. Oftentimes if there are minor adjustments, you will make a motion where you will say subject to the Director verifying compliance. For instance, on the photometric plan there was an issue with a couple of hot spots that I mentioned in my Staff Report. Hopefully, that was taken care of or will be. Really there isn’t much to say here. This is just a repeat of the building that you approved right next to it, a repeat of the building that you approved two years ago that didn’t get built on this site that they are going to have different tenants in there.
I was told by the petitioner that they did make a change after DRC, a slight change to the building footprint, which I haven’t seen or analyzed yet. I don’t think it is going to be significant. That is the reason that I didn’t put them on the expedited agenda tonight because he had a desire to actually present that to you. So, that is all that I have.
Mr. Trevor Wade said I’m representing Premier Properties. As Mr. Higbee mentioned, this is a building that came before the Plan
Commission a couple of years ago, essentially the same building at that point and time. We had one tenant who was going to use the entire space. At this point and time we are going to have five different tenants, a nice tenant mix for this building. What I presented to the commission and Mr. Higbee prior to the meeting is just a revised site plan. In the past week one of the tenants that we had planned to go in the building requested an additional 300 square feet, which takes the building to 14,000 feet at this point and time. What I have highlighted on this plan is how it impacts the current plan. It is mainly the foundation plantings that have been rearranged and of that nature. There are no aesthetic changes and no parking differences. Here on the east side of the building we have a landscape strip. Due to the increasing size of this we had to relocate that landscape strip. So, now we just currently have a sidewalk on this side. We added a six-foot landscape strip up here in front of the sidewalk to help makeup for the loss of foundation plantings. We also have landscaping around the rear of the building but we continued it on around the corner of the building. With this outlot there is quite a bit of traffic that is going to be seen at the rear of this building so we thought it might be a nice addition to add a little landscaping to the back portion of it. This landscape island here has been increased just slightly per the original plan and this one as well. The handicap parking was located over here in the western corner and we have moved it to the center of the building. Just one thing I wanted to point out that Mr. Higbee had mentioned the entrance to Perry Road is going away. I just wanted to highlight it on there. It will have sod and landscaping will match everything that exists along Perry Road currently. I just wanted to bring that up because there had been some questions there. We expanded the dumpster area about three feet to allow some more room for the trash enclosures.
I believe on the elevation I presented a picture of a Helzberg
Diamond Store, which is going to be one of our tenants in the space. On this portion right here on the west elevation initially on your plan I believe that says some pre-finished metal panels. This area, as you can see on the picture, will not be a backlit-glazed glass. Helzberg came to us and it is kind of their signature with their stores and they were pretty adamant that we do the best we could to give them that signature feature and we agreed. Other than that everything from the aesthetic standpoint is the same as presented. At this point and time I would answer any questions that you may have.
Mr. Haase said I know you are closing that one entrance off on Perry Road and that is great but it seems like your other entrance in the southwest corner would seem to create congestion. Mr. McGillem have you seen that?
Mr. McGillem said when they agreed to take that drive off on Perry Road, there will be a solid median when we go with the signal at Target. There will be a solid median all the way from U.S. 40 to
Target or Penney’s and you will not have any left in or out or any
through movement to that. So, I guess the trade-off with that
happening is getting rid of the drive on Perry. With what is going to
happen there it does not bother me.
Mr. Haase asked, when will that stoplight happen?
Mr. McGillem said it has to happen very soon one way or the other.
Mr. Kirchoff said so in essence what you are saying Mr. McGillem is everything out of there will be a right turn.
Mr. McGillem said right.
Mr. Brandgard said a right in/right out.
Mr. McGillem said we will still have somewhat of a conflict but we have a much bigger conflict with the drive associated coming off of Perry. Primarily the difference between that drive you have a similar drive into Applebee’s on the west side with people coming out the west drive going south. The problem with someone coming out of the drive going to U.S. 40 and the closeness of U.S. 40 with somebody trying to get all the way into the left turn to turn onto U.S. 40 creates a major conflict.
Ms. Whicker said the adjacent property to the east then also had
parking lot accessibility in front of it to this property. There
wouldn’t be a median there blocking it off?
Mr. McGillem said there will be a shared access drive between this and Panda Express. If we weren’t going to close off the median on Perry Road, I would not want that drive there.
Mr. Haase asked, what is the timing on all of this? When do you expect this to open?
Mr. Wade said spring of 2005.
Mr. Haase asked, are we targeting that on that stoplight also?
Mr. McGillem said it depends on whether Rave’s Theater is going to open or not.
Mr. Haase asked, is that the trigger?
Mr. McGillem said that is all tied in to the approval of Rave’s
Theater happening.
Mr. Haase asked, can we approve this and condition it to not be used until that median is blocked off?
Mr. McGillem said that would be great as far as I’m concerned.
Mr. Haase said construction wise they can put it in but they would have to barrier it until that median goes in.
Mr. McGillem said it is definitely not a good situation as long as you have the opening there through to that frontage road.
Mr. Haase asked, would you be agreeable to that?
Mr. Wade said that would be perfectly acceptable.
Mr. Haase said I don’t want to cause any more accidents there than we already have had. I appreciate the fact that you are closing off that one entrance off of Perry Road. I think it will probably be an asset to the facility.
Mr. Wade said I think it will help out the flow of traffic.
Mr. Haase asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this? Being no one coming forward we will close the public
portion of this hearing and to whoever will make the motion if they
would please add in there a number eight condition that the westernmost entrance off of the private road shall have a barrier and not be allowed to be used until there is a solid median going from Perry Road to the stoplight at the intersection from Penney’s and Target.
Ms. Whicker made a motion to approve DP-04-026 requesting
Architectural Review for commercial development within 600 feet of a
Gateway Corridor subject to the following conditions:
Substantial compliance with the site plan, landscape plan, lighting plan and specifications and building elevations file dated September 28, 2004.
The entrance to this site from Perry Road shall be removed and this area shall be part of the landscaped curbed island.
The dumpster shall be built against the west wall of the south side inset area and the other walls shall be the gray brick that matches the building. The gates shall be covered with plastic wood.
A waiver is recommended for the north and west elevations since these areas are below the 50% requirement per the breakdown of percentages provided by Premier. Two different colors of brick are being used on this building. Premier shall furnish the Staff with samples of the gray brick, the glass and the awning material. All other samples were presented at this meeting and copies of these
samples shall also be given to Staff.
As stated by Premier, parapet walls shall extend a minimum of four feet above the roofline on all four sides of the structure to ensure that all roof mounted equipment is totally screened.
The photometric plan shall meet the ordinance requirements and the rear wal-pac units shall be locked into the down position to protect from any glare.
All signage shall be submitted for approval at a later date.
The westernmost entrance shall have a barrier and not allowed to be used until the stoplight is in place and until the solid median from U.S. 40 to that stoplight is installed.
And regarding development within 600 feet of a Gateway Corridor
finding that:
The Development Plan will comply with all applicable
Development Standards of the district which the site is
located.
The development Plan will comply with all applicable
provisions of the Subdivision Control Ordinance for which a
waiver has not been granted.
The Development Plan will comply with all applicable
provisions for Architectural Review for which a waiver has
not been granted.
The proposed development is appropriate to the site and its
surrounding.
The proposed development is consistent with the intent and
purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
And regarding the request for building materials waivers finding
that:
The proposed development does represent an innovative use
of building materials, site design features or landscaping,
which will enhance the use or value of area properties.
The proposed development is consistent with and compatible
with other development located along the Gateway Corridor.
The proposed development is consistent with the intent and
purpose of the Gateway Corridor and the Plainfield Zoning
Ordinance.
Second by Mr. Thibo.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, is it the site plan dated 9/28 or the one that we got today?
Mr. Higbee asked, was that a revised plan that you gave me today?
Mr. Wade said yes.
Mr. Higbee said yes that would be dated today.
Mr. Haase said so her motion should reflect a site plan dated
October 4, 2004. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Thibo – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
2004 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
Mr. Higbee said you all have seen this before you. You received it around August 30. That is the last handout that you got, the third
draft of the plan and we had a joint work session prior to that. As I
informed you at that time, we needed to go through a Plan Commission
public hearing and certification before we consider adoption of the
plan. So, that is why it is here. This was public noticed for tonight’s hearing. I put a memo in your packet that gave the adoption steps so it would be the one that says PC Public Hearing and then below that is the Town Council resolution and so forth. In your packet is a copy of a resolution that if you wish, you can adopt and then go ahead with the certification tonight. HNTB is here to talk to you about some changes that they made from the third draft based on the last conversations that we had and some comments that I had sent them as well. If you have any questions for me, I have my copy of the plan and I would be happy to answer them.
Ms. Cynthia Bowen said I have with me tonight John Meyers. He has been the transportation planner assigned to the job. He has been assisting on the project. I just briefly want to go over some of the
changes that we made with you since the meeting three weeks ago. In
your packets Mr. Higbee had provided to you a list of edits that we had made to both the executive summary and the full copy of the
Comprehensive Plan draft that looks like this. Really the only thing
that I’m going to say about these edits is they look like several pages but again I will remind you that we made changes to both documents. In the majority of the edits made in here were not substantial changes. They were just more wording changes or clarifications where in discussions with Mr. Higbee and others a few things needed to be redrafted so they were just slightly clearer than what was originally in the text.
I just want to kind of highlight some of the map changes that were made. Up on the screen you see a draft of a land use map. We have made some changes to this land use map since the last time. The first one being at the public hearing were issues that came up with the
extension of this boundary all the way to CR100. So, we went ahead and made the Town boundary change as well as the planning area boundary change to include that property. Another change that was made, again we are mostly in the colors here to clarify some areas within the map, so that when we go to reproduce it, it is more easily read. We changed the color of this area. Right now it shows up green. I don’t particularly like that color of green so we are going to change it a little more. This is the hospitality area with the airport hospitality area on the land use map so that color will change one other time but the area for the most part has stayed the same. Another change that was made to all of the maps was this area right here on Perry Road. The jog connection was a little off so we have made that correction and it has been updated on every map that we have created. The other thing that we have added since the public meeting is the school had gone ahead and selected a site for a future school and we have added that to the map as well. A few other changes that we have made on a couple of the other maps is on the future map, if you will recall, this connection here, and Mr. Meyers can explain it, but we classified this here as a secondary arterial on this map. And this was changed before the public meeting to a primary arterial connecting this primary arterial, SR267 with SR67 to help with the traffic flow. A few additional changes Mongan Park here there was a comment made that park was a little out of scale with the rest of the map. We have since gone back into the aerial and shrunk that down and then the park here, which is now known as Lovell Field we have actually tagged that as a temporary park in the legend given the fact on the future land use map the recommended changes. Another note was brought up but the change was not made at the same time because I really wanted to provide that to the board for you to discuss. A notation was made regarding the area of housing right here. By the Elks golf course being out here there was some note made to us that there might be a little bit different treatment you would like to see from a housing standpoint. For one thing it may be a little bit too dense in this area and you would like to see something a little less dense to provide a different type or a different quality of housing. At this point we have not made that change but I wanted to open it up to you for discussion for the potential that it could be changed before the final plan is adopted, if you wish. I think with that those are pretty much the changes that we have made at this point and time and I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have.
Mr. Haase said that helps that area by the Elks. It is one and a half to four dwelling units per acre.
Ms. Bowen said yes it is one and a half to four dwelling units per acre right here and the yellow is point five so half a dwelling unit to two dwelling units per acre.
Mr. Thibo asked, what is the boundary line for the west? Is it the road before the Elks?
Ms. Bowen said no. Do you mean the boundary line right here?
Mr. Thibo said yes.
Ms. Bowen said this is CR500, which is also I believe the township line road for Guilford.
Mr. McPhail asked, where is the golf course?
Ms. Bowen said the golf course is right here.
Mr. Higbee asked, is that outside our boundary?
Ms. Bowen said yes.
Mr. McPhail asked, to the east of that do we have one to four?
Ms. Bowen said right here yes. This is the rural classification right there, which is about one dwelling unit to half a dwelling unit. I should say half a dwelling unit to one dwelling unit per acre.
Mr. McPhail asked, what is the next category?
Ms. Bowen said this yellow right here, which is again a half of a
dwelling unit to two dwelling units per acre.
Mr. McPhail said I think that would be more appropriate there
personally.
Ms. Whicker asked, isn’t that pretty much developed right there
with the back of Saratoga?
Mr. Higbee said we are west of Saratoga in an area that actually is part of the proposal that was continued tonight, the Clay-Clifton
Farms. We could easily end up annexing west of that line too so my
point to them was I wasn’t sure how the western portion if you wanted
to continue that kind of medium-density treatment or not.
Mr. Carlucci said the area north of the golf course is lower density.
Mr. McPhail said on the west side.
Mr. Carlucci said on the west side of the road but right along that roadway there is a lot of single-family homes that are already built.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, would you be better off setting it with lower
density so if someone came in, it wouldn’t have to be rezoned to make
it higher?
Mr. Haase said it would have to be rezoned anyway.
Mr. Carlucci said it all comes in Agricultural.
Mr. Haase said but it has to fit the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. McPhail said I don’t think we want to see the density four units an acre.
Mr. Haase said change the chart to one and a half to three.
Ms. Bowen asked, are you saying to change the brown?
Mr. Haase said yes. It would be everything that she has in brown. I don’t know how that fits, what all she has in brown but I guess my point is we are not going to get developments with two houses per acre density. Realistically it just isn’t going to happen.
Mr. Brandgard said part of that brown is already developed.
Mr. Haase asked, along the roadway?
Mr. Brandgard said yes with Saratoga.
Ms. Bowen said yes.
Mr. Haase said above that red line.
Mr. Brandgard said yes.
Ms. Bowen said this is the Town boundaries.
Mr. Haase said right above that red line yes that is developed.
Mr. Kirchoff said I would go below the line.
Ms. Bowen said so basically you are saying an area that goes like this and changing that to yellow.
Mr. McPhail said yes.
Mr. Haase said it is fine with me and I suppose if you change your density there from one and a half to four to one and a half to three, that is going to throw a lot of already developed areas out the window.
Ms. Bowen said right. I think you would be better off changing it to the yellow.
Mr. Haase said based upon what you do and what you have to do based upon existing developments in the Town of Plainfield it would be better and simpler to change it to yellow.
Ms. Bowen said right. I think you would be better off in the long run if you just change this section verses trying to change the density.
Mr. Haase said to figure out where that really fits.
Ms. Bowen said right.
Mr. Haase said that is fine.
Mr. McPhail said I think we have the Mongan property as parkland.
We’d better change that hadn’t we?
Mr. Brandgard said yes.
Mr. McPhail said because that is the area that we just went through earlier.
Mr. Carlucci said I don’t think it is ever going to stay parkland.
Ms. Bowen asked, is it the yellow? Does it become one and a half
dwelling units to two dwelling units per acre or is it all the way up
to four dwelling units per acre?
Mr. Daniel said from what they presented it is a long way from yellow.
Mr. Higbee said part of that is where the doubles are so remember I said if their proposal met the intent for the spirit of this, it
wasn’t this place precisely, their higher density piece was in here
where this is. So, you could shift that up a little bit and then have
some yellow farther south. That would match the plan that you are
looking at right now more or less.
Mr. Carlucci said we own a piece of ground adjacent to the west side of the Hickory Woods subdivision that is parkland. A lot of people don’t realize that we have that piece of property. It is not a
critical item but it is a piece of ground that is parkland but it is
along the creek.
Ms. Bowen said if we are going to pull off this park, which we will, then it would probably be beneficial to go ahead and label that as a park. Is it your intentions in the future to develop it as a park?
Mr. Carlucci said actually it will be along the trail system to there. I will get the information to you.
Mr. Haase said if you took that yellow all the way down, straight
down to the green, and color that all in yellow.
Ms. Bowen said so you are basically saying the planning boundaries are out to here.
Mr. Brandgard said right and show the Elks as green. I shouldn’t say green but parks.
Mr. Haase asked, is there anything else that you have?
Ms. Bowen said no that is all that I have at this point and time.
Mr. Haase said we will open this up to the public. Is there anyone in the audience who would have any questions?
Ms. Laura Day at 9718 E. CR800S said I’ve come as a member of the
Hendricks County Heritage Alliance, which is involved in a lot of local historic preservation. I’m also the President of the Greater Guilford Township Civic Association, which has been vitally involved in land use issues since 1971 and a private citizen who works in the history department at the Plainfield Library and also the owner of a historic, 130 year old home. I was particularly interested, and I had my question answered somewhat by these two transportation people earlier. Right here is where I live and I’m not an ostrich with my head in the sand. I know a road is coming but my question is the land all around me is habitat property. I have a house that is also potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic places. Your connector road is going to be a primary arterial, which according to what I see in the Comprehensive Plan could be four lanes. It is going to be cutting through the wildlife habitat and also in front of my house, which is a historic house. This connector will be in behind the Jessup mansion, which is on the National Register of Historic places. This secondary arterial will come out at the old Black Rock School House on SR267 south. I know this is a long-term thing, 20 years down the road but what can I, as a citizen, do to help make suggestions on where this road goes? What are you going to do with a four-lane highway through a bat habitat?
Mr. Brandgard said remember that this is a guide.
Ms. Day said I know this is long-term and is a study area that
everybody doesn’t know exactly what is going to happen because it is
airport. But evidently there has been some thought put into this or it wouldn’t be on a map. So, what have you started thinking about on how you are going to deal with a primary arterial going through wildlife habitat?
Mr. Brandgard said as I mentioned, this is just a guide looking to the future where a road ought to go here. That is as far as the
thought process has gone. Looking at the things that you have brought
up it may go there or it may find another route.
Ms. Day said I know it is subject to adjustments but I guess I’m
asking you, as a citizen, what can I do in the next five to 10 years
other than to attend every single meeting?
Mr. Haase said when a particular piece of property or direction that you have an interest in, comes up at a public hearing that is about the only time. Because it is purely conceptual and we realize that going through the bat habitat and such we don’t even know we can do that or not. They may relocate it again. Obviously, they didn’t have an airport until they moved them.
Ms. Day said Mr. Duncan told me years ago it was a 20 year maximum on the bat habitat.
Mr. Kirchoff said anytime we would be considering projects in that area, you being a landowner, will be notified.
Mr. McGillem said I think where we are down in this area is as part of the plan that we are looking at right now in coming up with this concept, as Mr. Brandgard mentioned, we are just indicating that we need to get across there in some way. I think also as part of the
plan we are identifying that this area down there needs to have a more detailed transportation thoroughfare plan study. Because as you are mentioning, with the bat habitat and so forth we don’t know what we can do right now. We haven’t gotten into enough detail. That roadway could serve our intention and be 500,000 feet farther away from what we are showing on this map right now. But we know in this area down here with all of the bat habitat and with the other areas that are going to develop down there, there has to be a more detailed study identified taking into account the locations of the bat habitat. If you have a building that is eligible for the historic, we are not going to be able to touch that anyway. If it is eligible, it is out of bounds of us getting into anything like that. So, what we are going to have to do down in this area is take the general concept with what is shown in this plan and go to a more detailed plan and as we go to a more detailed plan in further trying to tie this down into a more practical thoroughfare plan solution, there will be more public hearings and opportunities to get into discussion at that time.
Ms. Day asked, is that how I would hear about it through the
notification of public hearings?
Mr. Kirchoff said we would be required to advise you.
Mr. Haase said if it touches her property. Initially it might start in an area though that she was farther away than what the noticing process would require. You might be interested in something a mile away from your house.
Ms. Day said I just don’t want to be surprised and find out that
everything has been basically planned and decided and then I’m at a
last minute public hearing and there is no input from myself or
neighbors or organizations that are interested in this.
Mr. Haase said I’m trying to think how to tell you……………
[Tape two concluded at this point and time and resumed as follows
with Mr. Haase speaking:]
……………if you just stopped in once a quarter and talked to Mr. McGillem or Mr. Higbee and ask if there is anything going on in this area, I don’t think it could get to that point if you did that.
Ms. Day said that is basically what I’m concerned about. I know it is going to happen and I want to have some sort of input on how it
happens, the shape of how it happens, before it is too far planned.
Mr. Haase said you sound like somebody that we would like to have
that input from because you know the area down there.
Mr. McGillem said and I think that is what you would see us doing. As we go to the next phase here based on the Thoroughfare Plan we have been discussing, when and how we get to that plan, it will be more or less a mini type of study similar to what we have just gone through here with the Comprehensive Plan. So, we will pulling individuals in and advertising for the public input. We also have to get much more into detail with the fish and wildlife with the airport and DNR because there is more problems in this area down there in trying to get a roadway through from point “A” to “B”. To be very honest with you I doubt that we will ever get a four-lane roadway through. Even though it is classified as a primary arterial it does not necessarily mean it will be a four-lane roadway. A primary arterial can also be a two lane.
Ms. Day said it will be higher speeds though and a straighter road probably.
Mr. McGillem said I would hope that we would be able to do something like that. I’m not sure how far we will go with it.
Mr. Haase said that wasn’t what she wanted to hear Mr. McGillem but that is okay.
Ms. Day said that’s not what I want to hear but the possibility that it might not be four lane is a little better for my front yard.
Mr. Carlucci said I know the library may have a copy of the habitat conservation plan.
Ms. Day said we have that.
Mr. Carlucci said I think there is permanent wildlife habitat there that extends more than 20 years.
Ms. Day said this was several years ago that I talked to Mr. Duncan and he basically said it was 20 years and after that it could revert back to basically any use.
Mr. Carlucci said I think there is permanent habitat out there.
Ms. Day said I know they spent a million dollars flooding the farm fields so I don’t know if they want to reverse that.
Mr. McGillem said I think what he was talking about is the
intermediate, which is set up for only a shorter period of time and it could go back. But I think down in the area that you are looking at the majority of it is a permanent habitat and they cannot revert back. There are certain areas of it though that are classified intermediate.
Mr. Carlucci said all I know is I won’t want to be the one to make that phone call to fish and wildlife or be at their door because it will be nearly impossible under the best circumstances to get any
kind of road through there. That is my estimation of what we are
looking at.
Ms. Day said I know to check every three or four months. I wanted to know what to do before it is too far gone for anybody in our area to do anything.
Mr. Jeff Banning said my address is 8031 S. CR675E, Mooresville
actually but Guilford Township so I’m in the planning district. I want to say a couple of things to preface my comments. First of all I think the Town of Plainfield is probably the best town we work in from a planning standpoint. I can truthfully and honestly state that. When you look at where the original comp plan was and we are today, it is obvious that we follow the comp plan and I applaud you guys for that.
Secondly, I know that there has been a lot of time put into this
document. I have made some comments other than the last public meeting three weeks ago to people on the committee. I don’t know if all of that got relayed or not but I have a few comments I wanted to make and I hope I don’t take too long and don’t take me wrong. These are constructive comments that I’m just trying to help out with the plan. I wasn’t even going to look at the Transportation Plan because I know we have great transportation people but I started to get a little bit concerned, not really concerned, but kind of curious when we started talking about the interchange at Moon Road. I thought that was a great idea but then when I started looking at where they were wanting to take the road to the east, I’m thinking that goes right behind my house. I don’t have a problem with that except I think a lot of road that we are counting on as County roads really aren’t County roads. There is a driveway and then there is a paved road that the gravel pits utilize in the area by my house that are not County roads. We are kind of showing a line there and here again I know this is a proposed plan but we would have to probably build two bridges to make that work. I understand all of that but my concern is, which on one hand is good but on the other hand isn’t, we know there needs to be that road down here and I don’t have a problem with that. I’m not really even sure I have a problem with the location of it except for when you come through with plans and present them before this committee or get with Staff. Now we have to start working out where these roadways actually go. I didn’t know if it made more sense to maybe put that in a more logical location. That is my comment I wanted to make on that.
A couple of other things on the transportation plan and going back to Ms. Day’s concern I know the railroad down at SR67 is going to pose a huge problem as well as the bat habitat and everything else. I just wanted to throw that thought out.
If I could, going back to kind of the beginning of the document, I still, and I’m glad that we have added in this additional area up
here, but I guess I still have some concerns about what are the
planning boundaries for the Town. We talked about the Elks not being
included. In my mind based on what I’m hearing should that be included in the planning parameters of the Town? I brought up at the last meeting even though we don’t want to annex Belleville per se that is our sewer territory. Even though the property north of ADESA, north of Westmere is not in the Town boundaries and is not showing up in this plan I know that is part of the Town’s water district. We also know that there is a potential proposed development in that area. The Broyles’ property is not included in this particular planning district. It just seemed like to me that we have kind of shrunk the boundaries of this comp plan from what they were in 1993 or 1994. We have shrunk the boundaries. I understand why maybe from the north going south I can understand that one but I was just curious why some of those other boundaries changed when they were part of the original plan. I just want to bring that up again. Mr. Brandgard said the boundaries in the previous plan were predicated on a two-mile radius that the County took away from us as being able to plan for.
Mr. Banning said I have heard a rumor that it might be a possibility in the near future potentially with new commissioners. I don’t know that as a fact but I have heard rumors of that so I’m just bringing that particular issue up. We would be significantly shy of that two-mile planning area.
Mr. Brandgard said I think if that rumor were to come to fruition, we would have to go back and redo this. I’m not sure we can do it ahead of time.
Mr. Banning said that is fine.
Mr. Carlucci said Mr. Banning does make a good point about the Broyles’ property.
Mr. Haase asked, which one is that?
Mr. Carlucci said if you take CR300S and where it ends as you head west, Broyles is on either side of that line. The other piece I think he is talking about is the property north of Westmere.
Ms. Bowen said we have already adjusted that.
Mr. Banning said that is where the old plan went to. That is the Davis Orchard Road, which is CR400E.
Mr. McPhail asked, are you going to plug that in?
Ms. Bowen said yes.
Mr. Brandgard said the Broyles’ property is probably something to
throw into the mix too.
Mr. Banning said I know currently that is showing as the West Central Conversancy District sewers but rumor has it that they really don’t have the intention of servicing that area and can’t maybe feasibly. I know that the property developers have actually looked at coming into the Town and being annexed. Like I said I would rather expand the boundaries than tighten them up I guess. Those are just some thoughts.
Looking at the people who are on the committee other than a gentleman by the name of Mr. Whicker I think he was probably the only residential person that actually looked at this plan and so forth. I
guess as I read through the trends and we are looking at the Town
potentially growing up to almost 50,000 and looking at where we are
trying to develop residential housing and so forth. I want to find out if that is really what we are thinking that we are going to get to 47,000 people and I know that is on several different reiterations. And then it is talking about developing about 140 acres of residential ground in any one period of time in a year’s time. To kind of put that in prospect the Mongan ground that was talked about tonight is 258 acres. This plan is talking about developing 140 acres and I’m assuming that is built out ground in a year’s time, two houses an acre, 180 houses, two and a half people to a house, etc. I’m wondering if those numbers are realistic? I’m just trying to throw that out and as I go through on the pages for future land use probably starting on page 22, it talks about the different areas we want to have growth in. Most of these areas that are showing up it appears to me that the majority of that ground has already been developed when it comes to the medium or higher density development. So, I’m just throwing that thought out. Most of the ground that we actually are showing as developable ground is the low-density, which is the half unit to two units to the acre. Somebody made the comment, I don’t remember who, it might have been Mr. Haase, I think realistically about two units to the acre is about the minimum you can do development wise on sewer and water. Just looking at development over the years working in that. I’m just trying to throw
out some thoughts here about what we have shown and the areas that are proposed to be developed. I could go into specifics if you want but I don’t want to be up here all night.
Mr. Brandgard said just as a comment relative to 47,000 people this plan is not designed to handle 47,000. We have done this plan every five to 10 years depending upon the circumstances. As far as housing build out, that is all subject to the current landowners deciding whether they want to part with their property, which they haven’t shown a large interest doing in Guilford. So, we have not experienced growth the other areas of the County have and that is the only reason. But again looking at it from that standpoint the 47,000 you see in there that is information that you have to have to do your
planning on. Where you go with from there who knows but at the same
time we know we don’t want to have a lot of the high-density stuff. We want to go back to more where we were in the past with the more mediumdensity.
Mr. Haase said that is why we have more yellow up there because
developers are like children. You give them an inch and they will take a mile.
Mr. Banning said I just want everybody to understand what this plan is showing. For instance, and here again I don’t want to get into specifics necessarily, but we are talking about this medium to highdensity in this area here. If you look at that area, that is Center Ridge, that is Glen Haven, that is Glen Haven West and a little bit of undeveloped ground that the State owns and that is it.
Mr. Brandgard said when you show the land uses, you are also showing what it is currently as well as what you would like to see it go to as it develops.
Mr. Banning said I agree but in the body and the statement and the wording part of this that is the area that is going to be developed as medium-density. All I’m saying is there is maybe 60 acres in there
that could be developed medium-density. It is not a significant amount of ground that can be developed beyond the medium-density. I’m just making a point.
Mr. Carlucci said so you are saying you want more medium-density.
Mr. Banning said I’m not saying that at all. I’m just saying that is being stated in the body.
Mr. Carlucci said I also know in the last Comprehensive Plan we
specifically put an area on the Fulkerson property to be a little
higher density residential.
Mr. Banning said that is a good thing that didn’t happen.
Mr. Carlucci said now it is going to be a big warehouse building but even that changed dramatically because of everything else that was
happening out there and lawsuits and other things that held that up or it would have been built way before this.
Mr. Banning said I’m just trying to point out what is in the text.
Mr. Haase said I think our goal is to encourage modern development.
Mr. Banning said and I don’t have a problem with that.
Mr. Haase said and also this isn’t our zoning map and we can’t confuse the two. It is very easy for me to do that and want to merge
the two but it doesn’t.
Ms. Bowen said just to provide you with a little bit of background the medium-density in this area, and as Mr. Brandgard has stated and Mr. Haase has stated, it is an overall guide taking into account what the existing land use is and what you also want your future land use to be. We had numerous discussions with the Town Council and with the Plan Commission and then also with the steering committee. The overriding theory and theme was they wanted to limit the amount of high-density and medium-density. Therefore, we were only looking at specific targeted areas that would be compatible with one another adjacent to each other. For example, up in this area continuing out, and we are now changing this parcel here, but continuing out over here in terms of medium-density development. But really leaving the bulk of area to develop at a much lower density to be consistent with the desires of where the community wanted to go. There was a very detailed and very definite determination of how this land use was to be laid out.
Mr. Banning said I’m sure there was and I can appreciate that. I
think my concern is that the area that you have pointed to other than
probably the area out here by Saratoga, which now sounds like it is
going back to yellow, all the areas that you have pointed to are
already developed. That is my concern. So, everybody knows that. I’m
just making that a point. It doesn’t matter whether we change it or
not. Where we are saying we want that type of development it is
already developed. That’s all I’m saying. This area here is already
developed.
Mr. Haase said we are glad.
Mr. Banning said I’m not disagreeing. I just want everybody to know what is stated in here.
Mr. Haase said we are at a crossroad here and it really isn’t based as much on density of units per acre as it is our quality of construction of those units. But to better control that I really think we will see that this will work better for us to be able to control the quality of the construction. I think that is our charge from the citizens of the Town of Plainfield is to keep their Town at the level that Plainfield has been at.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, you don’t feel the text in the maps jive?
Mr. Banning said I feel like they jive. I just don’t feel like what is in the text that the ground that is being described in the text can be developed because it is already developed is what I am saying. Where we are saying we want this growth to occur it has already occurred there. That’s all I’m saying. I’m not saying to change the maps by any means. I’m just saying it has already occurred and I just want everybody to know that if we are projecting these kind of numbers for population growth, I’m not sure that is going to happen based on what is here.
Mr. Brandgard said this is nowhere near what you are going to need to handle that population.
Mr. Haase said and it may not happen.
Mr. Brandgard said the only way that it is going to happen is if the landowners decide they want to sell their property to develop it,
which to date they haven’t shown much propensity to do
Mr. Banning said one other question that I had was we have the medium to high-density and medium-density residential both say one and a half to four dwelling units. Is that correct? Are both supposed to be the same density? That just seemed kind of odd.
Ms. Bowen said I need to go back and check that.
Mr. Banning said I heard you discussing maybe one to three units and I didn’t even catch that until this evening when you were talking
about potentially changing that so you might just want to check that.
Ms. Whicker said in 1993 it shows the brown as being three to five units per acre.
Mr. Banning said so I think one of those might need adjusted or both potentially.
Ms. Bowen said I will check it out.
Mr. Banning said a couple of other things on this particular map I notice down here Heartland Crossing being rural residential. It is
already kind of developed out so that it is something different. I
didn’t know if we wanted to change that or incorporate maybe what has
actually happened out there. I know that this is in our planning
district and not really in the Town but I thought it was something that needed to be looked at.
I also had a thought about what was going to happen out here at SR39. Here again I know that is under the County’s jurisdiction but we are showing as Agricultural as a future land use. I’m not sure that is really what we want that future land use to be out there. I’m just throwing that particular thought out.
Mr. Haase said I think we just jumped out there to keep that in our scope of what is going on out there. I really don’t think we had any plans on being able to or getting out there.
Mr. McPhail said we had some industrial out there at one time.
Ms. Bowen said there was discussion with the steering committee
potentially putting industrial out there. What we did is when we
worked with the steering committee, we had translated the population
growth, commercial growth and industrial growth, we converted those
into squares consistent in size and scale with the land use map. We
gave them an exercise to talk about where were appropriate locations
for certain types of growth. This indicated the interchange out at
SR39 there was some discussion about potentially putting industrial out there. But one of the things that we had talked about was at this point and time by having this plan within the next five to 10 years really focusing on trying to infill the rest of the industrial development on the east side of the community and potentially out at the new interchange that we are proposing out at Moon Road. And again this is why we left the boundaries out. Eventually that area will have to come back and the Town will have to come back and take a look at that. As development moves out west from the Town and things get converted from a lower intensity use to a higher intensity use, then that land will need to be taken out of Agricultural and appropriately planned for at the time the Town is ready to address those issues. That is why it was included 25 years out from now.
Mr. Banning said one other thing that I want to talk about that is kind of dear and near to my heart is probably the parks. I know
everybody enjoys the park system that we have. I know when I bring
people out here and they see the trails and the parks and everything
that we have, they just can’t believe it. It seems like to me that
maybe we are being a little shortsighted on where we were looking at
some potential paths and parkland. I don’t know if that drawing is up
30 here or not. Especially potentially looking at relocating Lovell Field and what is being talked about. I know you brought up Hickory Woods and the parkland. You have 47 acres I think west of Hickory Woods.
Mr. Carlucci said I don’t think it was that big. I think it was like 10 or 20 acres.
Mr. Banning said it was a nice chunk of ground. But one of the things that I was thinking was first of all here is the rest stop on I-70. You have the new water tower here. You have the treatment plant here. That is really more municipal kind of things but you have the
confluence of a couple of creeks coming together here and a lot of area along the creek and a lot of flood land area. As the Town grows to the southwest, it just seemed like to me in looking at potentially putting Lovell Field in this area, it seemed like to me that maybe we need to be looking foresighted from a park standpoint. There is a lot of floodway ground. The only thing that it can be used for is for
farming. It’s not going to be used for housing or commercial or
whatever. I think maybe as the community grows to the southwest we
need to start looking at park ground out in that direction especially
since the Town owns a fair amount of ground out there now.
Mr. Carlucci said I may be wrong but I have walked that Maxwell
property not too long ago and the creek kind of follows up behind
Hickory Woods.
Mr. Banning said yes it does and that is kind of where I was going with that.
Mr. Carlucci said a lot of times we have been lucky and sometimes we have thought this out but it doesn’t matter because either way we
still end up with the same affect. I can see an easy connection going
along that creek and eventually up to Hadley Road. The backbone for
that is pretty clear already but it will take some other development to continue that to go north. And then part of that natural property
actually goes under I-70 under the bridge. There is a point there that goes under. Really he has a landlocked piece back there.
Mr. Banning said when you look at it when both forks of White Lick Creek come together down here, you have a huge mining operation down there.
Mr. Carlucci said and then as you start to take that mining operations out and they become residential properties, then you
continue to extend that south towards the Hendricks County/Morgan
County line. The airport is still trying to look at connecting up the
east fork of the White Lick and end up at Pioneer Park. So, it may be
within our lifetime that we will see both of those happen.
Mr. Banning said if you don’t plan for it, it won’t happen. I’m trying to throw that thought out. I have marked up the map and I will
give it to one of you to let you look at it but it is just some
thoughts that I had.
Mr. Carlucci said this is the battle that we are going to address with the new commissioners, this little park forum group that we have, is to be able to control the unincorporated areas as far as their growth so that we can control those so that we can get access to them. Because once you get houses on either side of it there is no point in going along the creeks because they fight you every step of the way.
Mr. Banning said the nice thing about where the two creeks come
together in this area here down south of where I actually live that is all floodway so there will not be houses there. So, I’m thinking once that gets mined out what happens to it? Why don’t we look long range and at least put that in the plan. That doesn’t mean it happens but it is there and available essentially. I had a few other minor things in here not worth talking about. Some of them may be typos or comments I had and I don’t even know where they would be and it is getting late and I’m sure everybody is ready to go. So, I’ve taken up more than enough time so thank you.
Mr. Haase said I appreciate your comments.
Ms. Bowen said back to the land use map. We were sitting here looking at this in terms of having another recommended change. If we are going to develop this out as yellow right here, low-density residential, we now end up with this buffer area between the yellow
here and a rural residential here and then yellow here. I would
probably recommend that we really just go down to here and make this
whole area here yellow so that way it blends all the way across. Is
that agreeable?
Mr. Haase said agreed.
Ms. Bowen said that will provide you some more areas for population. Did we need to make any changes over here? Can someone point how far over you want us to go?
Mr. Higbee asked, is it the Broyles’ property?
Mr. Haase said evidently that is probably it.
Mr. Higbee said I will find out the boundaries and get that for you if you want me to.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, do you stop there?
Mr. McPhail said I would probably a little farther north.
Ms. Bowen said I guess that would be my question too. Do you just stop there or do you want it farther?
Mr. Haase said see that bend there, I’m guessing here, but I would think that you would do something like this here to include more than just that Broyles’ property.
Mr. Brandgard said I agree.
Mr. Haase said that would take in much more than what was discussed but is probably appropriate at the same time.
Ms. Bowen said let me just throw out another thought. Either that or squaring it off. I don’t know what your plans are for this area.
Mr. Haase said that is fine too.
Ms. Bowen said actually there is a fencerow that goes right here and then again right here and links up with this road and then come across this fencerow. It is either that or I jet up here, which looks
like another fence line of that property. Again we can split it
understanding this is conceptual and where you anticipate it to be.
Mr. Haase said where Heartland Crossing is it probably ought to be made what it is.
Ms. Bowen asked, which is?
Mr. Haase said orange.
Mr. Higbee said kind of a mixed-use development.
Ms. Bowen said mixed use commercial residential.
Mr. Brandgard said yes.
Mr. Haase said that would be right here. I don’t know how big that is. Use mixed-use commercial residential.
Ms. Bowen asked, this whole area right here?
Mr. Haase said here south of SR267, southeast of SR267.
Ms. Bowen said so basically this triangle right here.
Mr. Haase said yes.
Mr. Thibo asked, what is planned for that property south of I-70, the Bottema Farm?
Mr. Haase asked, what is that little circle there?
Ms. Bowen said it is interstate commercial use.
Mr. Haase said this park area that Mr. Banning has drawn our
attention to is there anything that we want to take the felt tip and
color in on this? Do we want to do that here or would Mr. Banning, Mr. Carlucci and Mr. Higbee be better served to do it on their time?
Mr. Carlucci said we can do it.
Mr. Haase said on the parks deal let Mr. Banning, Mr. Higbee and Mr. Carlucci kind of get together and we will do that.
Ms. Bowen asked, do you want us to make those changes to this
map?
Mr. Haase said yes.
Mr. McPhail said I someday think we have the potential of having the largest body of water in Central Indiana all the way from Plainfield to Mooresville if you tie them together.
Mr. Haase said 20 years ago we shouldn’t have had a retention pond in Town. We should have dug a hole and put it in there.
Mr. Carlucci said Mr. Banning points out that Welch’s Lake is
probably the only place that you are going to see housing because as
you go farther north there is no way you can build houses in there
because it’s all in the floodway.
Mr. Haase asked, is there anyone else who would care to speak in the audience? Being no one coming forward with these changes being made on this and the future changes on the parks are we still ready to move forward with this tonight?
Mr. Higbee said it depends on what Ms. Bowen says since she is going to be making the changes. If you wanted to make a resolution, I
suppose pending the changes that have been specified tonight I think
you could do that and certify it.
Mr. Brandgard said I think with the changes that have to be made it needs to come back for our review before it goes to the Town Council. Right now this is scheduled to go to the Town Council next Monday. I don’t think it is ready for that. We have talked about so many changes I really think it needs to come back here for us to look at and approve and make sure it is correct before we move forward.
Mr. Haase said we are just talking 30 days.
Mr. Brandgard said yes.
Mr. Haase said so I have a motion to continue this until the next
Plan Commission meeting is that correct?
Mr. Brandgard said I would so move. Second by Mr. McPhail. Motion carried.
Gentleman from the audience said I think Ms. Day was great. She sat here for two hours. I’m sorry she got away before I could say this and her comments were outstanding. I think it is a struggle that people have whenever you do a plan.
Mr. Haase said as I told her, I don’t know if she heard it, she is a lady that we want on the committee to take care of that area down
there because she cares.
OLD BUSINESS/NEW BUSINESS
None.
OTHER COMMENTS
Mr. Kirchoff asked, do you have new staff?
Mr. Higbee said I have a new staff member that is one week old. Her name is Jill Sprague. She happened to be a summer intern about two years ago that dropped out of the sky when I was interviewing for that job and she is the one that I chose. I’m glad to have her.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to adjourn. Second by Mr. McPhail. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned.
_____________________________________
Mr. Mitchell P. Haase, President
