The Plainfield Plan Commission met on Thursday, September 6, 2007. In attendance were Mr. Satterfield, Mr. Matrana, Mr. McPhail, Mr. Brandgard, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Kirchoff and Ms. Whicker.
ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM
Mr. Carlucci administered the Roll Call.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
MINUTES
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 6, 2007 Plainfield Plan Commission as submitted. Second by Mr. Matrana. Motion carried.
OATH OF TESTIMONY
Mr. Carlucci administered the Oath of Testimony.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Ms. Whicker reviewed the Guidelines Governing the Conduct of Public Hearings. I believe we have a petitioner that is requesting a continuance, RZ-07-007.
Mr. James said this petition is the Town sponsored request to rezone the Elks Club from AG to the Golf District. As of today, we still have not received a signed memorandum of understanding from the Elks Club nor have we received a notarized consent. Therefore, we are requesting a continuance until the October 1st meeting.
Mr. Brandgard made a motion to continue RZ-07-007, Town of Plainfield until the October 1, 2007 Plan Commission meeting. Second by Mr. Matrana. Motion carried.
Ms. Whicker said we have an expedited petition this evening, DP-07-017, Premier Properties, USA.
Mr. James said this is a proposed 7,294 square foot retail center on Lot 4 of Plainfield Commons IV just east of Perry Road. It is zoned General Commercial. I'm not going to go over a lot of details. I did prepare slides if you would like to see them. In front of me you have the material board. All plans comply with the Gateway Corridor standards. That is why we have recommended an expedited petition. There are no waivers needed from the gateway standards; that is another reason why we recommended an expedited petition. The only issue at the DRC is we wanted to make sure the material board matched the building elevations and the colored rendering. Once I got the material board I compared them and they did match; the elevations and the colored rendering. I think what they have proposed is an attractive building and it would be a nice addition to the outlots along Perry Road and Plainfield Commons. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Steve Medders with Premier Properties at 5252 E. 82nd Street, Indianapolis, IN 46250 said as Mr. James indicated, the proposed outlot 4 is a multi-tenant building. It is approximately 7,200 square foot. We don't have the tenant lined up as of yet but hopefully this would coincide and be an attractive addition as we head southward with our expansion of PCIV. I do have my architect and civil engineer available should you have any questions.
Ms. Whicker asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this matter? Being no one coming forward I will close the public portion of this hearing and open it up for discussion from the commission members or a possible motion.
Mr. Gibbs made a motion that the Plan Commission approve DP-07-017 as filed by Premier Properties, USA requesting Architectural & Site Design Review approval for a 7,294 square foot retail center on Lot 4 of Plainfield Commons IV finding that:
1. The Development Plan complies with all applicable Development Standards of the District in which the site is located.
2. The Development Plan complies with all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Control Ordinance for which a waiver has not been granted.
3. The Development Plan complies with all applicable provisions for Architectural & Site Design Review for which a waiver has not been granted.
4. The proposed development is appropriate to the site and its surroundings.
5. The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
And that such approval be subject to the following conditions:
1. Substantial compliance with the site plan, building elevations, colored rendering, landscaping plan, trash enclosure details, sign plan, photometric plan and light fixtures file dated August 17, 2007 and building materials board submitted file dated August 23, 2007.
Second by Mr. McPhail. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Satterfield – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Gibbs – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Ms. Whicker said we have a continued petition from our last meeting on August 6, 2007 for a rezone, RZ-07-004, Debora Cheek.
Mr. James said when we heard this request at the August meeting, the petition was to rezone approximately 2.03 acres from AG to GC. At that meeting there were some concerns about the General Commercial zoning. They had proposed several land use restrictions that were eliminated from the permitted uses in the General Commercial District. However, even with these land use restrictions by a zoning commitment I think the Plan Commission still felt that the allowed uses in the General Commercial District were too intense for this area. It is at the northeast corner of Township Line Road/Perry Road and Smith Road. So, hearing that the petitioner is now requesting a down zone to the NR, Neighborhood Retail District with the zoning commitment that gas stations and fast food restaurants will not be permitted in the Neighborhood Retail District. All other uses would be allowed except for those two uses.
So, with that I will give you a brief summary of what was discussed at the August meeting. The Plan Commission thought it was still too intense because of this location and the surrounding residential and potential future residential to the west that General Commercial was just not appropriate for this corner. So, they came back and they are now down zoning to Neighborhood Retail with the two restrictions. Here is the site at the northeast corner; you have R-4 over here; some duplexes; this is General Commercial here and General Commercial over in here. This is a residential PUD. It is about 82 acres that has been bought by ADESA but when I asked them what their plans were, they said they had no immediate plans. They are using it more as a buffer for now for their operation farther to the east. This is not in Plainfield but in our Comprehensive Plan we recommend low-density residential area over here. It is in Hendricks County zoned RA, Rural Residential. The Comprehensive Plan recommends mixed-use Officer Commercial. That will be General Commercial Office District or even I-1 uses. Here is a photograph of the property.
At the August meeting we did not have a concept plan but since Ms. Cheek has gotten Schneider Engineering to do a concept plan. It shows an entrance off of Perry Road. Staff would not support this entrance off of Perry Road. Compared to the Office District is the Plan Commission comfortable with the number of type of uses allowed in a Neighborhood Retail District with the use restrictions on the gas stations and fast food restaurants? Then also I'm going to show you an alternative plan where we could re-orientate the building and make it more pedestrian friendly and create a better streetscape and have the parking in the rear and that would also reduce the light impacts for the surrounding residential areas. Then also we have added another commitment that they should commit to dedicate more right-of-way, if it is needed for the Smith Road and Perry Road intersection. This is the concept plan that they have proposed with the entrance off of Perry. We would not support this entrance right now during the zoning. Maybe there could be other alternatives; right-in/right-out or maybe they could have an entrance off of ADESA drive if it is ever extended.
Here is the alternative plan where we could re-orientate the building and create a more traditional look and bring it closer to the intersection. I just did a rough sketch. Bringing it closer to the intersection you would have an entrance right off the sidewalk, which makes it more pedestrian friendly. Hide the parking in the rear to introduce the parking lot impacts and also provide some better streetscape for the corner. This site plan would require setback variances because right now in the NR District setbacks are 30 feet from both Smith Road and Perry Road. To do this type of development would require the setback variances.
Mr. Kirchoff said you haven't changed the access off of Perry though.
Mr. James said they are still proposing that access off of Perry.
Mr. Brandgard said I appreciate the discussion on that but doesn't that come at the next level rather at the rezoning?
Mr. James said that is correct. That is the concept plan so that we could see some type of concept; what would fit on the site. But you are correct as we get closer to development we could work out the access.
Mr. Brandgard said the point I was trying to make here is the fact that we don't necessarily like the entrance, as it is shown, here doesn't have any bearing on whether to rezone it or not.
Mr. James said that is correct. So, with that the engineer is here and Ms. Cheek is here and Ms. Corbett is here and I'm sure they would be glad to answer any questions that you might have.
Mr. Brandgard said Mr. James at the same time I appreciate noting that and having started discussions early rather than wait until they spend a lot of money on the actual design of it and then come back in and have to redo it.
Ms. Lisa Corbett with TLC Real Estate Group at 4971 Oakbrook Drive, Indianapolis, IN 46254 said we were looking at ways to market this and I thought retail would give us a lot more options. I understand not wanting to have things that are opened late at night; the gas stations but barbershops, florists things like that and I thought that would help us market the property a little bit better or give her the ability to build it herself if she decides to do that. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Ms. Whicker asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this matter? Being no one coming forward I will close the public portion of this hearing and open it up for discussion or a possible motion.
Mr. Kirchoff said looking at the list it is probably appropriate to discuss the list. As I look at that corner, (inaudible). I'm just trying to envision what might or might not look appropriate on that corner. (Inaudible). Under “clothing service I guess I have trouble seeing dry cleaning and laundry establishment; self-service laundry; shoe repair shop; tailor shop; telephone exchange. And then under the “special exception uses I just question any of those under the communication/utilizes. I can't see a substation setting on that corner; a sewage treatment plant. That is going to be a nice looking corner and those are the ones that jumped out at me. (Inaudible).
Mr. Gibbs said I agree with what was shared but I would also add under “primary uses bank machines because we are trying to control those anyway at previous meetings. And then I would also add to that under “special exceptions neighborhood recycling collection point.
Mr. Brandgard said the “special exception uses they have to come in and get an exception to do that. I agree with your thoughts; that would not be appropriate but on the other hand that would be handled through the special exception. But I think under the “clothing service a dry cleaning and laundry establishment we have to make sure what we are talking about. I'm thinking of a Tuchman Cleaners or something like that and not a do-it-yourself service farther down. But I think a self-service laundry is a business that needs to be there but they are usually in areas where they are not well kept or seem to be.
Ms. Whicker said so there are particular ones under clothing service that might throw a flag or a question.
Mr. James said I didn't hear the first one that Mr. Gibbs said.
Mr. Gibbs said I noted bank machines.
Mr. Brandgard said that is a standalone where we allowed that and it really doesn't work well I don't think. That's part of a bank and another issue.
Mr. James said with a bank it would be an accessory to the bank and not a standalone.
Ms. Whicker said the items under communication/utilizes require a special exception.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail asked, what was your list again?
Mr. Kirchoff said I had dry cleaning but if it is professional, I don't have any trouble with that. I would have a concern about a self-service laundry. The other one I have a concern about is a telephone exchange. I can't see us having a telephone on that corner. Those are the only ones I have based on comments presented.
Mr. McPhail said I certainly had concerns about the special use but I also understand that has to come back anyway. I can't imagine any of those public facilities being there. Neighborhood recycling point I definitely would not want to see there but I do think this neighborhood retail commercial is relatively a new zoning district for us and I think it is probably appropriate with limitations for that site. It is a lot different than General Commercial.
Mr. Carlucci said (inaudible).
Ms. Whicker asked, would we feel comfortable adding to number one freestanding bank machines and self-service laundry?
Mr. Kirchoff said and telephone exchange.
Mr. James asked, as a restricted use?
Mr. Carlucci said yes it is not a permitted use; it would be a commitment not to use those.
Mr. McPhail said if we eliminate self-service laundry, telephone exchange and bank machines, would that cover everybody's concern?
Mr. Carlucci said and then the special exceptions would have to come before the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Mr. McPhail said yes but they have excluded the two that would be of concern.
Mr. Carlucci said you are just adding three more to the list that would not be a permitted use so maybe the petitioner could respond to those three uses being eliminated.
Ms. Whicker asked, Ms. Cheek if we did eliminate those three to the list, would that be okay?
Ms. Cheek said that would be fine.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion that the Plan Commission certify the zone map amendment request RZ-07-004 as filed by Debora Cheek requesting rezoning of approximately 2.03 acres at 2907 S. CR900E from AG, Agriculture to NR, Neighborhood Retail with a favorable recommendation subject to the following commitments being submitted on Exhibit “A forms prior to certification to the Town Council:
1. All of the uses as listed in the NR, Neighborhood Retail District shall be allowed except for gas stations, drive-thru restaurants, self-service laundries, telephone exchanges and standalone bank machines.
2. Any additional right-of-way needed for planned road improvements to both 900E and Perry Road shall be dedicated at the time of development of the subject property.
Second by Mr. Gibbs. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Satterfield – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Gibbs – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Ms. Whicker said next is DP-07-013, Dwinell's Visual Systems. I understand they have withdrawn their petition. For the record could we please go ahead and notice that the petitioner has been withdrawn. But we do have DP-07-016, A/E Technologies, Inc.
Ms. Sprague said this one is for the Andy Mohr Ford on the south side of U.S. 40. They are wanting to put an expansion on the back of the building in about this location. It is going to be 12,000 square feet, which is why it had to come before the board. If it was 10,000 square feet or less, it would not have been required to come before the board. They are planning on matching the existing building, which does not currently match the Gateway Corridor standards. So, they are asking for a waiver to match the existing building, which is split-face block and metal siding.
For the most part when they brought in their plans, everything matched. We needed to ask them for a little bit more landscaping, which they have provided. One slight thing that DRC recommended was that any shrubs that they put in be put in front of the property and the petitioner has proposed to put them on the side instead. For a building this size two loading spaces are required. Those delineated on the plans are the proper size and are located at the side and rear of the building as required. They also didn't show us where their handicap parking spaces were and they actually already have those; we just didn't know where they were. Those are fine and then what we normally ask for is a pedestrian connection but since they are not changing anything in the front they have not proposed one. As far as the lighting goes they are actually just planning on taking the lights that are currently on the building and then moving them to the end of the new expansion. They have agreed to actually put shields on those lights so that they would be full cut-off.
Then the waivers are the main issues so to speak that they are requesting that would need to be approved by you. The building materials are one and the other is for the rooftop HVAC units. They are going to put a few new ones on the addition. Those will actually be partially screened by a parapet but not fully screened in the elevation view. DRC agreed, after being shown some photographs and a little bit of a site plan, that they will be screened coming from the east by the building itself and then coming from the west by the building that is next door. Coming from the west it will be pretty well screened by this building here and then coming from the east be screened by buildings that are already on the property. The property at the rear is zoned AG and is currently vacant. Presumably if it does get developed, it is going to be more commercial and probably the back side will be commercial. So, we were very concerned about the rear side. So, that is the second waiver that they are requesting. If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them.
Mr. John Bennett at A/E Technologies at 6216 E. Washington Street, Indianapolis, IN, 46219 said I'm representing Andy Mohr Ford at 2713 E. Main Street, Plainfield, IN. The easel information represents essentially what the technical committee has presented on the projection screen. What we try to do is go ahead and show you everything that we have agreed to do and change. The comment regarding vegetation currently there is shrubbery completely along U.S. 40 so to add additional we are either taking something out to put new in or working with what he currently has. We have only been requested to add three shrubs so we would like to add it towards the northwest corner of his property and get it up towards the front per the discussions. The review committee agreed that we could plant the trees in the back because essentially there is no other place to put them up front. He has trees currently in all of his islands and he has it along U.S. 40. So, the trees were planted towards the rear and towards the retention area and we could get the shrubs up front.
With regard to the handicap parking spaces he currently has well more than he needs. We just needed to have them to our documentation.
He has plenty of room for delivery space and as you can see per the drawing, we are looking to expand behind to the south of his existing facility. You can see the addition is for additional shop service space. Currently they have cars waiting outside to be services. This will allow them to service their customers better. We have included a colored elevation of essentially what is to be done. If you have gone past Andy Mohr, there are four white and four grey. We are looking to use the same materials so that it blends and cohesive. It just blends in with his existing facility using the same materials.
As far as the mechanical equipment screening, we did some visual line evaluations and you would have to be 500 feet plus from the building to either side before a visual man height, eye level of plus or minus six feet, before you would actually see the mechanical equipment above the parapet line. So, we feel we have done our best to try to comply with most of the Gateway Corridor standards and provide integrated and blended expansion to his existing facility.
Ms. Whicker asked, do have the line of site?
Mr. Bennett said we had given them to the review committee. Off the rear we were 560 feet and off the side we were 480 some, something like that. It does seem close. It was plus or minus 500 feet in either direction but being that it is all commercial around it and is the adjoining property to the west as well as his adjoining properties to the east with his additional buildings none of the equipment will ever be seen from the Gateway Corridor. As you look at our elevations his existing roof pitch goes up to the north so that the equipment will never be seen from U.S. 40.
Mr. James said the addition will be back in here so this building would block it eastbound. The existing buildings themselves would block it westbound. The rear is going to be more to the I-2 development.
Ms. Whicker asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this matter? Being no one coming forward I will close the public portion of this hearing and open it up to discussion or a possible motion.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, why would we require them to put trees (inaudible)?
Mr. James said it is to make the required foundation landscaping. Since there is no place to put foundation landscaping around the building they have to put them somewhere or they can request a variance.
Mr. Brandgard asked, was it their choice to put them around the retention pond?
Mr. James said I think we first had them back in here but it is their choice to put them up here. We can put them anywhere along the perimeters where we think they are needed.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. James said I agree. It's not going to do much as far as landscaping or screening back here. We could put them along this perimeter right here.
Mr. Gibbs made a motion that the Plan Commission approve DP-07-016 as filed by A/E Technologies, Inc. requesting Architectural & Site Design Review approval of a 12,000 square foot addition to the existing Andy Mohr Ford facility on approximately 8.18 acres at 2713 E. Main Street within 600' of a Gateway Corridor finding that:
1. The Development Plan complies with all applicable development standards of the district in which the site is located.
2. The Development Plan complies with all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Control Ordinance for which a waiver has not been granted.
3. The Development Plan complies with all applicable provisions for Architectural & Site Design Review for which a waiver has not been granted.
4. The proposed development is appropriate to the site and its surroundings.
5. The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
And regarding a waiver to allow the secondary building material for the west, south, and east elevations of the addition to be constructed of split-face block and metal siding, the Plan Commission finds that:
1. The proposed development represents an innovative use of building materials which will enhance the use of value of area properties.
2. The proposed development is consistent with and compatible with other development located along the Gateway Corridor.
3. The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
And regarding a waiver to not require the rooftop HVAC units to be screened in the elevation view the Plan Commission finds that:
1. The proposed development represents an innovative use of site design features which will enhance the use of value of area properties.
2. The proposed development is consistent with and compatible with other development located along the Gateway corridor.
3. The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
And that such approval be subject to the following conditions:
1. Substantial compliance with the Site Plan, Building Elevations and Lighting Plan file dated August 17, 2007.
Second by Mr. McPhail. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Satterfield – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Mr. Brandgard - yes
Mr. Gibbs – yes
Mr. Kirchoff - yes
Ms. Whicker - yes
7-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
OLD BUSINESS/NEW BUSINESS
Mr. James said I gave you a summary of minor changes that have been made to the development plans through the Improvement Location Permit process. There have been four changes and the ordinance requires that I report these changes to the Plan Commission. The first change I would like to discuss is Central Park, Phase II. This is the Flaherty and Collins development west of the Metropolis. It is part of the Metropolis PUD. This is Phase II; this is along the west perimeter of their development of the existing apartments. When the PUD was passed and the final detail plan was approved back in 2004, it was for 56 carriage style apartments but they since reduced that number to 40. So, I wanted to bring this back to you and show you what they are now proposing and I compared what they are proposing to what was approved with the development plan. I wasn't here when that was done so I'm not privy to all of the negotiations that occurred when the final detailed plan was approved. When the first ILP was approved for the apartments that have been built and out there now, Gene Valanzano took care of that and I think there was some horse trading that went on during that that got them to the elevations that have been built. Joe White is here with Flaherty and Collins. I asked him to come in case you had any questions.
So, this is the site plan. It is (five) eight unit buildings. Each unit will have a garage. I believe there are to be 40 garages but they do have enough required parking. Some changes were made from the elevations that were approved with the development plan and what was actually built. Some of them were round windows that were supposed to go here and didn't go here and a little square window went in its place. The brick percentages changed a little bit. There were about four items that changed from what was approved with the development plan. I just wanted to bring this back to you tonight to see if you had any concerns. If you like what was built, that is what is out there now and that is actually what they are proposing. If that is the case, we will approve these elevations, and issue the ILP.
Ms. Whicker said this is west of the Metropolis and what are the other surrounding areas of this property?
Mr. James said it is south of Gladden. It is between Gladden and the Metropolis Parkway and it is along the west perimeter. It will be adjacent to the self-storage that Herman and Kittles is building now, if that helps you any. What they are proposing is exactly what has been built out there.
Mr. McPhail said I don't think we were aware of any minor changes to the original buildings. I don't remember going through those. They may have been approved administratively.
Mr. Satterfield said so what you are saying is they want to build what they built but what they built isn't according to the plans that they submitted.
Mr. James said yes. The director can approve minor changes with the ILP process but I have to report these changes to the Plan Commission.
Mr. Brandgard said I think from my view what they have built out there is a pretty good product but we need to know what those changes are somewhere.
Mr. James said they had some dormers on the roof, on this roof, the rear elevation, on the garage doors. The garage doors were to be raised panel garage doors.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, what are they proposing?
Mr. James said flat garage doors.
Mr. Carlucci said again this is what they have done to the original.
Mr. James said yes. This is what was approved through the ILP process and what was built.
Mr. Carlucci said I think it is pretty nice and an attractive development.
Mr. Brandgard said it doesn't seem to suffer from the lack of sales.
Mr. James said negotiations may have been they increased the landscaping or added brick to a certain elevation on one of the other buildings but I didn't know the history behind it.
Mr. Carlucci said they could have built 56 and they are building 40 and a lot of times that is a plus.
Mr. James said we are getting a nice yard in the rear; I think it is over an acre.
Mr. McPhail asked, do we need a motion on this?
Mr. Carlucci said consent I think because what he is asking is do you agree with what he is doing in allowing them to do this with his authority as Planning Director.
Mr. James said correct.
Ms. Whicker asked, is there consent? Consent given.
Mr. James said the next item concerns Andy Mohr Chevrolet. They added more parking behind the Plainfield Village and this was done through the ILP process. The director can approve parking through the ILP process and it doesn't have to come through the Plan Commission as a development plan. This is Plainfield Village and here is the new parking area back behind Plainfield Village. It is completed. They have about every parking space occupied back here with a new vehicle. Before we could issue the certificate of zoning compliance we had to check to see if they have all of the required landscaping. They didn't so we contacted Chip Walker with Andy Mohr Ford and they also had some landscaping on the Chevrolet Dealership that they never completed either so we had these two issues. We met with Mr. Walker. Because of the extreme weather we have had this summer he has asked if they could defer landscaping along this north perimeter back here. There is nothing back there; it is just a field with tall grass, which we have asked ADESA mow. I haven't been back out there to see if they have mowed it yet but they had to do a Level 1 because at some point and time this ADESA drive could be extended and this would create road frontage. So, they have asked if they could defer this required perimeter landscaping along this north perimeter until such time the road is built. They have in the letter stated that they will go ahead and do the rest of the landscaping required for this parking lot and what is required for the Chevrolet Dealership to make it become in compliance. I think we gave them a date of the end of October to get it in.
Mr. Carlucci said (inaudible).
Mr. Brandgard said I tend to think this is a reasonable request but if the onus is on us to keep track of this, what I would suggest is having a tickler file out there that makes us look at this every year. That way we don't lose track and sight of it.
Ms. Whicker said what about with the file that goes with ADESA Road as they go forward and triggers this?
Mr. McGillem said there could be an intervening parcel between the future extension of ADESA Road and the perimeter of this. Whatever happens to ADESA Road will depend on what happens with the development in it. It could very easily be what is referred to as the ADESA Road could veer to the north prior to it ever getting to this location and end up with an inter-leading parcel between the future road and the current north property line of what we are talking about right now.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Ms. Whicker asked, does this require consent?
Mr. James said we could do it in the form of a recorded commitment.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. Brandgard said even if it is a recorded commitment, we need something to remember it.
Ms. Whicker asked, is there consent? Consent given.
Mr. James said the other two changes with an ILP include Tyco at 2800 Airwest Boulevard, which added 95 parking spaces. They also added the required landscaping and the pole light fixtures that comply with the gateway standards. And DFS Diversified is what is known as Airwest XI building 2375 Reeves Road. I brought this to you earlier this year where they wanted to add some canopies to the rear. We approved that with an ILP and then they also wanted to eliminate two parking lot islands so that it would create a staging area for the trucks. So, we moved the two trees required for the parking islands to the northeast corner of the building. So, those were some minor changes that were done.
ZONING COMPLIANCE ISSUES
Our last item is our zoning compliance and zoning violations. Our first one is Cook's Towing. They have continued to hang up signs for the advertising to purchase junk cars. I don't know if there is anyone here representing Cook's Towing. It looks like we don't have a representative here this evening.
Mr. Brandgard asked, where is that located?
Mr. James said to be honest with you I'm not sure; I should have checked with Emily.
Mr. Kirchoff said it is 1439 S. Holt Road.
Ms. Whicker asked, after the letter was sent have the signs been coming down at all?
Mr. James said we sent a letter and they continue to hang up the sign. I guess our next step would be sending them a citation letter.
Mr. Satterfield said if that is next, go ahead and do it.
Mr. James said our net item is at 562 South Center Street with junk, trash and debris on the property. The property owner is Bruce Justice.
Mr. Bruce Justice at 562 South Center Street, Plainfield said I have received a couple of letters this year from the Town. One was about some debris early in the year and I took care of that and talked with Emily. The second thing is I had a garage sale and it rained me out. My mother fell in the creek in Kentucky and I went to Kentucky and I kept everything under the tent and came back and had another garage sale and it stretched over a period of time because of disasters in the family and torrential rains during that time. She sent me a letter and I corresponded with her and got everything cleaned before the time. That was the last that I had heard of anything and then I got this letter; I don't know.
Ms. Whicker asked, Mr. James when was the last time the property was observed or looked at?
Mr. James said I'm not sure.
Ms. Whicker asked, is this the property adjacent to Friendship Gardens?
Mr. Justice said yes.
Mr. McPhail said I haven't driven by lately but I certainly remember a time when it was very offensive to drive by to see everything that was there. It seems to me it is an annual thing that happens.
Mr. Justice said I have been out of Town for the last two years. I was working with Crider and Crider in 2004. I left Town and was in Florida for the past two years. I got laid off this year and had a garage sale. I know before 2004 I did have a couple of garage sales and I usually have a big one. I won't have anymore.
Mr. James said the ordinance only allows two per year.
Mr. Carlucci said the last time I think you were here at a Town Council meeting and you were having multiple garage sales.
Mr. Justice said I responded to that and I have talked to you on the phone and told you what I was doing.
Mr. Carlucci said they were not only more than three days in length but there were more than the two that are allowed per year.
Mr. Justice said that was a misunderstanding.
Ms. Whicker said I go by there everyday and do my job and I have noticed that you have been removing items that were in there previously.
Mr. Justice said yes I got rid of all the stuff that was in the yard. I have a big mulberry limb that I just cut down that I have to get rid of right now. It was coming down on top of a vehicle but I'm trying to clean everything up. Probably in the next couple of weeks I will get rid of a couple of vehicles. I have more vehicles than most people.
Mr. James asked, are they all licensed?
Mr. Justice said I have one that I didn't get a license on.
Mr. James said the ordinance prohibits unlicensed vehicles.
Mr. Justice said I will take care of that immediately then.
Mr. Whicker asked, when does the Town have their next collection for items?
Mr. Kirchoff said we have one in April and one in October for large items.
Mr. Whicker said we have two Saturdays where you can bring things that need disposed of. It does waive the fee whereas if you were to take it to the County, you would have to pay that but it is in October so it is nice that they do have that service available if you would need to dispose of something.
Mr. Justice said I can haul some stuff out to Ray's if I have any metal. I have somebody that lives way out in the country that I can take wooden stuff to so that is not a big issue. I just got that limb cut down Tuesday evening so I haven't had time to take that off yet.
Ms. Whicker said we appreciate your efforts.
Mr. Justice said I appreciate Friendship Gardens. I'm just trying to get caught up.
Ms. Whicker said thank you for coming in this evening with understanding that there are two garage sales a year.
Mr. Brandgard asked, do we want a time to have it cleaned up?
Mr. Justice asked, and what are we referring to?
Mr. Brandgard said I notice here they sent a letter on the 27th of June I believe relating to junk, trash and debris.
Ms. Whicker said that is when you were out of Town, is that correct?
Mr. Justice said yes that is when that was happening and I corresponded with Emily and she said everything was okay on that Friday before it was supposed to be done. As far as that letter, I don't know if there is anything.
Mr. McPhail said it seems to me that it might be appropriate because of the fact that we have had repeat violations here that the next violation that occurs on this property we will invoke the fining processing and quit sending letters. If it is cleaned up now, we need to keep it cleaned up. History repeating itself is the problem that I have.
Mr. Justice said so if a limb comes down…………
Mr. James said that is a natural disaster but the unlicensed vehicle and the items that you are selling for yard sales, Emily said there are a lot of ladders in the back yard.
Mr. Justice said I took those to storage.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible). I have citizens approach me about your property. They are concerned that we are not doing something to improve it. That's what we are saying; it is not just us. I have a lot of people say why isn't the Town doing something with that property owner? When citizens approach me about it, I feel I need to react.
Mr. Justice said I live next to the park so I understand. I have been told that by Emily and other people that is the people that we deal with.
Mr. Kirchoff said you are in a great location for that. My point is I feel we need to keep the pressure on (inaudible). I have people say why isn't the Town doing something to make that property look better?
Mr. Satterfield asked, is the property clean now?
Ms. Whicker said we haven't had an observation since June noted in our file.
Mr. James said we have. There are still items ………
Mr. Satterfield said my suggestion is it needs to be cleaned up with these trash days.
Mr. Kirchoff said I would say by November 1st. That way he would have two Saturdays and if not, we will start the fining process.
Mr. Carlucci said I will make sure you know those two dates for those Saturdays.
Mr. Justice said I don't have any problem getting rid of anything.
Mr. Carlucci said it is just down at the Town garage.
Ms. Whicker said thank you for coming.
Mr. James said our next issue is Hairsay. They are still using a banner instead of a permanent sign. This is at the retail center up on the hill at Vestal and Main Street.
Mr. McPhail said they promised it would be sold and redeveloped by now.
Ms. Whicker said July 1st was their deadline; it was going to be sold.
Mr. Brandgard said they said either the signs would be down or sold.
Mr. McPhail said I think we ought to fine him.
Mr. James said our next item is ReMax; a failure to complete Certificate of Zoning Compliance issues. It was landscaping. Anthony Marsiglio was here before the meeting started tonight and we discussed the situation. He said he would have the landscaping in by the end of October.
Our last item is Roland's Golden Memories for a failure to complete Certificate of Zoning Compliance issues. I'm not sure what those issues are.
Mr. Robert Fecker said I'm the owner of Pace Air Freight at 6936 E. CR200N, Avon, Indiana. We had some issues with banners and we have taken the banners down and we put metal signs up and have taken those down and we put the signs inside the windows. But we blocked too much of the windows so I have gotten with the Plainfield Sign Company and we are going to be doing all of our signs being made by him so we will make sure we stay compliant from now on.
Ms. Whicker said thank you for coming in.
Ms. Whicker asked, so no one is here from Roland's Golden Memories?
Mr. James said no so that concludes our old business/new business items for tonight.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Brandgard made a motion to adjourn. Second by Mr. Gibbs. Motion carried.
