TOWN OF PLAINFIELD
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
August 18, 2008
The Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals met on Monday, August 18, 2008. In attendance were Mr. Cavanaugh, Mr. Gibbs and Mr. Monnett.
ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM
Mr. Carlucci administered the Roll Call.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Gibbs made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 28, 2008 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting as submitted. Second by Mr. Cavanaugh. Motion carried.
OATH OF TESTIMONY
Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Testimony.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mr. Monnett reviewed the Guidelines Governing the Conduct of Public Hearings. Our first item is BZA-08-011, Johnny Provolone's Pizza, which is a petition for withdrawal, is that correct?
Mr. James said that is correct.
Mr. Monnett said due to the fact that they are out of business.
Mr. Cavanaugh made a motion to approve the withdrawal of BZA-08-011, Johnny Provolone's Pizza. Second by Mr. Gibbs. Roll call vote called.
3-ayes, 0-opposed, 1-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Monnett said our next item is BZA-08-010, which was continued from last month, is that correct?
Mr. James said that is correct. The petitioner has requested to continue this petition again knowing that the Plan Commission may amend the Sign Ordinance with regards to the faster rate of change for digital signs.
Mr. Gibbs made a motion to approve the continuance of BZA-08-010, Stafford Crossing Shopping Center. Second by Mr. Cavanaugh. Roll call vote called.
3-ayes, 0-opposed, 1-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Monnett said before we start with our first petition I would like for our attorney to please explain to the audience the shortage of our board and what they may or may not do.
Mr. Daniel said for those of you in attendance tonight this is a five member board. To take any action on any matter before the board tonight requires a vote of the majority of the full board, which would be three members. We have one member absent tonight and one member resigned and someone needs to be reappointed. So, for any action to be taken on a petition tonight it would require a vote of all three members present. As a result of that, if any petitioner tonight would like to have their matter continued to a later date when more members of the board are available to hear their matter, this is the time to ask for the continuance.
Mr. James said while we are on the subject petition number BZA-08-013 we will not have a quorum when this petition is heard. I think we have a member of the board that is going to have to recuse himself. So, for that reason we are going to have to continue this petition to the September hearing.
Mr. Gibbs made a motion to continue BZA-08-013, Plainfield Eye Care. Second by Mr. Monnett. Roll call vote called.
3-ayes, 0-opposed, 1-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Monnett said our first item is BZA-08-012, Opus North Corporation.
Mr. James said this request is for a variance to allow outdoor storage for two silos without the required screening that is required for outdoor storage in the I-2 Warehouse Distribution District. This site is known as Airwest eleven. The address is 2375 Reeves Road. They have a tenant, the Scheutz Company who will move in and take the west half of the building, lease out the west half. The Scheutz Company make plastic square containers and in order to do this operation they have to erect two 38 foot tall silos that would be at the back southwest corner of the building. With the silos being 38 feet it is going to be impossible to adequately screen these silos, which we have always considered outdoor storage. So, for that reason they have requested the variance to not require the screening.
Here is the site; here is the Airwest eleven building; it is 360,000 square feet. Here is Reeves Road. Over here is residential. It has not been annexed by Plainfield. It is actually zoned Rural Residential Hendricks County but that is why this has to go through development plan approval because it is within 600 feet of a residential district. Here is the zoning. It is all I-2 surrounded by the northwest and south. You have east Perry Road down here. There is heavy foliage in this area. The elevation really drops from Reeves Road so it is really right now difficult to see the back of this building from Reeves Road.
Here is the site plan. This is the whole building. They are going to take this portion. The Scheutz Company is going to take this portion of the building and they propose the two silos back here at the back southwest corner of the building.
Here is a rendering of the two silos that will be adjacent to the building. The building is 40 feet tall. The silos are at 38 feet so they will not protrude above the building. They are also going to have outdoor storage in this area and it will be properly screened with an eight foot tall fence in the required Level 3 landscaping. So, the variance is to not screen these two silos and they have also committed to painting the two silos the same color as the building and that will help blend with the primary building. The silos cannot be seen from Reeves Road or from the residential to the east. Because of the existing foliage and elevation it is difficult to see the back end of the site from east Perry Road. The silos are 38 feet tall and do not protrude above the building and they will be painted to match the color of the primary building. It will help it blend and the Design Review Committee gave this petition expedited approval. That's all I have in regards to explaining this request to you. Mr. Albright representing Opus North is here and I'm sure he would be glad to answer any questions that you might have.
Mr. Ryan Albright with the Opus North Corporation at 1033 N. Meridian Street, Indianapolis, Indiana said here is another rendering that we did to just give you a little bit of a close-up. We are actually going to provide screening that is around here that is actually existing now at this present time. Once we dig that up we won't be able to use it again but we will provide the screening around here. It is like Joe said it will not exceed probably eight feet tall. As far as painting, we are going to match the stripes to get everything to blend 100% with that and then these canopies actually protrude almost flush with this silo. So, as far as visibility wise we missed a few trees here so there is a little bit more landscaping on the west side of the silos.
Mr. Carlucci asked, do you know in more detail what kind of product that they are making? Is it a molding operation?
Mr. Albright said yes injection molding pellets. The pellets are about a half inch in diameter. They will be filled up with approximately twice a week. From that point it will go underground into the building and into their conveyor system. It is mostly recycling. They take the existing containers and melt them down and use the new injection molding pellets to create new containers. There are basically three companies in the world that do this; they are the largest. There is one currently in Houston; one in Atlanta and then they are trying to locate in the Midwest.
Mr. Monnett said this was expedited by the Design Review Committee, is that common?
Mr. James said (inaudible).
Mr. Monnett said on this leased space that they have, 135,000 feet, they leave after their lease and we have two silos. Where does that leave us?
Mr. Albright said the terms of all leases with all tenants is to return the property to the existing condition. So, once they leave upon our lease execution the only thing that may stay would be the interior offices but as far as the outdoor storage the silos would definitely go. As far as the outside storage the next tenant could use that but all our lease conditions states that the building must be returned to the original condition. So, the silos, the fence, the canopy, everything must go to original conditions.
Mr. Cavanaugh said you mentioned that some landscaping screening will be removed from the installation of the silos.
Mr. Albright said a silo pad and then we are actually going to bring that Level 3 landscaping up. We are going to actually increase the landscaping above a Level 3 around those silos because right now where the silo to the east is there is one tree there and the silo to the west there is no tree. So, we are removing one tree and adding probably six to seven more trees. One of the biggest reasons for that is a buffering for parking. If silos are there, sometimes it blends and sometimes if there are trees there when people park a car, it might stick out a little bit better. So, we are actually going to have a little bit more landscaping to kind of screen it from the parking for visitors that may come to the back and things like that.
Mr. Monnett asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this matter?
Mr. Carlucci said the company's name has changed, it used to be RXI Plastics on Perry Road, and I can't remember the new name of the company but they also do injection molding. Theirs were brought up front of the building and were screened. I have been in the back side of that building several times and the great change from where they are located at a low point on Reeves Road and then you go back and you can barely see the top of some of the hotels as you go back there to the south. Like I said it is pretty low in that area back there so I doubt if anybody other than somebody flying over would see those.
Mr. Daniel said if anybody is going to make a motion similar to what has been printed, since Mr. Albright mentioned that they would also be putting a stripping on that, you might amend item two and state the silo shall be painted to match the color on the color scheme.
Mr. James said (inaudible).
Mr. Cavanaugh said from my prospective I don't think that is necessary. With that I'm prepared to make a motion. I move that the Board of Zoning Appeals approve BZA-08-012 as filed by the Opus North Corporation requesting a variance of development standards to not require screening per Article 2.13 for two 38' tall silos at 2375 Reeves Road subject to the following conditions:
1. Substantial compliance with the site plan and colored rendering submitted file dated July 2, 2008.
2. The silos shall be painted to match the color scheme of the primary building.
3. A minimum Level 3 landscaping shall be installed around the silos after completed.
Second by Mr. Gibbs. Roll call vote called.
3-ayes, 0-opposed, 1-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Monnett said our next item is BZA-08-014, Kevin Hampton at 101 South Street requesting a variance to the development standards to allow the construction of a garage in the side yard setback.
Ms. Sprague said this one as you said is located at 101 South Street. It is in the aerial photograph there; the house is right here. They are hoping to build a great room onto the back of the house and then an attached garage off to the side. The variance is to ask that they be able to build the attached garage up to a foot from the property line, which would be within the six foot setback that is required by the Zoning Ordinance. Some of the reasons that they wanted to do this is as you can see from the aerial photograph the driveway is already along that property line and they were hoping to use the existing driveway and then in addition there is a similar access right here that kind of limits them from moving it over that direction too much towards the house especially for a two car garage. Obviously, a one car garage there would be room for that but those were the two main reasons that they were hoping to put it over as far as they could to the property. In addition, as you can see from the site plan, the neighbors don't have a house right next to that property line. They actually have a garage over on that side so the possible impact on the neighbors might not be as great as if their house was right there along the property line. And then I believe that is most of the concerns whether or not the existing driveway is a big enough advantage that they could build the garage up close to the property line and also if that access would be enough in the way that they wouldn't be able to move it over too much.
The development standards are all met. They do have a detached garage at the back of the lot. They don't plan to tear that down. They are hoping to use that as a storage shed but that doesn't affect the lot coverage or anything. They are still well within what the ordinance allows. I know the petitioner is here if you have any questions.
Mr. Kevin Hampton at 101 South Street was present to answer any questions.
Mr. Carlucci asked, Mr. Hampton do you have anything else to add?
Mr. Hampton said the recent owner has an elderly mother that is going to live with her and this home is requiring some major updates to allow for her car, which is going to include some ramps and stairs and the extra room that is needed to accommodate that. I should point out in this area right here in the garage the reason a one car garage would be difficult to accommodate this lady is because right in this right here we are trying to accommodate a ramp, which needs a turn as well as a set of stairs to get into the house. So, even though the garage size would appear from the road to be a two car garage the actual usability of it given the possibility of this woman being in a wheelchair needing side access and lifts and that sort of thing one car space wise is all that is going to be utilized. If it were to be shrunk down to a one car garage, there would probably not be the space available to do the ramps and the things that she needs to gain access to the home.
Mr. Monnett asked, what will the color of the garage be?
Mr. Hampton said it will all match.
Mr. Monnett asked, is it grey?
Mr. Hampton said yes; it will match the home.
Mr. Gibbs asked, is this rental property?
Mr. Hampton said no; it's a residence.
Mr. Gibbs said so the existing stairway now to the cellar is there, right?
Mr. Hampton said yes.
Mr. Gibbs said I drove by there before the meeting and I assume it is on the other side of the fence.
Mr. Hampton said yes and it is hidden by a lot of shrubbery.
Mr. Gibbs said the existing garage that is there how far away is it from the property line?
Mr. Hampton said probably within a couple of feet. We are going to have to have a survey done and it is actually more of a shed. It appears to be a garage but it is being reworked on the inside to where it could not be a garage; it's just a multi-room shed.
Mr. Gibbs said in your opinion that it is already encroaching onto six feet?
Mr. Hampton said that one apparently is. That may have been built in the early 50s. And we are not certain but the garage next to it there is only seven feet between the garage and her driveway and it is very likely that that garage may be a foot or so ………
Mr. Gibbs said they have a tree problem; it is encroaching into the driveway.
Mr. Cavanaugh asked, what will happen to the existing garage or shed that is there now?
Mr. Hampton said our hope was to leave it because it is already being utilized as a shed with lawnmowers and lawn chairs so our hope was to leave it.
Mr. Cavanaugh said it is a little difficult to tell from the photographs but it is set back farther than where the new garage or new addition will be.
Mr. Hampton said yes; it's in the far corner of the property.
Mr. Cavanaugh asked, have there been any comments from the neighbor adjacent to you?
Mr. Hampton said we asked the neighbor if they objected and they did not.
Ms. Sprague said (inaudible).
Mr. Monnett asked, is there an alley behind the old garage?
(Inaudible).
Mr. Monnett asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this matter? Being no one coming forward I will close the public portion and turn it over to the board for a possible motion.
Mr. Gibbs made a motion that the Board of Zoning Appeals approve BZA-08-014 as filed by Kevin Hampton requesting a variance to reduce the side yard setback from 6' to 1' at 101 South Street subject to the following conditions:
1. Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted file dated July 18, 2008.
Second by Mr. Cavanaugh. Roll call vote called.
3-ayes, 0-opposed, 1-absent. Motion carried.
OLD BUSINESS/NEW BUSINESS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Gibbs made a motion to adjourn. Second by Mr. Cavanaugh. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned.