The Plainfield Plan Commission met on Monday, November 5, 2007. In attendance were Mr. Matrana, Mr. McPhail, Mr. Kirchoff, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Brandgard and Ms. Whicker.
ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM
Ms. Sprague administered the roll call.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
OATH OF TESTIMONY
Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Testimony.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Ms. Whicker reviewed the Guidelines Governing the Conduct of Public Hearings.
Mr. James said our first case tonight is PUD-07-002. This is a request to rezone approximately 62.2 acres from the AG, Agriculture District and GC, General Commercial District to the Quaker Ridge PUD. There are also other requests that go along with this request. These will require four separate actions by the Plan Commission. As I just mentioned, the first one is to create the Quaker Ridge PUD for 404 dwelling units. The other requests are to primary plat 29.06 acres for 308 apartment units, primary plat 33.11 acres to create 34 multi-family lots for 96 dwelling units and then the fourth and final request is to primary plat 27.47 acres into 16 incremental commercial lots along SR267.
Here is the property, 62.2 acres. The north end of the property abuts Providence Estates, which is zoned R-2. Then this property over here is the new Plainfield High School campus zoned “S, School District. There is some floodplain on this property from three creeks that converse throughout the property. Then the properties on SR267 are currently zoned General Commercial and they will remain the General Commercial zoning and they are proposing to plat those into an increment commercial subdivision. They are proposing to split the PUD into two areas. Area “A is the property north of Reeves Road. They are proposing 96 patio condominium units in the area south of Reeves Road. That area is proposed as a 308 apartment complex. As I mentioned, the surrounding properties and compatibility Area “A is adjacent to Providence Estates zoned R-2 with a density of 1.5 units per acre. And then you have the high school campus to the west across the creeks.
The development standards, as a PUD, they are writing their own standards but to insure that we get proper standards we are comparing the standards that they are proposing to the R-5 area for Area “A, which R-5 allows duplexes and then Area “B we are comparing that to the R-6 District with development incentives. Because the apartments would have a density of over eight units per acre that is why we are comparing it to the R-6 with development incentives.
Architectural standards, Area “A for the multi-family patio homes complies with the basic standards of our residential design guidelines except for the garage size and the minimum floor area. In Area “B if that were zoned R-6 and they were using the development incentives, it would comply with 14 of the 16 development incentives. The Comprehensive Plan recommends Regional Commercial for this area and the developer is proposing to dedicate 17.2 for park use and then they are proposing to build a path adjacent to the creek on the east side of the creek.
Here is the Comprehensive Plan. Here is the area. The plan recommends Regional Commercial for the area. Here is a concept plan of what they are proposing. Area “A, the patio homes and the condo units, 34 lots, 96 units and then Area “B south of Reeves Road would be the apartment complex, 308 units. Here is the creek and the floodplain. We also have some floodplain in here and then some floodplain south of the proposed apartments. Here is SR267. This is already zoned General Commercial and will remain General Commercial and here is where they are proposing the primary plat for an incremental commercial subdivision.
Now I'm going over the development standards a little bit. Area “A the minimum lot size is 15,200 square feet; minimum lot width is about 117 feet and these are averages. The floor area they are proposing is at the minimum of 1,400 square feet with a 30 foot front setback and a 12 foot building separation and a rear setback of 20 feet. Area “B the front setback would be 30 feet and the building separation of 20 feet and the rear setback of 30 feet and the height would be a maximum of 50 feet. The buildings are proposed at three stories.
Now I'm going to go over the architectural standards a little bit. In Area “A first floor would be 90% brick. The secondary material would be hardi plank. There would be no vinyl siding. The medium roof pitch of 6/12 with 12 inch overhangs and the minimum floor area of 1,400 square feet. They would have a half story loft with a basement option and the minimum garage size at 423 square feet. Additional architectural features include window cornices, gable accents, shutters, facade modulation and garage door windows. For Area “B they are proposing the first floor at 95% brick. The upper floors would have a minimum of 40%; that is the second and third floor. They would have multiple materials, textures and color. Architectural features would be soldier's course, window cornices, shutters, facade modulation and all units would have laundry connections and all units would have private patios or balconies. The apartments would have some accessory structures. They are proposing a clubhouse, the front elevation would be 100% brick and the facades would be 64% brick, the rear would be 50% brick. It also has multiple materials, color and facade modulation. These are some renderings of the patio homes for Area “A. This is a rendering for the apartment buildings. They are proposing two types of apartment buildings; type one and type two. I think one is slightly larger than the other one. This is the photograph of the design; this is the same design and color schematic in Ohio. Here are some more development standards. The garage for the apartment buildings would have 42% brick wrap and it would also have multiple colors, textures and facade modulation and they are also proposing a mailbox kiosk that would have 35% brick with multiple colors and fiberglass shingles.
I will go over the landscaping standards. Area “A between Providence Estates and the north property line for this development for Area “A they are proposing a Level 3 perimeter landscaping. This would be six trees per 100 feet. They are also proposing for Southfield Drive that it will be extended from Stanley Road down to Reeves and then down to the apartment complex and provide access to the apartments. Through Area “A, even though it would have to be built to collector standards, they would do it as a boulevard with a median in the middle to give it more of a residential feel and also as a traffic calming device and they would do an understory tree every 60 feet in the boulevard median. Landscaping for the units would be three per unit with foundation landscaping. Area “B along Reeves Road and Southfield Drive they would do a Level 4 foundation and then a Level 4 perimeter landscaping and the foundation landscaping for each building will be at a Level 1.5. Parking lot trees have been doubled and then they have extra trees around the retention pond. Open space; Area “A since there is a floodplain on this property that is calculated at 1/20th of an acre. Our residential design guidelines recommend 4.8 acres required and they are dedicating 6.8 acres for parkland but 4.3 acres they are in the floodway so they are 2.5 acres short and Area “B, because it is in the floodplain, we recommended that they dedicate 15.4 acres. They are dedicating 10.4 but 6.5 of the acres is in the floodplain so they are 8.9 acres short.
These are elevations for the clubhouse and this is for the garage. This garage has been modified so now there is a two foot modulation for every 40 feet in length. These are discrepancies with our standards, the Town of Plainfield zoning standards, the R-5 and R-6 standards and the residential design guidelines. For Area “A a minimum garage size is at 423. Our design guidelines recommend 484 square feet. The minimum living area is at 1,400 square feet where the design guidelines recommend 1,700 square feet. Area “B the upper floor brick is at 40% where our incentives recommend 60% and then the clubhouse and garage is less than 85% brick combined and then only 23.7 of the units have garages where the development incentives recommended 40% of the units have garages.
Open space since much of the property is in the floodplain they are short 11.4 acres of open space.
I'll discuss the transportation a little bit. As I said, Southfield Drive would be extended from Stanley Road as a collector as recommended in the transportation plan. Lots in Area “A will have to access the Southfield Drive. The traffic impact analysis has been submitted and it recommends turn lanes for all approaches at the Southfield Drive/Reeves Road intersection. A traffic signal is planned for the Reeves Road/SR267 intersection. The apartments will have two emergency entrances as required by the subdivision control code. School impacts; Area “A they are projecting that it would generate 0.15 child per unit. This would be 17 school age children and Area “B is at 0.40 per unit for an estimated 123 school age children. So, the total impact would be 148 school age children.
Primary plats; the plats comply with the standards as set forth in the PUD Ordinance and the General Commercial District and adequate provisions have been made for public ways, access utilities and drainage.
Staff Comments; standards were written for a PUD but compared to the Town standards as a transitional area is this site appropriate? A commercial development must comply with the Gateway Corridor standards. That is why no architectural standards were written in the PUD for the commercial element. For Area “B the Central Park Apartments were used as a baseline with design improvements. The R-6 zoning allows a maximum of eight units per acre. The R-6 with the incentives allows a maximum of 12 units per acre. This PUD would allow a gross density of 14.4 units per acre. This is the primary plat for Area “A with 34 lots. This is the primary plat for the apartments and the primary plat for the General Commercial portion with the incremental lots. This is north of Reeves Road and south of Reeves Road; these are the commercial lots that are already zoned General Commercial.
So, some key elements to consider is the plan compatible with surrounding development? What is the gross density? When I wrote the Staff Reports, I did not have the floodway acres so our Zoning Ordinance describes gross density as the total acreage less the floodway acres, right-of-way acres and acres required for drainage control or retention ponds. So, after I got the floodway acres, I recalculated the gross density. Area “A with 4.3 acres in the floodway gets a gross density of 3.5. Area “B with 6.5 acres in the floodway we get a gross density of 14.4 units per acre and then total gross density would be 8.3 units per acre. If density is reduced, we could get the appropriate open space acreage and how will the development impact school traffic?
Here are some photographs. This is from SR267 looking back to the north. It is heavily tree lined along the creek, which would provide more screening and a buffer from the high school. This is looking from the high school looking north of Reeves Road. This is looking from the high school looking south of Reeves Road. So, with that Mr. Brian Tuohy is here representing the petitioner.
Mr. Brian Tuohy said I'm an attorney in Indianapolis and my address is 50 S. Meridian. First off thank you for hearing our presentation tonight. Here with me tonight is Don Stafford, the developer of this site, Jeff Banning of Banning Engineering, Steve Daum whose family owns this property, Joe White from Flaherty and Collins, Austin Carmony from Flaherty and Collins and Jim Crossin from Flaherty and Collins. As usual or as expected Mr. James did an excellent job of laying this out and with your permission I will try not to repeat what he said but maybe just elaborate slightly on a couple of items.
As Mr. James said, this site is 62 acres and it is sort of an unusual site. In fact, there are probably not another one in the community that I'm aware of in that it is a site that is bordered by a very large institutionally zoned tract of land and by a State highway on this side and then it is now zoned or contemplated to be used as General Commercial or Regional Commercial. This is a drawing showing how Reeves Road cuts through the center of the site so that is another sort of unique characteristic to the site is that this 62 acres here is really bounded by three creeks, Rogers Creek and George Creek is up here. And we have our State highway out here and we have the school back here and, of course, Quaker Ridge is the name of our PUD and up here is Providence Estates and the condominiums to the west of it. I will talk about those folks in a minute. This is really a better illustration, which I think sort of shows the uniqueness of the site. So, we have our State highway running along here and then we have what I would call an infield piece of real estate, 62 acres that is sandwiched between the new high school and Providence Estates and the Passage over here. Then all of this ground right in here is zoned Commercial and all of the ground south of Reeves Road is zoned Commercial and I believe your Comprehensive Plan calls for all of this land, even though the part that is zoned AG up here, to be what is called Regional Commercial. So, the Comprehensive Plan I believe contemplates that next to your high school there would be a significant 62 acres of commercial development, which then would run up north on the east side of Southfield Drive and would be extended up this way. So, for this site the developer proposes instead of having Regional Commercial laid in here next to the high school, they propose two types of residences; one multi-family high end that is expensive rent apartments and single-family up to triplexes for what I think we are all calling active adults now. I think all in this room fit into that definition and those would be condominiums but possibly platted homes. They have set it up as condominiums now but it is 96 individual home sites and 304 apartment units. Tonight what I think we would respectfully ask is that you consider what a PUD does and that you don't have now is that it gives you some certainty as to how that 62 acres right up against the high school and against Providence Estates will be developed. If this approved, the board would understand, because I'm going to talk about some commitments here in a minute, that the development would look like that at that location.
This is maybe a better exhibit. This is sort of looking from the southeast, which is down here looking northwest. Here is the high school property along here and here is that creek that sort of separates the high school from this 62 acres and here is, of course, SR267 and here is Providence Estates and the Passage. So, between the high school and this development there would be about 17 acres of parkland that Mr. James mentioned. In that parkland would be, of course, a detention pond and some detention area up here but in addition to that parkland on the east side of that creek, so in this park area, the developer would install an eight foot wide path that would connect up with the Plainfield pathway system and run the entire length of the development. That ground in that area, that 17 acres, would be dedicated to the Town of Plainfield at no cost to the Town of Plainfield. I recognize some of that is floodway; there is no question about that, and that does affect the density calculations but I would also respectfully ask the board to recognize that should it be developed as a commercial development, i.e., Wal-Mart or other kinds of large retail stores, that park area would not necessarily have to be dedicated to the Town.
Let's talk a minute about this exhibit, which is similar to what Mr. James put on the board, shows that there is existing commercial ground of about 27 acres right up against SR267 on either side of Reeves Road. So, we can sort of remember what we have on either side. This is to the north; here is Providence Estates along here and the Passage over here. This ground right here though on Southfield Road extended would be commercially zoned ground also. Of course, on the other side of SR267 is all commercial zoned ground. There has been some discussion about traffic and density. What I would again respectfully ask the commission to consider is that against this terrific new high school development is it a better zoning idea to step from that into a residential type use right up against your high school and the traffic that you know would be generated by a limited number of residents? Mr. James correctly outlined that there would be 96 residents over here and 308 residents over here. So, that you would know that the traffic that would be generated from that development would be limited to those 404 residential units as opposed to the almost 62 acres of additional commercial type use, which could come in under the comprehensive plan if it is followed, and certainly 30 acres of existing commercial zoned real estate.
There are some folks here from Providence Estates and they hired a fine lawyer named Greg Black and he has asked us to consider some additional commitments that are not in our Planned Unit Development Ordinance. After conferring with my client I put this on the record this evening that he has agreed to do that. Here's Providence Estates along here and the additional commitments include that all of the homes in the Area “A, which is the Quaker Ridge villas would be a minimum of 1,500 square feet. Mr. James correctly said that the development standards are 1,400 square feet. We met with the residents of Providence Estates the other evening. We sent out letters and they came to Jeff Banning's office and we had a good discussion about this development. They had originally asked that we consider 1,400 square foot homes and this evening they have asked us to consider 1,500 square foot homes as a minimum and my clients have agreed to that. So, that means that the homes in that area would be roughly between 1,500 square feet and 2,000 square feet that would be constructed in that area. They have also asked us to consider that we would have none of these homes along this line here closer than 60 feet to the property line of Providence Estates. So, that means the rear setbacks of these homes from the property line of Providence Estates to the rear of these homes they have asked that to be 60 feet. Under the ordinance that is in front of you it says 40 feet and my clients have agreed to extend that another 20 feet. For the record tonight we would extend that to 60 feet.
Lastly, they asked us to consider putting a mound that would separate Providence Estates from these homes that would be constructed here and originally they asked us to consider that the mound would run from the creek, that would be George's Creek, to Clarks Creek here; from creek to creek. They asked for an eight foot mound. I believe we have settled that my client would put in a six foot mound in that 60 foot setback area along the border here of Providence Estates. But that we would run that mound up to this area here, which would be Southfield Drive because on this side of Southfield Drive is commercial development or will be commercial development because it is commercially zoned. So, on the border where Providence Estates is we would run that mound from Southfield Drive south and wrap it around to the southwest end of that detention pond. So, that would separate Providence Estates from this development. I would like to make those commitments as part of the public case this evening.
This drawing does show the park area that would be dedicated to the Town of Plainfield and, of course, it shows a path that would be put in along here, an eight wide foot path to extend up to here and across the street and run through this development also.
We do not have a builder yet for these homes so these are illustrations of the types of homes that could be built. They would like to have the flexibility to build one single-family home, paired homes and triplexes. They expect their market for these homes are folks that are empty nesters or active adults and probably do not have a lot of children, that is children living at their homes. These homes would have no vinyl and they would be all brick or a masonry type siding. With the size ranges from 1,500 square feet to 2,000 square feet I think you could do the math and say $150.00 a square foot or somewhere between $150.00-$200.00 a square foot that would give you an idea of about what those homes should cost plus you would have to add in the cost of the lot.
These are just different edifications of that with the different colors of the siding on there and these are called the villas at Quaker Ridge. There is the single-family that would be a paired home and there would be a two-story villa home up there in the right side. Again, I don't want to represent that these homes are exactly what would be built there but I can represent that they would be 1,500 square feet. At a minimum they would have no vinyl and they would be at most a triplex and they would have the lot standards that Mr. James very accurately set out in their development. Again, it gives the Plan Commission some certainty as to what would be built in that area even though at this time tonight we don't have a builder. That is not to be unexpected given the difficulties in the housing market in our community now. This exhibit I have to say has changed a little bit. We have agreed and will continue to agree to plant six new trees per every 100 feet along this border. This is going north here, this is Southfield Drive extended up to where Providence Estates would be over here. This is that north border, which I spoke of a minute ago, which would have those commitments of the six foot mound, the 60 foot setback from the property line and we would continue to agree as it is set out in the ordinance that is before you to plant up to six trees every 100 feet and preserve the existing tree line along that area, which is, in some areas, is rather significant.
This is an exhibit that shows the apartment landscaping and I think Mr. James has acknowledged that the landscaping exceeds the development incentives set forth in the guidelines. This exhibit shows that Southfield Drive is here coming off of Reeves Road. Here is that roundabout that he spoke of and out here on this point, this peninsula, would be the clubhouse, which would be about a 3,500 square foot clubhouse very similar to the one at Central Park. I can represent it to you if you haven't seen it. It is a high end clubhouse. It has a full fitness center in it. It has an outdoor fire pit. It has a cyber café with wi-fi access. It has a conference room. It has a mini theater in it. It has a terrific “L shape pool with a large patio area and then there will be benches around the pond out in this area here for folks to enjoy that area. The quality that they would propose to build here would match or exceed that of Central Park. This is a close-up of that entrance off of Southfield Drive coming into this area and this is the roundabout that we spoke of. There would be a trash collection area here that is heavily screened and a compactor and then over here would be a mailbox kiosk for the residents.
This is the typical planning that Mr. James described around the perimeter of the apartment building and it lists the different types of trees and shrubbery that would be included in that and it is in the ordinance. Again, you have some certainty as to exactly what would be built in that area in the PUD Ordinance. These are the apartments that they propose to build. Mr. James had a photograph, which I thought was even better than the renderings. As you can see, there are three different colors of brick. There are three different colors of sidings. That was from the Design Review Committee's recommendation. I believe the Design Review Committee recommended approval subject to several commitments, which as Mr. James accurately set out, we have agreed to in the architectural design of the buildings.
Here is a black and white rendering of the same building. This is building two. The only difference, as Mr. James said, there is a slight difference in size. On the end of building one there are balconies on the end. On this one the balcony is on the side. All of the units do have either a balcony or a patio to them.
Here's a rendering of the clubhouse, which I spoke of. It is about 3,000 to 3,500 square feet. It is a brick and masonry building and it would be the focal point as you come into the Quaker Ridge Apartments off that roundabout.
There are 73 garages throughout the development. Most of them are in the buildings, however, there is a maintenance building where there are four additional garages I believe and that is what that drawing depicts there.
That is the mailbox kiosk, which I mentioned at the start of the development.
This is the signage. We have submitted what our signs would look like throughout the community. Again, all of that would be subject to the Planning Department's approval but we had elevations drawn of those. The street signage and the street lighting would match that of the high school to the west. This is typical incidental signage, which we have throughout the community. Thank you for allowing me extra time, I appreciate that.
We have 62 acres laying here between the high school and SR267 and the commercial corridor along SR267. We would propose that with this PUD Ordinance that you would know that there would be no more than 404 residential dwelling units in that area and that you would take an area that is zoned and comprehensively planned for Regional Commercial that would lay against Providence Estates and take that and turn that into residential dwellings. It seems sort of to me like a textbook zoning/planning strategy. You would have highway out here, you would have highway/commercial uses, you would have more dense than traditional single-family use residential laying up against a creek and park area, and then you would have a large institutional use and then your traditional single-family to the west of that. I think most folks would say that Central Park is the standard for high end apartments in Plainfield. We believe that they command the highest rental rates in Plainfield and the rental rates for these apartments, which by the way, would range in size from about 760 square feet to about 1,350 square feet and we believe those rental rates would range from the low end $800.00 a month and at the high end to about $1,500.00 a month. The experience in Central Park has not been born out in as many children as Mr. James showed on the school impact analysis. In fact, the experience in Central Park has been considerably less than that. We believe that there will not be as many students as indicated in Mr. James' report. On Central Park I believe there were 264 units constructed when this was calculated and there were 15 students from that area. So, I think that is about 5-6% if I'm doing that math right. If that would bear out with this development, if you had 10% of 304 apartments, you would have 30 students. If you would half of that, you would have about 15 students. The development will generate significant real estate taxes. There will be about thirty million dollars in the apartments alone. The Quaker Ridge single-family if you have 94 homes in the range of $200,000.00 plus or minus, I'm sure you know better than I do what $200,000.00 homes in the Plainfield area have for taxes. Even spread the range out and go from $150,000.00 to $250,000.00 and multiple that times 94 and that would give you the tax impact. I think it is safe to say that with that type of product that is very expensive rental apartments and active adult type of community that you would generate significantly more tax dollars than you would generate cost from students in that area.
The development team that Mr. Stafford has assembled has had great success in Plainfield at Central Park. It filled up quickly and the rents have increased as they have filled up. The Daum family and Mr. Stafford have partnered together to come before you with a plan that gives the board and the Town certainty as to the 62 acres, which arguably the closest attractive ground to the school in how it will be developed. You would have control over that by virtue of the Planned Unit Development Ordinance and for those reasons we would respectfully ask that you give favorable consideration to the rezoning and to the approval of the design plan. I would turn over any questions about the platting to Mr. Banning because that is an engineering function and he knows that so much better than I do. Again, thank you for your time.
Ms. Whicker said this is a public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience would care to speak on this matter?
Mr. Greg Black, attorney said I'm here on behalf of Providence Estates. I want to thank Mr. Tuohy for his articulation of the agreement that we have. Providence Estates, of course, is here because we are interested in preserving the nature and the value of the homes that you approved for us several years ago for a high end subdivision. We have about 15-20 members here and tonight I represent the homeowners association. Our concerns, as Mr. Tuohy addressed so accurately, are that we have quiet and privacy and space preserved by Quaker Ridge. One of the goals that Mr. James announced, of course, quite correctly was does the new proposed subdivision, Area “A particularly, which is just south of the boundary between us and them, how does it tie into the surrounding community, us being the surrounding community. There are four areas we are concerned with and I know it is somewhat redundant but the 60 foot rear setback, the 1,500 square foot minimum and the six feet high mounding system are important to us. Also, the mounding system preserves the trees that shield us naturally from the area and we want the mounding system built 10 feet south of the property line so the trees are preserved. Mr. Banning, Mr. Tuohy and I have discussed that and we know they are on board. I want to thank you all for hearing us tonight and thank Mr. Stafford and his group and Mr. Tuohy and Mr. Banning for agreeing to these four very vital principals. My address is 1647 E. Main Street, Plainfield, Indiana. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Ms. Whicker asked, is there anyone else who would care to speak regarding this petition?
Mr. Reardon at 1250 Providence Pass said I was very pleased to hear the recommendations that were put forth tonight. I just wanted to insure that the quality for green space is well respected and that we look at the number of trees per hundred. If possible, I would like to get that increased just a little bit or at least if they die, that someone come back and maintain them and take care of that. Other than that with the specials that were put forth tonight my wife and I are pleased with it.
Ms. Whicker said with no one else coming forward the commission will now hear any concerns, questions or opposition to the petition. All questions will be held until all persons with questions are completed.
Mr. Durkos at 1184 Creekside Lane said I like the looks of the Quaker Ridge villas and what is proposed here. It looks pretty good. I live across the road from Providence Estates and I would like to think that I'm partially responsible for them even being here because when they wanted to put the apartments in four or five years ago, we opposed it and we got some very nice homes in there now. You have a letter here that I wrote. I have changed it somewhat from the text. I misunderstood some of the things that were happening over there so I have changed it somewhat. It says, “To the Town of Plainfield Planning Commission and Town board. I am writing this letter to oppose and to urge you to oppose the proposed apartments near the new Plainfield High School. I don't think apartments are the type of dwellings that we want near a one hundred million dollar school. Also, millions of dollars were spent to have a beautiful entryway into our Town in the form of the new Highway 267. I don't think apartments would enhance that goal of a beautiful entryway. Apartments attract transient residents. These are people who can move in and out at any time. I'm sure you have all read about the Phoenix Apartments in Indianapolis in the last month. In 1966 I lived there. These were then known as the Meadows Apartments. It was a beautiful place to live. You had no fear. I believe you could leave your keys in your car, not a problem. Today you can't go through there; that was 1966. It has been that way for the last 20 years. It didn't take long for them to deteriorate. Apartment owners buy and sell their properties whenever they think they can make a profit or take advantage of a tax situation. What guarantees do we have that these apartments won't be sold many times over the next 30 years? I don't think we have any guarantees. On the back page I submitted an article to you from last week's Indianapolis Star where a construction crew was building apartments in Indianapolis and they got caught on their break going to one of the person's apartments and smoking dope. What is to stop our students from going to a student's apartment over there to do drugs during lunch? There is nothing to stop them. This will be a constant headache for our school administrators and our police. Our teachers have a hard enough time educating our children; they do not need another outside distraction. Do we want this type of atmosphere and opportunity near our school for our kids and grandchildren? I sincerely hope not. Another reason I oppose this proposal is apartments do not pay their fair share of taxes to support the schools and Town. The developers want you to think that apartments will pay approximately a half million dollars in taxes. I checked into the figures that the Stafford Pointe Apartments pay. I divided the amount of taxes that they pay per year by the number of units in the complex and it amounted to $430.00 per unit per year. I pay over $3,000.00 in taxes per year for my home just two blocks away. They are entitled to the same services in police, fire protection and Town administration as I am. They can have just as many children going to school as any home dweller yet they contribute little to the community. We have an industrial warehouse district across the highway from the proposed apartments. If you go to Six Points Road from 6:00 a.m. to 7:30 a.m., you will find a steady stream of workers coming in from Marion County. Traffic is backed up almost to the interstate. The developers want you and us to believe that they are targeting young professionals and empty nesters but the fact is if you build it, they will come. Those apartments will be filled with 2-3 families per unit in the next 20 years. We have plenty of apartment space and buildings near the Metropolis and on the west side near Saratoga. I moved to Plainfield in 1975 and made an investment in the community. I built a home; let the young professionals of this generation make an investment in Plainfield and buy a house or a condo and not live off the investments that we made in our community. The area around the new high school is surrounded by single-family homes with children and older people. We need more of this type of development in our community just like we did in Providence. If you fill that area with apartments and you will alter these people's way of life in that they would be afraid to live in the area they have worked so hard to build up and maintain a normal life. Anyone can oppose an idea or a proposal but it takes thought to come up with a better solution. I propose that the Town of Plainfield and the school board jointly buy this apartment section, not the north side but the apartment section, property. They could use it for parks and recreation for the next 20 years and when another school is needed, they would already have the property to expand and it would be paid for. I used to live on Ramsey Lane and I thought this property would be an ideal place for a school and now we need to make that area a total school zone. In conclusion you must remember that these developers are in reality salesmen. They are here to sell you on the idea that their apartments are good for you and the community. That is what they do. Not long ago I was fishing and saw a beautiful tree that a beaver had cut down and if you could have asked the beaver why he cut down that beautiful tree, he would probably say that is what I do and he moves on to cut down the next tree. That is what these salesmen will do too. Once they have accomplished their goal they don't care about what they left behind just like the beaver. Thank you.
Mr. Ron Coleman at 1620 Willard Ct. said my property is roughly a three iron from the high school on the west side. My concern that no one has talked about is how much traffic there is going to be daily onto Reeves Road for that small section between the school and SR267. With 400 units my guess is a car and a half per unit, which would be 600 cars. You are talking about 2,000 cars a day going onto Reeves Road in addition to the school traffic that you are adding onto it plus you are going to be adding all of the commercial on the front half of it. We have too much traffic on Reeves Road as it is. You are having to widen it just because of the current situation. I don't believe Reeves Road will handle this kind of traffic and that is my biggest trouble is the traffic commitment.
Mrs. Debbie Coleman at 1620 Willard Ct. said when the school first came into this area I sat through every meeting that was opened for the public and attended many school board meetings listening to the school. One of the things that the school wanted was a site that would be a showcase for the community and be something very proud to people to see as they come into Plainfield off of I-70. I do not believe that putting apartments in front of the high school meets that objective. Apartments are very tall buildings. They will shade anything that you can see from the school. Also, with apartments you have a transient nature in the residents. I do not believe that adheres to Plainfield's community values. Thank you.
Ms. Whicker said with no one else coming forward would the petitioner have any closing comments?
Mr. Tuohy said there have been some valid concerns about what will happen if this developed. There has been some concern about transient, apartments changing hands. I would advise that I have asked the developers of Central Park and they advised me that Central Park has been between 93% and 95% occupied as they built the buildings, which is a fantastic occupancy and they have been able to raise their rents from the time that they started to now, which tells them that the market is very active and a robust market for high end rental apartments. There was a valid concern, as all of the concerns are, about how this will look. I think this exhibit really shows it the best way. The high school is a fantastic structure and it will continue to be a fantastic structure and what will happen here is all of this will be developed with commercial out buildings. They might be gas stations, banks, drug stores, restaurants but that will all fill in along here, which will block the view of these homes and these apartments. All that will fill in and there is tremendous landscaping along the south side of Southfield Drive. As Mr. James said in his report, it exceeds the levels that are recommended and that was by design. So, as you then come west on Reeves Road and cross these creeks, there will be the high school but first, of course, you will see this 17 acres of parkland that will be dedicated that will match the other side of the creek. There is a terrific change in elevation in this area here. You kind of go up and then go down so the insertion of this in this area I don't believe at all will detract from the beauty of that high school. In fact, it is our goal that having those kinds of uses with that kind of landscaping, all the brick and architectural features that were committed to and this pond, is vastly superior to having a Cosco. Not that there is anything wrong with a Cosco but that is what can go in there right now in this General Commercial zoning and, in fact, that is what your Comprehensive Plan looks for, a regional/commercial kind of use; a Wal-Mart, a Cosco, a Kroger, a Marsh. There is nothing wrong, in my estimation, with those uses but those uses I don't think are as compatible as a residential use of a high end rental apartment complex and a high end empty nester kind of development right against a park setting between these residential uses and the high school.
Absolutely the traffic issue is a valid concern but again the certainty that this brings, the 404 units, are right up against the State highway. We are within several hundred feet of a terrific artery to get the traffic out. There won't be any reason for this traffic to head back into this area. Surely they can; you couldn't stop it if you wanted to but the traffic would go from here and most likely out to this road and when they are coming home at night, right here. Like all zoning this is a balance issue and what you have to balance is the 404 residential units and what kind of traffic that they generate against sixty some acres of Cosco, Marsh, Kroger, semi trucks, everyday deliveries, not to mention the hundreds of people; Cosco would hold thousands of people, that would come in there everyday with their vehicle.
No question I have two high school students and two grade school students at home and they can get into all kind of mayhem, I know that but having homes next to the high school is not some magnetic for kids to go use drugs. Yes, it did happen, it happened in Carmel, it was in the paper. The workers came off the Monon Trail and went into an apartment community but kids could leave the high school and go into a commercial development and do the same kinds of things that they could do there. These are individually owned rented apartments and owned homes and the kind of rents they are going to be charging it seems kind of unlikely to me that you would have a common nuisance. For those reasons again thank you for the extended time that you have given us tonight. I think we have reached an agreement with the people that are absolutely the most concerned, and understandably so, the Providence Estates people and the Passage and after meeting with them the other night and hearing their concerns and they have hired counsel and asked us to address other concerns, we are certainly going to meet those commitments. As the one gentleman that came to the podium this evening asked if we would consider more trees, I said that we would put in six per 100 feet. If we need to put in 10 per 100 hundred feet, so a 40% increase I think that would be, I'm sure my client is willing to do that if that helps allay some of their concerns about this development. So, I would make that part of commitment; we would take the six trees per 100 feet to 10 trees per 100 feet along that north corridor. I thank you again for your consideration of our case.
Ms. Whicker said the public portion of the matter is now closed. Are there any questions by the board members before anyone makes a motion?
Mr. Kirchoff said I would like some clarification from our counsel. I have some serious concerns about this Mr. Daniel so help me understand the pieces of this and what each means and can they be considered separately? How does the PUD fit with some of these because I can't support some of this so I just need a sense of how it kind of divides up.
Mr. Daniel said I can help you some and Mr. James can probably help you also but obviously the purpose of a Planned Unit Development is to create their own standards and basically create an ordinance that says this is what we are going to do on this piece of property. What Mr. James has obviously shown the commission is an effort to take their pieces and compare it to something that would be similar in our ordinance; residential, commercial, apartments or whatever else to compare their ordinance density basis and that sort of thing, the square footage to our ordinance and see how it compares. That is probably as good of a guide that anyone could come up with for a Planned Unit Development.
Mr. James said I couldn't say it better; that was my intent.
Mr. Kirchoff said if I vote for the PUD, I'm voting for pieces that I can't support, is that what you are telling me?
Mr. James said if there are elements in the PUD that you are not satisfied with, we can revise the elements and amend those to maybe get you to a better comfort level.
Mr. Daniel said you can raise questions with the developer.
Mr. Kirchoff said it is really philosophical; I spent hours and hours working with the high school and the school system in helping us to convince them that this was the right site. I believe we ended up with a beautiful site and a beautiful project and I'm just disappointed and I think would feel that I have let the community down if I support the project that, in my opinion, diminishes what we accomplished with that school project. So, that is why I need to understand that if you vote for the PUD, I'm supporting pieces of this that I can't support. Is that a fair way of saying it?
Mr. James said as a PUD, you are voting for the total package. You can't vote for half of it.
Mr. McPhail said my first question is to Mr. James and I think that you indicated early on that Southfield Drive would connect to Stanley Road. I don't believe this developer is going to take it any farther than their north property line, is that correct?
Mr. James said that is correct.
Mr. McPhail said so we would have to have development east and north to get Southfield completed north to Stanley.
Mr. James said that is correct or the Town would take it upon themselves to complete it to Stanley.
Mr. McPhail said a couple of other things that raise a major concern to me is I'm surprised about the school impact study. That is seven classrooms of kids if it hits that number. I'm really concerned about the density and the open space when we go back and look at the lack of several acres in meeting our standards.
Mr. Kirchoff said if you could bring that slide up of the concerns again, that would be a big help.
Mr. McPhail said that 14.4 and 3.5 and the total of 8.3 over all is extremely dense; much denser than anything that I know that we have approved in any other part of Town. And the fact that there is some floodway acres there doesn't justify the increased density on the buildable property to me. Seventeen acres of parkland in the floodplain it is probably nice to have some parkland but that means the Town has to maintain that if we take ownership of it.
Mr. Kirchoff said I would describe that as giving us the sleeves out of their vest.
Mr. McPhail said the other density issue I have is on the condominiums or whatever. When you start looking at triplex units and the information they provided us, to get that 1,500 square feet they are going to have to have a lot of second-story to meet that density. In all of the research I have done on active adult life style I don't think that is a sellable product; maybe a little spare bonus room on the second floor or something but to have that much of a living space on the second floor. So, I have a real problem with triplex units in that area trying to get enough density to get triplexes in there and have to use that second story based on the type of product that appears they are offering. Having said that, you know, I'm reasonably comfortable with the overall concept. I'm not so sure that I think General Commercial abutting the school property is more favorable than residential. And I will comment that just looking at the general area the property on the east side of SR267 there are several acres of General Commercial that has been doormat and that area has not developed into Regional Commercial development like we probably thought would happen at some point and time. That has happened more around the mall and in that area. There has to be a balance of what is true is going to happen and in what time period. If you remain with General Commercial and it takes 30 years to develop it, that could happen and it may not but I would feel a little more comfortable with residential than I would commercial abutting that school, if it is quality residential. But I am concerned about the density in both of these projects. The housing market is very soft right now and to come in with a product that I think would be more difficult to sell makes it even more difficult. Having said that I would like to hear other comments.
Mr. Brandgard said the overall concept is a good buffer between the commercial area and between the school insofar you really don't want what the commercial area could bring in there for the most part. When we look at both Area “A and Area “B, they are both a little short on the green space required in those areas. The apartments with the lowest density of 14.4 I don't think we have ever approved anything that dense. In the same way the gross density in Area “A is somewhat on the high side for those type of units.
Again, I'm somewhat concerned when you look at the market that you are going after, most empty nesters don't want two floors; they only want one floor to deal with. In the schematic that you are showing or you provided there you have two floors, which I think would be a problem selling them. I'm not a real estate person; I'm just looking at it from a personal standpoint. People I deal with have expressed the same kind of thoughts. If you are going to reduce size, you are going to a single floor and not two floors.
I think from the standpoint of impacting the school traffic the reason that we made that road as wide as it is from SR267 up to school was to handle additional traffic.
I think the apartments with what they have done at Central Park is really a plus for this community. When you look at the product and how it has been maintained so far, although I know it has been recently sold to another company, but I'm fairly certain that it will continue to be maintained if you are going to charge the rents that is being charged out there. Again, not knowing exactly who is going to be building and what they will build in Area “A is somewhat of a concern also.
Mr. Kirchoff said we all know that the front piece is going to become commercial. I understand that and I think that is what we planned for so I can support that part of it. I'm on the fence about the multi-family and again I think the density is a great concern. Having seen the mound that was built this builder built somewhere else I would caution the people there to be very careful about asking for that. I cannot support the apartments for this. We have built a boulevard into this school and to have apartments there, and I do like Central Park, it is a great project, but that we do not want to duplicate. I cannot support the apartments at that site. I just think it is the wrong project for the wrong area. My questions earlier I need to understand.
Mr. Daniel said that is what the commission and the developer needs to hear are your concerns. If there are parts of this that you are comfortable with, they can hear that and the parts that you are not, they should hear that as well.
Ms. Whicker said so in summary from some comments there are some concerns on density, green space, exactly not knowing who is doing the building and exactly what are they building.
Mr. Kirchoff said I think Mr. James said they didn't have enough garages, the garages weren't big enough and there were a host of things that weren't up to our standards. How can we approve something like that?
Mr. James said compared to the R-6 standards.
Mr. Kirchoff said I understand.
Mr. Brandgard said I think even though this is a PUD, which allows those issues to happen in a PUD if we approve it that way, I for one, still think the garage sizes we have ought to be adhered to and the same way on the facades on the buildings and such. There is a reason that we did that and reducing that in a PUD I don't think that is productive.
Mr. James said I will say that the Central Park elevations did not comply with our standards.
Mr. Tuohy said with your permission what I would suggest is if we could ask the board's consideration in maybe continuing this for one time to your next hearing and let us have a chance to address the open space and density issues and address maybe tightening the standards on the single-family units. And maybe consider eliminating the triplexes. I did appreciate the comment about the 1,500 square feet. Maybe we can consider some kind of commitment. I don't want to make this yet this evening; that is why I would like some additional time. But some kind of commitment that would say there would be 1,500 square feet on one floor. And that spreading of the size out probably reduces the number of them. I think I understand that concept and as to the green space and the open space in the apartments maybe if we could have a chance to sort of put our heads together and think about that. I would respectfully suggest Mr. Kirchoff that I appreciate your concern about having this type of use next to the school but as I mentioned, it is sort of a balancing issue. And under that current zoning I think you could have a car dealership.
Mr. Kirchoff said you are assuming that we are not smart enough to figure what we would put in there to make a smart use and I don't appreciate that.
Mr. Tuohy said no sir I assume you are extremely smart at land use because you do it every month. My point is it is zoned General Commercial so there are a host of uses that could come in there without much approval; that is what my point is on that. It is zoned General Commercial so whatever your General Commercial zoning allows in that apartment tract could come in there. So, at any rate if the board would consider it, we would be more than willing to continue this and maybe sharpen the pencil a little bit and come back in the next month or whenever the board so desires.
Mr. Brandgard asked, would it be possible that if it is continued to the next meeting, that you could come back with a view of what you are proposing from SR267 looking west to see how that all leads up against where the school is?
Mr. Tuohy said yes. Sort of a PowerPoint rendering of what that would look like?
Mr. Brandgard said yes because I would like an elevation view of that.
Mr. Kirchoff said I would like for you to consider something else in Area “B other than apartments. I have too much invested in that high school project to put apartments in that area.
Mr. Daniel said that sounds like a virtual picture Mr. Tuohy.
Mr. Tuohy said that is what it will be Mr. Daniel, a virtual picture.
Mr. Brandgard made a motion to continue PUD-07-002 until the next December 3rd Plan Commission meeting. Second by Mr. McPhail. Motion carried.
Mr. James said our next item on the agenda was the development plan for the apartments. Since the PUD has been continued I recommend that we continue the hearing for the development plan.
Mr. McPhail made a motion to continue all related hearings for all Plainfield Partners, LLC filings until December 3rd. Second by Mr. Brandgard. Motion carried.
Ms. Sprague said next on the agenda is DP-07-018. It is located at 4692 S. CR600E or Moon Road. It is part of our perimeter parkway so it is a Gateway Corridor. This property is currently zoned AG, as you can see here. As zoned AG, they have to get a Special Exception to expand a legally established nonconforming use. So, we have recommended to them that they rezone it to Commercial/Industrial, which fits their use. They produce paper products and they have filed for that Commercial/Industrial zoning, which would be here before the Plan Commission in December but at the time they were not aware of that so they filed for the development plan ahead of time. We reviewed it so that it would meet the Commercial/Industrial zoning if that gets approved. So, that is what this is focused on right now; it is for Commercial/Industrial zoning.
You can see to the north and the south they have some Commercial/Industrial zoning. To the rear is Agricultural. That is actually also part of their lot. They have no intention of developing that at the time. And then across the Moon Road is the State facility that is currently zoned R-1 but it is not being used for residential.
Like I said this is a request for architectural and site design review. We have written it so that it would be conditioned upon the Commercial/Industrial zoning. They have requested waivers for building materials for the HVAC screening and also for a trash compactor enclosure, which is at the rear of the property. Just for a little more detail there the trash compactor is the little blue square. They plan to put it clear in the back of the building. The one that they have already, and their intention is, technically it is not attached to the building. If it was attached to the building, they would not need an enclosure. The petitioner's is next to the building. It is plugged into the building but you cannot access it from inside so technically it is not attached and that is part of why they are asking for that waiver. The HVAC is going to go along the rear of the building or the south side.
They are planning on putting quite a bit of landscaping along the south side but there is also a little tree line there and then there is also a tree line to the rear, which you can see in the back. There is an established tree line along their property that they are planning on maintaining. They are planning on using that for their rear screening. DRC agreed that the screening for both sides, the rear and the south side of the property would be sufficient for those. And then they were a little bit short. The Commercial/Industrial asks for a Level 2 landscaping instead of a Level 1 like usual. They were just a little bit short with their first proposal and DRC asked them to put some up front. Apparently they don't have any landscaping up along Moon Road in front of the property and DRC requested that they do that and they have corrected that.
This is a newer rendering possibly from what you have in your packets that shows the proper colors so that they would match what was existing on the building. But the rear and sides of the building will just be metal siding, which is what the rest of the building is. And then in the front they are proposing stucco like material or at least in the appearance with brick accents. It would compare to some of these other areas. There is brick here and brick and I believe stone accents along there.
The addition is going to be at the rear of the property. Some of it obviously will face Moon Road because it will make a “L shape out of the building but that facade is the one they are planning on using, primarily stucco with brick accents. The HVAC and trash compactor locations are at least already partially screened and they are planning on having some more screening. DRC agreed that the waiver for those would not be a problem. And then the petitioner has already filed for the Commercial/Industrial zoning, which is the main thing that would be an issue for them after this petition, if you should decide favorably for them. And then they have also put some of the landscaping up front just to help screen the view from the road. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Mark Settlemyre with Foresight Engineering at 1438 Sadlier Circle, Indianapolis, Indiana said Ms. Sprague has pretty much covered it all. We are looking basically at expanding the existing facility with an approximately 17,000 square foot warehouse area creating somewhat of an “L shape with the existing building. The interior “L portion of the building will face Moon Road. We are planning on putting a stucco covered pre-engineered metal panel up. We do have an example of that here tonight with the brick accents. The rest of the building is regarding the north side, the west side and the south side. We would continue with the steel finish that is existing as Ms. Sprague showed earlier. We have an ample buffer strip to our west, which basically buffers their property, which is going to remain as Agricultural. They have no intention of developing or selling that off at this time. And then as requested at the DRC, some trees to the north of the existing driveway is a bean field. There were no trees up along Moon Road in that particular area so we moved some trees up to that area as shown on the revised landscaping plan. With 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. With no one coming forward the public portion of this petition is closed and I will open it up for possible questions from the commission or a possible motion.
Mr. McPhail said I had an opportunity to look at this project through the DRC and I was really impressed with the pre-engineered stucco panel they are using. It seems to me to be a superior product to regular stucco that we approve all of the time. It is a product that I hope we see more.
Mr. Gibbs made a motion that the Plan Commission approve DP-07-018 as filed by Foresight Engineering requesting Architectural & Site Design Review approval of a 16,820 square foot addition to the existing Matrix Label facility on approximately four acres at 4692 S. CR600E 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 and Site Design Review for which a waiver has not been granted.
4. The proposed development is appropriate to the site and surroundings.
5. The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
And regarding a waiver to allow the Primary Building Materials for the west, south and north elevations to be constructed of metal siding and for the Secondary Building Materials of the east elevation to be 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 ground-mounted HVAC units to be screened, the Plan Commission finds that:
1. The proposed development represents an innovative use of site design features which will enhance the use and 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 detached trash compactor to be screened, the Plan Commission finds that:
1. The proposed development represents an innovative use of site design features which will enhance the use and 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 Landscape Plan file dated October 19, 2007.
2. Approval of a rezoning petition to C-1, Commercial Industrial.
Second by Mr. Matrana. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Gibbs – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Satterfield – absent
6-ayes, 0-opposed, 1-absent. Motion carried.
Ms. Sprague said the next item before the board is DP-07-020, which is for the Regions Bank. It is located at the southwest corner of Ronald Reagan Parkway and Stafford Road. A secondary plat for the lot would be required to be filed and they could get an approved location permit. It would be directly on that southwest corner and accessed from Midfield Court, which would run along the south end and connects with Columbia Road. It is zoned General Commercial. To the east is some I-2 and some Agricultural zoning. Currently though basically all of the directly surrounding land is undeveloped. To the south is the Sierra Gateway PUD where Banning is and then they have the other building to the west as well. As you can see, the Metro Air as well.
They are requesting Architecture and Site Design Review for an almost 4,000 square foot bank. The Comprehensive Plan recommends Hospitality/Commercial Node, which is basically designed to be associated with the airport. Then basically when they first submitted this, it was almost spot on as far as zoning was concerned so I'm just going to show you a couple of things that we had issue with and go from there.
They had one elevation that their secondary material was slightly off; they corrected that for DRC and DRC noticed that they did not have any overhangs when it was first submitted and requested that to be added and they have. You can't really see it very well on the drawing because the scale of the building is kind of large but they do have a 12 overhang.
Then we didn't have any details for the trash compactor; they have sense provided those for us and they plan to use brick veneer with treated wooden gates just like we would normally request.
The only other thing was the canopy lighting. They did show us three different possible lights that they could use and they would all be recessed insulation. Those were the only issues that we had with this petition. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Michael Winch with Sign Associates said I'm representing the petitioner, Mr. Gary Curl. I don't have anything to add to what Ms. Sprague has said. I think with the correspondence with DRC we have pretty much met the ordinance. 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?
Mr. Kirchoff asked, the access is off of Columbia, is that correct?
Mr. Winch said our access is going to be from Midfield Court, which will be the overall development. We won't have access to Stafford Road or Six Points.
Ms. Whicker said being no one coming forward I will close the public portion of this petition and open it up to the commission and a possible motion.
Mr. Matrana made a motion that the Plan Commission approve DP-07-020 as filed by Gary M. Curl, P.E. requesting Architectural & Site Design Review approval of an approximately 3,820 square foot Regions Bank at approximately 3090 Midfield Ct. finding that:
1. The Development Plan complies with all applicable development standards of the district in which the site is located.
2. The Development Plan complies with all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Control Ordinance for which a waiver has not been granted.
3. The Development Plan complies with all applicable provisions for Architectural and Site Design Review for which a waiver has not been granted.
4. The proposed development is appropriate to the site and its surroundings.
5. The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance.
And that such approval be subject to the following conditions:
1. Substantial compliance with the site plan, building elevations, colored rendering, light fixtures, photometric plan, landscaping plan, and commitment letter file dated October 26, 2007.
2. The trans enclosure should match the primary material of the building and have cedar or wood composite gates.
3. The canopy lighting be flush mounted and not affect the level of lighting at the property lines.
Second by Mr. Gibbs. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. McPhail – yes
Ms. Whicker – yes
Mr. Gibbs – yes
Mr. Kirchoff – yes
Mr. Brandgard – yes
Mr. Satterfield – absent
6-ayes, 0-opposed, 1-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. James said our next item on the agenda is the public hearing portion for the proposed amendments to the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance. These proposed amendments have been previously presented to the Plan Commission. They have been reviewed by the ordinance review committee. So, tonight Staff recommends that these proposed amendments are certified to the Town Council for approval.
Ms. Whicker asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to address this proposal for amendments to the Zoning Ordinance? Being no one coming forward the public portion of this hearing is closed and the board would accept a motion.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to forward TA-07-003, a proposal to amend the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance, to the Plainfield Town Council with a favorable recommendation. Second by Mr. McPhail. Motion carried.
For the record the proposed amendments to the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance include the following:
Amend Article 2.9.A – NR: Neighborhood Retail Commercial – Convenience Store allowed with no gas station.
Amend Article 3.4.B.10. – REL: Religious Use District – allows banners on light poles for messages for décor.
Amend Article 4.7.B-C. – requires and creates standards for perimeter landscaping for Residential Subdivisions.
Amend Article 4.10.D. – requiring connections between adjacent parking lots.
Amend Article 4.10.F. – requires and creates standards for bicycle parking for retail centers over 10,000 sf.
Amend Article 4.16 – creates standards for outdoor display.
Amend Article 4.17. – creates standards for outdoor seating/dining.
Amend Article 5.5C.4.h. – creates grading standards along a Gateway Corridor. Regulates top soil mounds.
Amend Article 7.8.J. – Changeable Copy Sign – amend text to allow a fuel price sign to have different regulations from normal changeable copy signs.
Amend Article 8.2. – Districts and Maps – amends text to allow the GIS Zone Map to become the “Official Zone Map.
Amend Article 8.3 – Districts and Maps – delete – no longer needed if GIS layer becomes Official Zone Map.
Amend Article 13.2 – definitions – new definitions needed with proposed amendments.
OLD BUSINESS/NEW BUSINESS
Mr. James said that concludes our public hearing portion of the agenda tonight. Now we will go onto old business/new business. Under old business J. Greg Allen and Associates contacted me a couple of weeks ago. They are having problems selling lots at Whitmore Place. It is a place zoned R-2. It was platted for 172 lots. It is at the corner of SR267 and CR300S right here. It was zoned R-2 and didn't have to go through a rezone. All they had to do was do a primary plat so no zoning commitments were made but during the primary plat approval for this the Plan Commission made it a condition that they record covenants and restrictions. The Plan Commission wanted them to address architectural standards in these covenants and conditions. So, Bob Wildman is here and is the attorney representing J. Greg Allen. I talked to Mr. Wildman a couple of weeks ago. We thought it best to bring this to the Plan Commission before they make these changes. In the covenants it says they have the right to make changes so that is what we are doing tonight. We are going to present these changes they would like to do and maybe get some comments from the Plan Commission. The home sales are slow. They say they need models that have a more competitive price. They request revising architectural standards and covenants. They want to reduce the garage size from 494 square feet to 400 square feet. They would like to allow vinyl siding that complies with the Town standards that we adopted last year. They want to eliminate the 12 overhangs. The change in standards would allow them to do the traditional series instead of the executive series. The traditional series have side loaded garages and then what other features can be provided to compensate for the exchange. Side by side windows, shutters, window treatments, garage bump-outs, third car garages is not used. I've got some photographs. The executive series is what they committed to build out there, well not commit to build but……
Mr. Brandgard said yes they did commit to those.
Mr. McPhail said we had a public hearing.
Mr. Brandgard said that is what they brought into us and that is what we approved.
Mr. James said this is the series that they would like to build. Mr. Wildman is here and I'm sure he would be glad to answer any questions that you might have.
Mr. Robert Wildman with Greg Allen and Associates said I'm here with Dave Foster who is our Director of Construction as well. Mr. James has done a nice job of summarizing our situation. This is the first section that we have built at Whitmore Place. There are 49 lots. We originally conceived this as a production subdivision; Princeton Homes is our production company. It has two series of homes; it has traditional and executive series of homes. We originally programmed this with the idea that we would be somewhere in the high two hundreds and three hundreds with these homes. The first two homes we built are probably in the three-hundred and fifty plus range. We still have those homes; we have been unable to sell them even with price reductions. We have received a lot of input from a variety of sources and the input that we get back is that we are too expensive. It is too much money for a production product. Having heard that we then felt maybe what we ought to do is promote this as a custom subdivision. We have had no interest from custom builders we have had meetings with or from the general public just calling us to buy a lot. As you can imagine, we can't sit there the way that it is; it is not good for us and it is not good for the community. So, we need to take some action with respect to this project. We have talked to local real estate brokers and we have talked to a consultant to consult with the Greater Indianapolis Builders Association about what product might make sense here; what's actually going to be viable. The information that we get back is that we have to be somewhere in the two-fifty price range. In order to achieve that we need to modify a couple of the specs I guess you would say that we included within our covenants and restrictions for the subdivision. As Mr. James has summarized, principally that involves deleting the spec. We have to have hardi plank and we can have no vinyl. We would like to do vinyl siding meeting your specs that you have established for vinyl siding. Currently the spec is that we have to have brick fronts. We have retained that requirement but we have to have a brick wrap on the first floor on homes that border the existing subdivision homes on the east and north of us. Everything else has to be hardi plank; we can't have any vinyl. That is about an eight thousand dollar price differential in the homes. We also have a requirement currently that every home has to have a three car garage. That is about a ten thousand dollar price differential. We are not proposing that we wouldn't build the executive series. We are just broadening the offering. What Mr. James has called the traditional series is the one that you see here. It is not significantly different from the executive series. It does, in many cases, have two car garages, side loaded. In this particular example you can see we can make it a third car garage with the third car garage that would have to face front. We can do either but we can't have them all side loaded if it is three cars. We could have the two car side loaded and the third car garage would be front facing.
As Mr. James indicated, our covenants that were approved by you and recorded with the subdivision provide that they can be amended. They provide that so long as we, the developer, own 75% of the lots we can amend them. We met with Mr. James and we talked about our plan and he advised us that it would be good if we came and told you about our issues and told you what we were proposing to do. So, with that I would be happy to answer questions that you might have.
Mr. McPhail said I would just make this comment that you made these commitments at public meetings and meetings with residents in the neighborhood. If you change these commitments and do that, you will have a black eye in this community. I would encourage you, whether you can legally do this or not, you are going to have one fight on your hands from the neighborhood. You came into this commission and made these commitments. You made commitments with neighborhood meetings, which I set up for you and helped you get this project approved going through there and getting community support. I can tell you that you will have a really black eye in this community if you try this.
Mr. Wildman said I appreciate the fact that we did have these discussions and we did agree to include them in our commitments but on the other hand circumstances change. I think people have to recognize that circumstances change and you can't have a product and a project that just sits and does nothing. It is not feasibly possible and if we lose the project and the bank takes it over, somebody else is going to change the commitments and you will have to deal with them. But somehow and someway that project is going to have to get built by somebody.
Mr. McPhail said I can tell you that the marketing conditions are no different from three other subdivisions very close to you. They aren't selling anything either, nothing. So, you can't come in here just because the market has changed and put a product that is not acceptable in that neighborhood. You will have a fight that you probably don't want.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, is it true that they can make these changes without advising the neighborhood and going to public hearings?
Mr. McPhail said no public hearing or nothing.
Mr. Daniel said I don't think that is a discussion that we should probably have in a public meeting.
Mr. Wildman said I think the fact that we are here and the fact that we have talked to Mr. James should indicate to you that we are not trying to be bad guys here. We are just in an economic situation where something needs to be done and not withstanding what Mr. McPhail says I think something needs to be done both for us and the community to make this project work.
Mr. McPhail said lowering those standards in the neighborhood is not an acceptable solution to a project.
Mr. Brandgard asked, when did we originally approve this; 2005?
Mr. Daniel said yes.
Mr. Brandgard said the reason I asked is we approved this and I think you even built the first houses before we got into the housing prices we are having today because of the mortgage industry.
Mr. Wildman said I think that is probably right.
Mr. Brandgard said I'm saying it from the standpoint it has been amazing to me how long those houses have been sitting out there and I have seen very little advertising done on that area to try and draw people into selling them. And yet you are coming in here and saying your problem is all due to the housing situation today. I think there is a deeper problem than that and I agree with Mr. McPhail wholeheartedly. We went through a public hearing and assurances were made to surrounding property owners in what would be in there and that is a binding assurance when it is done in a public hearing and approved by this commission based on those assurances. The only way that can be done to change this is to go through a public hearing. You just can't go in there and unilaterally change something that was approved at a public hearing.
Mr. Wildman said let me address the fact whether we have advertised the product for sale or not. We have homes listed with three different brokerage firms and they have had open houses numerous times. They have advertised it on their broker TV shows. I think we have every incentive to make as much of an effort as we can. We have lowered the price three times and basically we are selling them at “break even right now just to try to move them and we have had no interest. We are open for other suggestions but that is the situation we are finding ourselves in. Do you have any other questions?
Ms. Whicker said it is an unfortunate time in the market and I do think if these changes are something that you do want to make, that possibly then we need to make notification to surrounding property owners and look at possibly having a public hearing.
Mr. Wildman said I don't think it is just the market. I think the problem is when you get to a $350,000.00 plus house, production house, at least in this particular area as we have come to learn, people aren't willing to pay that for what they consider to be a production house; they want to have a custom house. So, we need to have a production house; we need to get down in the two-fifty range; that is all the advice we are getting.
Mr. Daniel said I don't think it would be a good idea Mr. Wildman to start changing anything out there until the commission has had an opportunity to review the record on this matter and advise you whether or not they believe a public hearing should be had. You may have a different opinion of that but I would rather have it happen that way than to have you start making changes and put the Town in the position to enforce it otherwise.
Mr. Wildman said I would be happy to talk to you about it; I just don't want to have too much time go by so if we could have a week or so if I could have a conversation with you.
Mr. Daniel said sure.
Mr. Wildman said that would be great. I will let you make the call.
Mr. Daniel said I will give you a call.
Mr. Wildman said thank you for your time.
Mr. James said I want to give you a quick update on Meijer and their development plan. If you recall, the development plan got approved. There is an issue with the location of their drive on Main Street and the proximity to the St. Susanna School entrance and would INDOT allow that? So, this is what was approved with the development plan but they have been talking to St. Susanna. They have submitted a permit from INDOT and they did receive approval from INDOT. So, this is the new plan. INDOT wanted it to be at least 185 feet from St. Susanna and they have met the distance so they shifted it over. We still have the connection to the back of St. Susanna and also to the Duke site. These are dry detention ponds so there will only be filled with water if we have a significant rain event. I wanted to bring this to you as an FYI.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, can you give us an approximate time as to how close they are now to Dan Jones?
Mr. McGillem said 187 feet; INDOT required 185 feet.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, to Dan Jones?
Mr. McGillem said (inaudible).
Mr. Kirchoff said my question was Dan Jones.
Mr. McGillem said (inaudible).
Mr. James said that is the edge of Walgreen's property right there.
Ms. Whicker asked, on your previous screen is that road coming from St. Susanna an exit only?
Mr. James said that is the entrance I believe.
Ms. Whicker said the grey one on the back so when they come through there as far as an exit, then they go south and then can only go west.
Mr. McGillem said (inaudible).
Ms. Whicker said but that is not a median in there.
Mr. McGillem said (inaudible).
Mr. Kirchoff asked, would you show us the new one again please. So, it is not shared with St. Susanna?
Mr. James said no; it is a separate drive. They get to keep their entrance; none of it has been moved.
Ms. Whicker asked, doesn't it say that subject to closure in the next screen that you had up there?
Mr. James said that was the previous.
Ms. Whicker said it says existing access drive subject to closure so they would have to close that one?
Mr. James said no; that was the original one.
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. McGillem asked what?
Mr. Kirchoff said (inaudible).
Mr. McGillem said (inaudible).
Mr. Brandgard said thinking on that question though if St. Susanna and Duke could come to an agreement, could they use that drive rather than put in the dark faded one?
Mr. McGillem said (inaudible).
Mr. Brandgard said if they came to an agreement, they could do that.
Mr. Belcher said (inaudible).
Mr. Kirchoff said my point is it could create some nice traffic flow for St. Susanna if they could have another access drive. That is what I was trying to say.
Mr. McGillem said (inaudible).
Mr. Brandgard said we will try to revisit that one.
Mr. McGillem said (inaudible).
Mr. James said Meijer said they would continue to work with St. Susanna and Duke to improve the drainage situation out there.
Mr. Gibbs said just out of curiosity looking where they have that proposed bank and the exit out of that parking lot being so close to that road does that help; that's not a problem?
Mr. Kirchoff said that is right-in/right-out only isn't it?
Mr. McGillem said (inaudible).
Mr. James said that is just a concept plan.
Mr. McGillem said (inaudible).
Ms. Whicker said the grey shaded drive doesn't it say “no left turn? So, they really couldn't go out and go on Dan Jones; they have to go south to U.S. 40.
Mr. McGillem said (inaudible).
Mr. Belcher said (inaudible).
Mr. James said well we wanted to show you what they worked out with INDOT
Mr. McGillem said (inaudible).
Mr. Belcher said (inaudible).
Mr. McGillem said (inaudible).
Mr. McPhail asked who is the developer?
Mr. Belcher said (inaudible).
Mr. Kirchoff said I guess don't be bashful about enforcing what they have. We sit here and received commitments.
ZONING COMPLIANCE ISSUES
Mr. James said I'm going to move onto our Plan Commission invitees. This is for the gas station at 1805 E. Main St. That was painted white. Based on the Gateway Corridor standards painting the exterior is not an approved renovation. So, I think one of the owners is here and he can explain what is going on.
Mr. Jimmy Jesse at 702 Penny Lane, Plainfield said my wife and I own the building. I apologize for painting it but it was accidental. We didn't intend to disregard anything. We live up here; I've been living up here for about six to seven years. Mr. Smith was there and inspected it and my painter was there and nobody said anything and I've built the gas station for the last five to six years and I was not aware of that. Now the paint is there. I ask for an extension so that I can bring the old pictures and new pictures to see what we have done to the building. When we got the building, it was closed for more than two years. It was real bad ugly. We did what we could inside and on the outside it didn't look good and that is why we painted it white. All it looks like now is white brick. There is a little bit of grey and we can take that off and make it look like it is all white brick. It is going to be family owned and I can promise that it will be maintained white brick. I'm going to be doing landscaping and I've done everything we can on signage, canopy and everything. We painted it white without asking because I've never had any town say you can't paint the brick. I do apologize but there was nobody that told me either. So, all I'm asking the commission is not to make me change the whole brick because it would be real costly. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Brandgard said just as a comment the Village Pantry at Stafford Road and SR267 started painting their building and we were able to catch it before they got it done but they had to go in and remove the paint that was on there. What has happened is as we approve these developments or the buildings that go in there, we approve them for a certain look and certain materials on the buildings. Once we approve them that way they can't be changed unless this commission allows it to be changed. That is what happened. Obviously, when you bought the building somebody forgot to tell you what was approved when they built it.
Mr. Jesse said I can take the paint off but it won't look as pretty has it does now; it will look worse from what it was before. All of the paint won't come off. I can reinstall the brick and take the whole thing off but you cannot take the whole paint off. I can take it off but it would be some brick and some white. If the Town wants me to do that, I can do that but it would be very, very costly to me being a small business owner. I do apologize. Every time I go into something the first thing is do they want brick or stucco or what they want and since the building was up I didn't bother to ask. I did ask Jill if we could brick the garage part and I did brick the garage part and it wasn't matching 100%; ninety-five was matching. If someone had brought it to my attention not to paint it, I would have not painted it.
Mr. Brandgard said just as a comment because I live around that area and I thought the building looked okay when it was brick before you painted it. It may have deteriorated in some areas but overall the building still looked good up from the road.
Mr. Jesse said I was just trying to clean it up to give it a new look and dress it up a little bit. Other than that I would have not intentionally painted the brick; it wouldn't make a difference to the store anyway. I was just trying to give a new look to the building because it was there more than two years and everybody knew it was a car/garage but that's why we went ahead and painted it. All I'm asking the board is if we can somehow keep it that way so it wouldn't cost us a big amount of money to try to change it.
Mr. James said we have a couple of sign issues too. There are some illegal portable signs on the property that we need to get taken care of.
Ms. Sprague said there is a box sign installed also, I think it is a hotdog; it's a food sign, a yellow sign. The box sign didn't get a permit. You have to get permits for signs.
Mr. Jesse said I will update all of the codes and stuff. This is my first building in Hendricks County; I've been in Marion County.
Ms. Whicker said the pump has Marathon and then the canopy has Marathon on it.
Mr. Jesse said yes.
Ms. Whicker asked, does our sign ordinance require one or the other?
Mr. Jesse said there is no sign here; just Marathon and we have one small ground sign. We do have signs, neighbors, where they have the old pole sign, they have the box and everything else. The sign that we have is just on the ground.
Mr. James said they have two portable signs. Did you paint Marathon on the side of the building?
Mr. Jesse said (inaudible).
Mr. James said what is painted on the canopy is a standard amount of signage that you can have on the canopy. How much can they have?
Ms. Sprague said on the canopy 10%.
Mr. Kirchoff said why don't we just charge Staff to work with Mr. Jesse and work it out.
Mr. James said he can come in and we will go over all of our standards. Can you come in tomorrow?
Mr. Jesse said yes. I will stop in around 9:00-9:30.
Mr. James said this is another FYI item. Premier put up a couple of these, they call them retail merchandising units or kiosk, at the Metropolis. We took this to DRC and DRC approved them with some conditions. One of the conditions was that they could only have 10 on the site at one time and then sites 13, 14 and 15 to make sure that they do not conflict with pedestrian and vehicular movements like these right here. I wanted to show it to you to see if you have any additional conditions or comments.
Mr. Gibbs asked, how many are they going to put out there.
Mr. James said 10. They wanted to put 20; we cut them in half.
Ms. Whicker asked, so which ones are they taking out?
Mr. James said they can switch them around but they can only have 10 out at one time.
Ms. Whicker asked, are they all season long; just in the summer; are they wanting to do this for Christmas?
Mr. Brandgard said I haven't noticed them.
Mr. McPhail said I have looked for them because I was at DRC but it would be hard pressed to get 10 of them up.
Ms. Whicker asked where is Santa's workshop?
Mr. Brandgard said they are putting it up right now.
Mr. Kirchoff said it sounds good Mr. James.
Ms. Whicker said 13, 14 and 15 as tight as that is right there on just a weekend I can't imagine traffic with those there.
Ms. Sprague said DRC recommended that they not use those.
Mr. Brandgard said I have to agree. Those are where the sidewalk is bumped out. I don't think they are going to have them in place where it jams up people walking through there.
Ms. Whicker said that doesn't show the benches and the flowerpots and trash cans that are also on the sidewalk.
Mr. James said the final detailed plan did vaguely allow these.
Mr. Brandgard said I'm going to ask a question. Based on what we just looked at with the Marathon with Jimmy Jesse how are we tracking this stuff that we approve? So, that we know when somebody comes in, this is something that we have to go back and look at because not everything has been approved with restrictions. I understand what happened but we should have had something in place when he came in asking about this building that said here are a list of things that were approved on it.
Mr. James said when he came in and asked about brick in the front, we approved the elevations based on the fact that he was going to brick the front and not paint it.
Ms. Sprague said I specifically asked him if he was going to match the brick color and he said yes so I didn't say anything else.
Mr. Brandgard said again what I mean is we went through and we did what we would normally do but when he came in, we should have gone to an electronic file on that address and it should list what we approved and if there was restrictions on it that we could give him.
Ms. Sprague said but the ordinance says they can't paint the brick at least not without getting approval.
Mr. James said we try to catch them with an ILP.
Mr. Brandgard said I'm not being critical. As we go through this more and more, once we give somebody an occupancy permit on one of the warehouses out here who is going to maintain what we required them to do with the plantings, etc. How do you enforce issues that we have to work through?
Mr. James said we do that with the certificate of zoning compliance with Emily's inspection.
Mr. Brandgard said but after that; once they comply. I didn't want to get into a deep discussion here but it is something that we still need to work on; I don't have the answer.
Mr. James said maybe with this new project manager software we can track them better.
The update on Dr. Butler Emily went out and did an inspection and took some pictures and he has made some improvements cleaning up.
Ms. Whicker said he had an organic garden, correct?
Mr. James said yes and it looks a lot better.
Some more updates; Dick's distribution they finally replaced their trees; trees that had died. Davis Homes they replaced the siding on the models. I believe they are in the process of replacing the siding on the owner/occupied models.
APPOINTMENTS
One more item we need some action on is we would like to replace Don Musilli on the DRC with Bart Beal.
Mr. Brandgard made a motion to appoint Mr. Bart Beal to the Design Review Committee to complete the term of Mr. Don Musilli.
Mr. Kirchoff asked, when does the term end?
Mr. Daniel said I don't think we do it yearly.
Mr. Brandgard said I don't think there is a term on it but I put it on there just in case there was.
Mr. Kirchoff made a second. Motion carried.
Mr. James said Gary has agreed to take Mr. McPhail's place as the Plan Commission appointee.
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to appoint Mr. Gary Satterfield to replace Mr. McPhail as the Plan Commission appointee to the Design Review Committee. Second by Mr. Brandgard. Motion carried.
OTHER COMMENTS
Mr. Kirchoff said I was in Myrtle Beach last month for almost two weeks and because of the fellow who came in and talked about the new billboards they look very nice. I saw them in a couple of other places; I've been to Mississippi and back; right location and all that. They are much more professional.
Mr. McPhail asked, did we find out what he had on U.S. 40 we could get rid of?
Mr. James said yes. It is one just north of Stanley in front of Republic's building.
Mr. Kirchoff said that is SR267 and not U.S. 40.
Mr. Brandgard said the one he mentioned is a good one to get rid of.
Mr. James said the one on U.S. 40 I believe is just east of Perry.
Mr. Kirchoff said I'm under the opinion that we can do some tradeoffs. They are much cleaner and much more professional. They are a step in the right direction.
Mr. Brandgard said landscaping at the bottom would go a long way to help.
Mr. James said they are going to need some variances from the BZA. They have to replace the cabinet so it looses its nonconforming status. One variance would be for the number of times the message changes and one would be due to the spacing it would be within 2,500 feet of another billboard. And they would also need a Variance of Use because the one they want to change out is not zoned General Commercial. It is just out of the General Commercial District and zoned I-2 so they would need a Variance of Use for that. So, I'm going to show the DVD at the November BZA meeting and then so far I've gotten some pretty positive comments from the BZA members. I sent them an e-mail telling them about it. They want to see the DVD and then we will probably take it to the BZA in December. That concludes tonight's items.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to adjourn. Second by Mr. McPhail. Motion carried.
