plainfield plan commission february 1, 2016 7:00 ...plainfield plan commission 02-01-16 5...
TRANSCRIPT
Plainfield Plan Commission 02-01-16 1
PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION
February 1, 2016
7:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Mr. Gibbs: I would like to call to order the Plainfield Plan Commission
meeting for February 1, 2016.
ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM
Mr. Gibbs: Mr. Klinger would you poll the board to determine a quorum?
Mr. Klinger: Mr. Brouillard- here
Mr. McPhail- here
Mr. Brandgard- here
Mr. Smith- here
Mr. Kirchoff- here
Mr. Bahr- here
Mr. Gibbs- here
All accounted for.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mr. Gibbs: Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPOVAL OF MINUTES- January 4, 2016
Mr. Gibbs: Now I will entertain a motion if everyone has had an opportunity
to review the January 4th minutes.
Mr. Smith: Mr. Chairman I have just a couple of small words and spellings.
On page 4 about a 1/3 of the way down there are a couple over lighting rather
than over writing. And also on page 5 last paragraph or second to last
paragraph sighted is the wrong, it should be sited. Lastly on page 6 there
is an inaudible spot right there next to the last paragraph it says inaudible
that fifth word was intentional.
Mr. Kirchoff: With that being said I move to approve as amended.
Mr. Brandgard: Second.
Mr. Gibbs: I have a motion and a second to approve the minutes as amended.
All those in favor signify by saying aye, opposed, motion carries.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mr. Gibbs reviewed the Guidelines Governing the Conduct of Public Hearings.
OATH OF TESTIMONY
Mr. Daniel conducted the Oath of Testimony.
Plainfield Plan Commission 02-01-16 2
PETITIONS TO BE CONTINUED
Mr. Gibbs: The first item on the agenda this evening is CP-15-001. Joe, you
are asking for a continuance on this one?
Mr. James: Good evening Mr. President, yes the Plan Commission workshop a
couple of weeks ago, it was more than a couple of weeks and so several errors
were caught in the comprehensive plan and the consultants have asked that we
continue it to the March 7th meeting to give them time to complete all of the
corrections and make sure that they get it to the Plan Commission in time so
you will have plenty of time to review it before the March 7th meeting.
Mr. Gibbs: I will entertain a motion to continue.
Mr. Brandgard: So move.
Mr. Smith: Second.
Mr. Gibbs: I have a motion and a second, all those in favor signify by
saying aye, opposed, motion carries.
PETITIONS FOR PUBLIC HEARING
Mr. James: Our first petition for public hearing is RZ-16-001. This
property just went through the super voluntary annexation process, it will
officially be annexed February 27, 2016. Annexed property is brought in as
Ag Agriculture zoning and only 1.6 acres and the property is legal non-
conforming because it is less than 5 acres, five acres is the Ag minimum for
a parcel. They are requesting the rezone to R-1, the minimum lot area in R-1
district is 30,000 square feet and the reason for annexation in the zoning
they want to build a single family home on the parcel. The R-1 Zoning is
consistent with the surrounding zoning and comp plan recommendation of low
density residential in a secondary growth area the R-1 does allow well and
septic but the site plan shows a possible connection to sanitary sewer and
water. The lot is a legally created lot, no subdivision is proposed
therefore they don’t have to go through the minor plat process. All they
have to do before they get a building permit if it gets rezoned is a
secondary plat and then they will dedicate the new right of way and they will
put the needed easements on the secondary plat. Here is the property and
here is Gibbs Road, this is Avalon Estates in Plainfield zoned R-2 and the
surrounding properties are in Hendricks County zoned Ag Agriculture and Ag
Residential. Here is Saratoga Parkway right there. Here is the site plan,
they proposed there are some issues with the site plan, and we need to figure
out how much right of way should be dedicated and what should be the front
yard setback. Sanitary sewer and water would have to be extended from the
Saratoga Parkway and Gibbs Road intersection. The current comp plan and
transportation plan have Gibbs Road classified as a local street. This means
required half width right of way that should be dedicated as 25’ and the
required front setback is 30’, and that is what they have shown on the site
plan. They have gone ahead and proposed a 40’ right of way because that is
what Avalon Estates dedicated but just a 30’ setback. Here is the proposed
footprint of the house 80X80 and then they are showing the 30’ front yard
setback. Site plan does show the right of way at 40’ with the 30’ front
setback because that is a combined 70 feet and then the 40’ matches Avalon
Estates. The new comp plan that will hopefully be passed in March has Gibbs
Road as a secondary arterial as part of the outer loop. Secondary arterial
Plainfield Plan Commission 02-01-16 3
half foot right of way is 35’ and the front yard setback is 40’, so this a
combined 75’ so there is a 5’ difference in what would be dedicated and what
the setback would be based on how Gibbs Road is classified. So what should
be the half width right of way dedicated with the secondary plat and what
should be the required front yard setback. These 2 issues, I think we can
work through them and come up with what would be appropriate before we record
the secondary plat. So with that I will have a seat and I don’t know if
anybody is here representing the petitioner or not.
Mr. Gibbs: Is there anyone here in the audience representing the petition?
Mr. Kirchoff: I guess my question would be wouldn’t we accept it for what
the provision is now? The comp plan hasn’t been approved yet.
Mr. James: That is true, but I just wanted to make you aware of that.
Mr. Kirchoff: I understand that Joe, am I thinking wrong? Anybody else?
Mr. Brandgard: I agree with you. This has to be approved for what we have
now and not to what it might be.
Mr. Kirchoff: I appreciate what you are saying but to me whatever the rules
are when we approve it is what it should be under.
Mr. McPhail: They are proposing the same right of way as Avalon, right?
Mr. James: Right, 40’ which is 5 more than what would be required if this
was a secondary arterial.
Mr. McPhail: So we would have the same right of way if we want to expand the
road. The only difference would be the setback.
Mr. James: That is correct, there would be a 5’difference.
Mr. Bahr: When the new comprehensive plan is approved.
Mr. Kirchoff: And that we agree to what the recommendation is, is your point
Mr. Brouillard: I agree with Bill’s point. Knowing what we do about the
comp plan, do you see the 5’ being any different, is that going to cause us
any problem in the future would you think?
Mr. James: I don’t think so.
Mr. Gibbs: At this time I will open it up for the public for anyone in the
audience in favor or opposing this petition. If not I will close the public
portion of the meeting and open it up for the board for any further
discussion or a motion.
Mr. McPhail: I have one more comment, I certainly think we should approve it
but I think we should approve it and they would have to hook up to water and
sewer utility. The County is going to make them anyway. The County won’t
issue a septic permit when they are that close to the sewer, but I think we
should just make sure that that is just part of the motion.
Mr. James: That would be a zoning commitment.
Plainfield Plan Commission 02-01-16 4
Mr. Kirchoff: Are you saying we should include that in our motion?
Mr. Daniel: Yes it should be in the motion.
Mr. Kirchoff: Mr. President I move that the Plan Commission certify the zone
map amendment request RZ-16-001 as filed by Crews Consulting for Geneva
Blanton requesting rezoning of approximately 1.6 acres from AG Agriculture
District to the R-1 Low Density District with a favorable recommendation
pending annexation with a condition that connection to be made to our Town
water and sewer system.
Mr. McPhail: Second.
Mr. Gibbs: I have a motion and a second, Mr. Klinger would you poll the
board?
Mr. Klinger: Mr. Brouillard- yes
Mr. McPhail- yes
Mr. Brandgard- yes
Mr. Smith- yes
Mr. Kirchoff- yes
Mr. Bahr- yes
Mr. Gibbs- yes
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Gibbs: Next item on the agenda DP-16-001.
Mr. James: This is the Whitmore Place development plan review for compliance
with the R2 development incentives so they can reduce some lots following the
R2 standards. The plans comply with required development incentives. The
Plan Commission can waive the R2 standards. Whitmore Place is zoned R2 and
was approved for 174 lots in 2005, the total number of lots does not change,
it stays at 174 with a density of 1.84 units per acre. After the housing
market crashed the building stopped, these are finished buildings on the
existing platted lots and the last home was built in 2013. 39 lots have been
built so they are proposing 125 new lots. DRC recommended approval as
submitted in support of the waivers. So this is the area that we are talking
about, the 125 new lots, here is Township Line Road and the existing entrance
were placed the 49 lots have already been platted and built up. Here is Avon
Avenue and there would be a new entrance off of Avon Avenue which was
approved with the original plan. Here is the original plan approved back in
2005, 174 lots and the new entrance off of Avon Avenue. So I will show you
the changes with the proposing. So there is about an 8 acre wooded area here,
they want to keep the wooded area and make it open space and then instead of
having the road go through the wooded area right here, they would terminate
it in 2 cul de sacs. It is still 174 lots it is just 125 new lots. They
would adopt the Whitmore Place architectural standards and covenant. These
lots will not change, they will still remain 100’ wide lots as approved with
the original plan. The perimeter lots will have the first floor brick wraps
all the way around over here and here. That was approved in the original
plan. They are going to add 2 retention ponds and then they are adding a
centralized playground right here, that will be accessible and for everyone
in the whole subdivision to use and the same with the wooded area, they are
going to put some trails through it and everyone in the subdivision will be
able to access these playgrounds and the wooded area by sidewalk and using
the trails. Some of the internal lots will be reduced, they will go to a 70’
width and lot area of 10,000 square feet. So the existing Whitmore Place
Plainfield Plan Commission 02-01-16 5
architectural standards will be adopted, lots 53-65 east perimeter adjacent
to Williamsburg would remain 100’ wide lots with at least 15,000 square feet
in the lot area. Lots at the north perimeter adjacent to Hidden Valley would
remain R2 minimums of 90’ lot widths and 15,000 square feet. The 8’ tall
first floor brick wraps that were in the original covenant and restrictions
would remain along Williamsburg and Hidden Valley. New open space must be
created must be equal to or more the amount of lots that are being reduced
and they also must comply with the open space standards. Interior lots can
be reduced from the R2 minimums of 90’ widths in the lot area of 15,000
square feet to a minimum of 70’ lot widths and 10,000 square feet of the 125
lots, 54 or 43% would remain R2 minimum, 71 of the interior lots would be
reduced and 9 of those would be at least 90’ wide but less than 15,000 square
feet and then the remaining 62 would be at least 70’ wide but at least 10,000
square feet. The total amount of lot reduction is 9.09 acres and the new
open space that would be created is over 10.5 acres, so they meet that
requirement of having more open space than lot reduction. Open space
standards must be preserved in the natural state, they should have a passive
development, they’ve got the trial and the path, they should have an active
recreational area, and they are adding the playground. Open space must be
accessible to everyone in the subdivision. They will be able to do that by
using the sidewalks and the trails. At least 50% of the open space must be
preserved in a natural state and so they comply with that. Then they must
comply with the residential design guidelines and the PC can grant a waiver
if they feel it is a better design. So for home design they are using the
Whitmore Place standards which are basically the basic standards of the
design guidelines, open space they meet that, they’ve got more than what is
required by the design guidelines. Street scape that is the only additional
waiver they will need. The original section did not have street trees, they
are not prosing street trees with this section. Building material doesn’t
apply, that only applies to vinyl standards and they are not going to use
vinyl standards, they are going to use hardy plant and brick. Plans comply
with the requirements the Plan Commission can grant the waivers, and is this
an appropriate use of the R2 development? Here are some revised conditions
if you do approve this compliance with the site plan and then compliance with
conditions of the approval of the original plat. These have changed a little
bit from what is on the staff report. Compliance with the Whitmore Place
architectural standards, I just wanted to clarify that. Then lots 53-65
abutting Williamsburg would have to be at least 100’ wide, then also they are
going to use an antimonopoly code that would prevent repetition of similar
Homestyle’s on adjacent lots. So with that I will have a seat, there are
representatives here and I am sure that they would be glad to answer your
questions.
Mr. Gibbs: Does anyone on the board have any questions at this time for Joe?
If not would the petitioner like to come forward and address the board?
Mr. Moon: Good evening, Larry Moon with Republic Development Corporation.
We are new to the project, the project was developed by a previous developer
starting I believe it came through zoning in 2004. We came into it a year or
two ago and started studying the plan as it was. Quite honestly found some
challenges with it through the development incentive ordinance that you have,
it really allowed us to do some things that we think are great for the
project and will make it a viable development again. Joe did a great job of
going through the details so I won’t go that much in there but maybe add a
little back story. So what we did with the plan and the ordinance I think
that makes it stand out more. The old plan didn’t have much common area in
it but there was a large wooded area that we saw on the site. We don’t like
Plainfield Plan Commission 02-01-16 6
to cut trees, we try to preserve them any chance you get, we think they can
be an amenity. We also in our development experience and we have done many
throughout the area, that common area is important to a community. You want
to have it so that people can get together and have ways to recreate and the
development incentive part of the ordinance allowed us to preserve the trees,
create an open space and a trail system, create a community park with
playground that the plan didn’t previously have. We thought all of those
were good things. The lots will be smaller, it will be a more efficient plan
for us which will also make it as a more viable development from our
perspective. We had a meeting with neighbors last week, we do have a builder
they are here tonight with us, Ryan Homes who would be the builder in the
community. We know that with development standards they are home prices etc.
will be compatible or above where they are in the current subdivision even
though some of the lots will be smaller. So we like the plan, it preserves
the trees, it opens up common space, and we think it makes for a more viable
project and we appreciate your consideration.
Mr. Gibbs: Any questions from the Commission at this time? If not I will
open it up for the public for anyone in favor or opposing this petition.
Mr. Javella: Phillip Javella, I live at Whitmore Place, 2773 Chalbury.
Anyway to make it short and simple I would prefer to keep the 1/3 acre lots.
I think 50% of the lots are being reduced and I don’t think it is in the best
interest of all. I bought in there, built in there for the larger lots. So
I would greatly appreciate keeping the larger lots.
Mr. Rogers: Chad Rogers, 7246 Horton Court. I am on the board for the home
owners association of phase 1 of Whitmore Place, but I am here speaking on
behalf of myself and not the entire neighborhood because there is a varying
amount of support for the project. Generally I am supportive of the plan, I
think it meets the requirements of the R2 incentive standards. I think that
there is a positive impact on the open space, the playground, the woods, the
pathway and the larger retention ponds. However there are a few
considerations I would ask that would make me feel better about the project.
The number one concern of many of the residents and myself are the storm
water issues that we have in the community and over the summer I recognize we
had 2 record rainfall days and I have read past Commission meeting minutes
and I know you all have talked about that. Our concern is on the drainage of
the new retention ponds and the amount of paved space in phase 2. I would
just ask that a very close detailed storm water study be done before this
moves forward to study not only where the new storm water will go and what
direction but to also take a close look at the existing Whitmore Place phase
1 storm water plan and whether it is operating as initially designed and in
particular whether spilt way overflows are where they were designed to be
placed in our existing ponds. Another consideration that I would ask if this
project is approved is consideration on restricting construction traffic
through the existing phase 1 of Whitmore Place, I would say I haven’t done a
scientific poll but I would say that there is about 75% of families with
small children in our neighborhood and I understand all vehicles have rights
to the public roads for our neighborhoods but dump trucks and semi-trucks
coming through the south would not be good for public safety given that there
will be an entry off of 267, we would prefer that construction traffic could
use that and given that hopefully just one builder in the neighborhood that
should be a little easier to enforce than the neighborhoods that have several
builders in it. The other consideration that I would ask for consideration
on is there is a straightaway coming up from the south through our
neighborhood that will be often used for new residents of phase 2 to access
Plainfield Plan Commission 02-01-16 7
Plainfield. I could see and envision a speed concern because there are
currently no stop signs until you get to the intersection there by the
playground, so I would ask that the Town consider use of stop signs or work
with the existing home owners association to purchase stop signs to place at
all the intersections to hopefully keep traffic slow and safe for our
children. Also a consideration in working with the existing phase of
Whitmore Place to implement consistent street lighting throughout the
neighborhood. Then the only other addition that I have got is, as I
mentioned that I believe the requirements of the R2 incentive of the new
development being in compliance with all of the guidelines and the proposed
development demonstrating the use of the building design that is appropriate
via the Town of Plainfield residential design guidelines have been met. The
proposed development does appear to be appropriate for the site and the
surroundings and the proposed development appears to be consistent with the
others. The other and the final of the 5 findings is that the use or value
of area properties will not be adversely effected by the granting of a
waiver. I have not been able to prove one way or another whether or not the
area properties will be adversely effected, so I am not sure how, I don’t
envy the Commission in having to find on whether the values of the properties
will not be adversely effected by this. So that is all I have for you guys,
thank you for your consideration and I also wanted to thank the folks from
the Town, Joe and Tim for helping educate me through the incentive and the
folks from Republic too have been really good to work with in helping us to
understand what the plan is here and as I said, even though I pointed out
some concerns generally I am supportive of the plan.
Mr. Gibbs: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the public? If not I close
the public portion and open it up for the petitioner if he would like to
address any of those questions?
Mr. Moon: I appreciate your comments. We have talked to a number of people
from the community last week and a few other times. Everything that Mr.
Rogers brought up were things that we have discussed. The storm water
drainage we know is an issue in phase 1, our engineer, Banning, has been in
discussions with the Town about that. It really doesn’t tie directly to the
development incentive request that we have here, but we have told them as we
design, I don’t want to speak for Banning or the Engineering department but
as the development occurs there will be more retention created and it should
actually improve the situation. There may be some issues in their phase 1
which Mr. Rogers mentioned which really are not ours to address that would be
for the Town, but we think the drainage will get better. Construction
traffic, we agreed when we met last week that to the extent we can we will
sign it and require our builder to bring the traffic in off the new entrance
on 267 and not through the existing neighborhood. The straight away and stop
signs in the existing section again that is something that the Town will have
to address with the current neighbors and the neighborhood. Consistent
street lights, we have also discussed that and we plan on having street
lights, they do not have them now they are planning on adding them and we are
talking about making sure that they match, which makes since for everyone’s
standpoint. Values, someone addressed earlier, we certainly don’t think and
our experience has been when we went into existing subdivisions and this will
be about the 4th one where we have taken over a previous developer’s debunked
subdivision. There isn’t a single case, I don’t believe in any of them that
the values went down. In this case we know for a fact from Ryan Homes
pricing of the community and where lot prices have to be and make a profit
that their home prices will be above, the average above home price in here is
in the high 250’s around $260,000.00 presently. Their average price appears
Plainfield Plan Commission 02-01-16 8
to be about $280,000.00 coming into the community. More importantly you
can’t really dictate price but the building standards that are in place,
which are fairly high, don’t allow vinyl, hardy plank and brick, square
footage requirements or roof pitch requirements there are other things with
fairly high standards, those are not being changed. Those standards that
their homes had to comply with, these home will have to comply with, so we
are fairly confident that the values will be at or above what they were
previously. The fact that we are opening up the community with a new common
areas, woods, a playground and pathways for the residents can only enhance
their values as well.
Mr. Gibbs: Any questions from the board?
Mr. Smith: I have one or two. A couple of things that came up to RDC kind
of pertains to potentially could have here for monotony, particularly when
you have a 70’ lot and you are going to have a 2 or 3 car garage in the front
that is going to go every house down the block. I don’t know how much room
or how much play you have to avoid monotony. The garages I assume are all
front loaded.
Mr. Moon: Not necessarily, especially on the larger, remember 43% of our
lots are 90’ or 100’ wide, those could easily be side loaded, so there will
be a mix with our belief. A lot of times that is homeowner preference. Some
people don’t mind the side load, some people find it a little more
challenging to pull in and out, and some people don’t like them. There is an
antimonopoly code that will be applied to the neighborhood, no homes will be
the same adjacent to each other, and we keep a fairly close track on that. I
would say that Ryan is a very large home builder but has very good
architectural standards and they even know they develop 6 or 7 different
plans and 2 or 3 elevations in each plan. They intentionally have them so
that the plans look different so as you go down the street. Now if you build
an Ashton A next to an Ashton A of course it would look the same but if it is
an Ashton next to a Beaverton they are going to look different. So you will
see that. We also did a lot fit study, I know Kent had expressed some
concern about lot size, home size, and in that study it appears even with the
3 car garage the homes will be at a minimum 18’ apart by side yard setbacks
that have to at least be 15 but it looks like they will even be a little
further than that.
Mr. Smith: My second question kind of relates back to the construction
traffic and so forth, wondering if you know now what sort of sequence you
might have for opening sections so that the ponds are built early on,
drainages dealt with early on, the park area, playground these are early on?
Mr. Moon: I can tell you the phasing will come off of 267 and go all the way
through and connect, so that will be one phase. So then you have the two
points of ingress and egress for safety of Fire and Police. The first
section likely build this lake and build most or all that. This area would
not be part of phase 1, phase 2 is these two areas and then phase 3 would
likely be the Far East side. So a lot of the amenity will be in phase 1.
Mr. Brouillard: I believe you made a statement earlier on that the new
layout is a more viable product I guess than the old one. Can you tell me
how that works, it seems like you shrunk the lots a lot and yet it is now
viable.
Plainfield Plan Commission 02-01-16 9
Mr. Moon: It is more viable from a few perspectives. In our experience
communities need amenities and need common areas. So that is more viable,
quite frankly we eliminated about 1,000’ of street which makes the financial
side of it more viable. With large lots the price point that this community
is at and losing all of your common area, it just made it too big, too
costly, and it wasn’t anything that anyone wanted to buy. By doing it this
way we are creating what we think is a better product and more attractive
community for everyone.
Mr. Bahr: Do we know what the potential impact as far as the number of
students?
Mr. Moon: To the schools?
Mr. Bahr: To the schools.
Mr. Moon: Well it is 125 lots, but that is currently what it is zoned for,
so none of that changes.
Mr. Bahr: I understand.
Mr. Moon: I don’t want to presume, there isn’t a study of school children.
I mean typically the ratio is 1 ½ students per home. This isn’t an empty
nester community or a retirement village so it will have children.
Mr. Smith: Your design in the cul-de-sacs I assume big enough for the school
bus to go down there and turn around.
Mr. Moon: Unless they make them bigger. As of now, yes. It will all be the
standard requirements for Plainfield.
Mr. Gibbs: This is an Avon school district, right?
Mr. Moon: Yes it is Avon School District.
Mr. Kirchoff: Kent, have you had the opportunity to look at this and have
some discussion since you are not too far away?
Mr. McPhail: Yes I have and I do want to thank the Developer for contacting
me early before they filed this plan because he knew it was in my ward and
that I serve and he’s done Sugar Grove and we spent a lot of time on that one
trying to make sure that everybody was informed of what was going on. I took
a look at the plan and I had some concern about the 70’ lots so I did make a
trip to a subdivision in Carmel that Ryan is building this series of homes, I
certainly believe they are comparable with anything that is currently in
Whitmore. I didn’t go inside the homes but I certainly drove through the
neighborhoods and looked at them, got some photographs if anybody would like
to see those. They did furnish some photographs to the neighbors the other
night and I did ask them to lay some houses out on those lots because I was
concerned about the 70’ and I have driven through several neighborhoods that
have got 75’ and 65’ lots in similar homes. It is not claustrophobic as I
thought it would be. I don’t know how to explain that any differently, I
didn’t count but was there 40 or 50 people there the other evening from both
subdivisions and a couple of folks that live outside Eagle Woods subdivisions
and I think overall with the exception of 2 or 3, the neighbors didn’t have a
problem with it.
Plainfield Plan Commission 02-01-16 10
Mr. Kirchoff: Okay, one of my first thoughts or reactions from the current
homeowners and the homeowners association. It is fair to say that is a fair
representation of what you are hearing?
Mr. Moon: Yes there are people who would love to see that, I think what Mr.
McPhail said is a fair representation. Now there are the vocal few that would
love to see that stay a farm field, but that is not…
Mr. Kirchoff: That has not been in the plan since day one.
Mr. Moon: I would say the vocal few were vocal, but when my talking to
neighbors there are also several that also support the plan. That is really
the only thing that I can add.
Mr. Bahr: Excuse me sir, when you say they are vocal, what are they vocal
about?
Mr. Moon: They are vocal about any development on that lot, on that land. I
believe the thought is if it is not viable to shrink the lot size then let’s
fight the shrinking of the lot size and it will never be viable.
Mr. Kirchoff: While we have you there, Scott if you could raise your hand.
Scott Singleton, have you met Scott?
Mr. Moon: I know Scott pretty well. I got his cell phone number, he called me
when I was on vacation.
Mr. Kirchoff: Very good, I just wanted to make sure from your concern about
speed and safety, Scott is the person to work with on that.
Mr. Moon: We worked together with the construction that went on at the
southern entrance and I have nothing but great things to say about Scott and
his team.
Mr. Kirchoff: Thank you.
Mr. Gibbs: Thank you.
Mr. McPhail: I will add my daughter lives in this subdivision, so I have
tried to have an open mind about the whole thing and like I said the number
of folks that were there, there were a couple that, like the gentleman
tonight that didn’t want the lot sizes reduced, but it was a very small
portion of those.
Mr. Kirchoff: I would say overall I am comfortable with it too, I think they
have done some good things. Being a resident in Sugar Grove, I have some
history with them. One of the concerns that I have is on page 2 where Joe is
talking about, if all the development incentive requirements are met the Plan
Commission can waive the R-2 standards. My concern is with item C. it says
side yards can be reduced to 5’. They are building bigger homes on smaller
lots that causes me some concern.
Mr. McPhail: It is a 5’ minimum setback but it 15’ minimum aggregate so you
can’t have a 10’ aggregate it has to be 15’. If one has a 5’ setback the next
door has to be the 10’.
Mr. Kirchoff: What is it today?
Plainfield Plan Commission 02-01-16 11
Mr. James: I believe they are 10 and 15.
Mr. Kirchoff: So it is still a 15’ aggregate?
Mr. McPhail: I don’t know what R-2 is but…
Mr. Kirchoff: But what I mean, phase 1 what is in there? What is the
standard?
Mr. McPhail: Whatever R-2 is, whatever the minimums are in R-2.
Mr. Kirchoff: As I drive through that subdivision the spacing seems to be
adequate with the current ones. My concern is as verbalized earlier you are
shrinking lots but you are putting in a nice product in there, what is it
going to look like from a spacing standpoint, I guess is my question.
Mr. James: It is 12 and a 25 aggregate.
Mr. Brandgard: In my subdivision it is 5 and 10.
Mr. McPhail: 5 and 15.
Mr. Brandgard: 5 and 15?
Mr. McPhail: Banning took several of their home site plans and laid those out
and the closest they came with the 3 car garages on both sides was 18’. That
doesn’t mean they can’t get down to 15’.
Mr. Kirchoff: I understand. I just want to be sensitive to the existing
homeowners.
Mr. Smith: Is the pavement concrete? Is that counted? Is that included, not
just on the building structure but what if you have a driveway like for a
side garage? Concrete comes up for the driveway quite a ways.
Mr. Kirchoff: What is the 15’ measured on? Is it structure or…
Mr. James: Yes the foundation of the home to the lot line.
Mr. Kirchoff: Okay.
Mr. Brandgard: Tim what can you tell us about the storm water? Everybody
had storm water issues this last summer.
Mr. Belcher: It’s hard because I don’t really want to talk about Bob’s
design on the new section but if you want you wanted to hear a little about
what was talked about tonight.
Mr. Kirchoff: Phase 1.
Mr. Belcher: We did some investigation after those floods and like they said
tonight those were historic proportions, but what we discovered in this
preliminary reviews is that in this first section there is a couple of homes
that may have been built and graded at a different height between the two
homes than they should have possibly been for what they call a flood routing
elevation. The flood routing if that is filled a little higher than it
Plainfield Plan Commission 02-01-16 12
should have been that would meant the street got higher than it should have.
So that happens sometimes within building construction, the plans got
approved a certain way then the homes get constructed at different times and
the grading between the homes might not have been as accurate as they should
have been so we may need to go back and investigate that again. I think that
the new project, the biggest problem was the area up stream of the
subdivision was undeveloped. The fact that it was undeveloped and it was
saturated means that it is going to come off there like a parking lot and
essentially make the problem worse than it more than likely would have been
had it been developed with detention ponds like the proposed tonight. So I
believe that it would create a better situation with development with the
ponds being developed in accordance with the Towns requirements. Doesn’t
mean that we don’t need to go back and look at some other things though and
we are going to do that.
Mr. Gibbs: Thanks Tim.
Mr. Smith: One last thing, are they required in anyway here to have the
traffic study? Or have they done one, Joe?
Mr. James: The traffic study was done with original with 174 lots.
Mr. Smith: I’m wondering out on 267 if you were southbound on 267 and when it
turned left into is the traffic going to have to back up behind you? Or are
you going to be able to create a passing lane?
Mr. Moon: There will be a left turn lane that was part of the traffic study
findings back in ’06. Unfortunately we are going to have to do a lot of work
on 267.
Mr. Smith: You get land from the property owner across the street probably?
Mr. Moon: No, there is actually appears to be enough right of way because
the state had already taking so there is enough width, it is just a matter of
adding pavement width and making a dedicated left turn lane so the traffic
heading south would continue south and shift over to the east to turn in.
Mr. Smith: So you made that commitment?
Mr. Brandgard: It has already been made.
Mr. Smith: Okay good. Thank you.
Mr. Gibbs: If that is it for questions I will entertain a motion.
Mr. Brouillard: Mr. Chairman I would like to make a motion. I move the Plan
Commission approve DP-16-001 as filed by Republic Development, LLC.
Requesting approval of development plan for compliance with R-2 develo9pment
incentives and approving requested waivers for the Whitmore Place residential
subdivision finding that;
1. The use or value of area properties will not adversely be affected.
2. The proposed development will be in compliance with the applicable
Development Requirements and general requirements for project open
space.
3. Proposed development demonstrates the use of building design features
and site layout consistent with the intent and recommendations of the
Town of Plainfield residential design guidelines.
Plainfield Plan Commission 02-01-16 13
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 shall be
subject to the following conditions;
1. Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted January 15, 2016.
2. Compliance with the conditions of approval of PP-04-012 in the terms of approval of the waiver regarding secondary means of
access. All as enclosed by the Plan Commission on February 07,
2005.
3. The compliance with Whitmore Place architectural standards as stipulated and recorded at the declaration of covenant and
restrictions of the Whitmore Place subdivision which shall be cross
referenced on all subsequent records and secondary plats.
4. Lots 53-65 abutting the Williamsburg and the Woods subdivision at the east perimeter shall have 100’ lots minimums.
5. An antimonopoly code preventing the repetition of similar homes, styles on adjacent lots shall be adopted.
Mr. Brandgard: Second.
Mr. Gibbs: I have a motion and a second, Mr. Klinger would you poll the
board?
Mr. Klinger: Mr. Brouillard- yes
Mr. McPhail- yes
Mr. Brandgard- yes
Mr. Smith- yes
Mr. Kirchoff- yes
Mr. Bahr- yes
Mr. Gibbs- yes
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Gibbs: Next item on the agenda DP-16-002.
Mr. Berg: DP-06-002, we are looking for architectural and site design review
for a proposed 9,200 square foot retail use in the gateway corridor zoned GC
on a 1.35 acre lot. This is the site here it didn’t show up that well in
yellow but this is the existing building, you can see the Luxury Auto Depot
over here on the right. There are 2 entrances here and here, this is the
proposed new site, cross access there. Basically the 2 access will go away
and be consolidated smaller access to the east. We will talk more about the
elevations here in just a bit. Okay as I mentioned the structure is going to
be over here more towards the west side of the site compared to the existing
on the east. Many different points of ingress/egress. We have the one that
is going to replace the 2 here cross access from Taco Bell, an access
easement coming through here up to the mattress store which hopefully will be
able to get connected sometime in the future to create a connection between
Perry and Williams Trace. It looks like there is a stud here as well for
cross access. Sidewalk and trail connection will come through the lot here,
a demarcated crosswalk area to the sidewalk on east Main. Trash enclosures
up here in the northwest corner, it will be screened as per the landscaping
requirements. Parking spaces, they are required to have 51. Bruce, I think
you remember from DRC how they brought in a revised plan that lowered the
number of seats in the potential restaurant uses which brought the required
and place parking down which also brought the requirement for interior lot
Plainfield Plan Commission 02-01-16 14
landscaping down as well. We will discuss this part also again later. They
do have a proposed ground sign that is within the Towns easement, they will
require the Town Council to have an encroachment agreement should they chose
to keep that location. Landscaping plan they have revised this since DRC the
foundation landscaping they’ve added this here. Other than that the east and
north, south and west all comply. Parking islands they are in compliance
with those regulations as well, as well as the parking lot screening here on
the north and on the south. Their perimeter landscaping also does comply.
Photometric plans also in compliance. The elevations they are slightly
different from what we saw initially at DRC, still with brick, EIFS, the
metal that will require the wavier for the canopies there on the south
elevation. North elevation large brick and EIFS. East and west elevations
also combination of brick and EIFS and the metal light that is going to
require the waiver. The trash enclosure was corrected from the DRC meeting.
They are using utility brick coping that will match the building. They are
required cedar slat fencing and we are fine with this. Free standing sign
was another issue that has been addressed since DRC. Most notably the
requirement that the integrated center sign be placed as 10%. Again we have
our easement and this sign encroaches in to that. DRC supported the
materials waiver, they supported the more balanced elevation which they
resubmitted since then and DRC has had a chance to look at it and they gave
it the thumbs us as well. Trash enclosure was replaced, they did approve the
site plan based upon the reduced parking that the applicant brought in. My
typical comment that all signs shall be approved through the ILP process.
Other comment is that a waiver is required for the awnings and any tile
accents that are still present. As I said that I will belabor again that we
need an encroachment agreement for the sign placement. I know the applicant
is here to answer all sorts of questions that you might have.
Mr. Brandgard: I have one question to you. I want to understand where this
is at. Is this where Luxury Auto is at? If Luxury Auto will go away and
this will replace it?
Mr. Berg: Yes sir.
Mr. Brandgard: It wasn’t initiatively obvious as I read through this.
Mr. Kirchoff: I drove out there and I thought there was no room to put this
building up. So that building is coming down?
Mr. Berg: My apologies sometimes I just assume everyone is following my
thought process.
Mr. McPhail: I clarified that also.
Mr. Smith: There is a large white cinder block building on the site now,
which comes down.
Mr. Berg: Yes.
Mr. Gibbs: Would the petitioner like to address the board?
Mr. Schnur: Good evening members of the board, my name is Dan Schnur with
Roger Engineering. Also here tonight representing the developer is Ryan
Conrad. We have really enjoyed working with staff and the DRC on what we
feel is a good project and making it a little bit better. I think that
everything that we have done today through staff comments and through DRC
Plainfield Plan Commission 02-01-16 15
comments I think have certainly improved the project. One thing that we are
also accomplished is the access drive behind this retail development now,
from Williams Trace to Perry Road will be completed. I think that this
project benefits that entire run of retail shops by doing that. I don’t have
much more to add to the staff report at this point, but we would be happy to
answer any questions that you might have.
Mr. McPhail: I believe looking at the site you still have property to the
north side, is that big enough to develop into anything? Do you know what
you got left there?
Mr. Schnur: I don’t know that there are any specific plans for it.
Mr. James: They have also submitted a secondary plat to combine 2 lots.
That north part will be platted as a lot, it does meet the general commercial
standards for a lot.
Mr. McPhail: I just knew it was there I just couldn’t tell how much was
going to be left, because I talked to the property owner a couple of years
ago about trying to get that connector through there but and so we were
trying to get that done and I couldn’t get it done on the farther east so I
gave up on it, but that is really going to be a plus to be able to get people
from the carwash and the tire place and they can get back over and get the
light and get out of there.
Mr. Kirchoff: My only question is, you indicated you thought there was an
easement that was, I mean is there some way for us to make that a condition
of this approval that that easement is there or be secured?
Mr. McPhail: Well I don’t think we can hold their feet to the fire on the
easement of the adjoining property.
Mr. Conrad: Ryan Conrad with Thomas English Retail Real Estate, 725 E. 65th
Street, suite 300, Indianapolis, Indiana. I will answer the easement
question. That easement does not formally connect our parcel, this
particular parcel yet to Williams Trace, that easement is still yet to be in
place with the intent to be in place. We are proposing to make it a
condition of our approval to allow that easement in place for the neighboring
property in further development if we are unsuccessful in obtaining that
easement. So therefore currently that easement is not in place to our
parcel, to the Luxury Auto currently as it sits today.
Mr. McPhail: Do you know how far it goes?
Mr. Conrad: It stops at the property line and it is connected to the
American Mattress and the Big O Tire parcel out to Williams Trace.
Originally as you guys know this was all put together by Chris White, this is
the last hold parcel that he could not get, and so everything was set up for
this to all connect internally like other 4 parcels do outside of this
particular parcel.
Mr. McPhail: So if you dedicate the easement then it is there?
Mr. Conrad: No. We have to be added to the existing easement that is with
American Mattress and Big O Tire, Maher Properties, there is additional
easement with the Tractor Supply, Discount Tire, and Taco Bell. There is
existing easement as Eric stated that we will re-plat this parcel, this is 3
Plainfield Plan Commission 02-01-16 16
parcels currently. The parcel on the left which is spite strip where the
curb cut on the southwest corner is in place, that is currently there and
existing, however that parcel there is a sliver, there is a spite strip that
goes all the way back to the rear access, that is the part of the easement
currently, that was separated with the Taco Bell so that lot was split
therefore these three parcels will be re-platted and will be a party to that
easement in place.
Mr. Brouillard: So that little bump out up top on the north side that is
what you are talking about?
Mr. Conrad: The side parcel connects the Taco Bell in the front part and it
also jogs around to the rear access road.
Mr. Schnur: If I may what happened was that when Taco Bell and Discount Tire
lots were platted which I believe was in Plaza North 1, Taco Bell didn’t take
all of their platted lot. So there was a section of that lot that was left
undeveloped. That is the kind of green space that you see out there with the
Luxury Auto and the Taco Bell currently. What we are proposing to do is
include that in our re-plat of those 2 meets and balance parcels and that
portion of that lot 102 of Plaza North 1, we are going to take that remaining
section and combine it with the other 2 lots that the Luxury Auto sits on and
create a single parcel out of that and then continue the access easements and
the utility easements across the back of that but there is a portion, that
portion of lot 102 does contain an easement that will need to be reconfigured
and moved over to the edge of the new lot in that process. There is a little
bit going on there but we are proposing to address that as part of the
secondary plat.
Mr. Smith: Isn’t that green strip needed for drainage? I see water
occasionally running through that.
Mr. Schnur: For whatever reason that is has always been a natural swell it
comes back out towards Main Street. That portion of being part of Plaza
North 1 actually was accounted for in the drainage then the detention pond
behind TSC. We actually do have an existing manhole right up here on the
northwest corner of our lot that is actually the trunk line that takes the
drainage from the front portion of that development back to the pond and so
I’ve had several discussions with Tim and we are going to utilize that
connection point and be able to detain a portion of our onsite by oversizing
the pipes within our parking lot and then restrict that and have a restricted
release back to manhole which will go back to the TSC pond.
Mr. Daniel: Unclear to me, just help me out a little. From Perry Road going
east on the north side of those lots, is there an easement for those lots for
a street or not, I still don’t understand that.
Mr. Kirchoff: How far does it go, today?
Mr. Schnur: Today it goes to here, where that notch is. Then since that
notch is part of our lot, we are proposing to extend those easements across
the east side of our property.
Mr. Kirchoff: Then that will connect you to the existing easement on the
east.
Mr. Schnur: I think what Ryan is getting at is that this development has to
be accepted into the receptacle easement agreement for the remaining of that
Plainfield Plan Commission 02-01-16 17
development. There are 2 easements one for the east side and one for the
west side. So they are all separate parties and 2 separate easements.
Mr. Kirchoff: I still don’t understand if we approve this if those pieces
then connected, how are you going to connect these two pieces of the
easements?
Mr. Conrad: I’m not sure if it was addressed correctly or not but as of
right now is when we are proposing there is a strip of land that is off of
our parcel in-between us and American Mattress. That is not on our parcel,
we will extend our curb and the driveway up until that property line today as
it sits. We are working to get that access extended over to Williams Trace.
Mr. McPhail: How big is that spite strip?
Mr. Conrad: .34 acres.
Mr. Kirchoff: Do you see my concern?
Mr. McPhail: Yes. Does it run all the way from 40 and all the way back?
Who owns it?
Mr. Kirchoff: Kent I don’t think it is the spite strips that is the issue it
is the other end, it is not connecting on the east end. He’s quoting the one
on the west end.
Mr. McPhail: I am confused.
Mr. Gibbs: That is the property that is owned by the Mattress, well I don’t
know who it is owned by but where the mattress company sits.
Mr. Conrad: Correct.
Mr. Kirchoff: Then why doesn’t that easement run all the way?
Mr. Gibbs: They are not a party to that, there will be some sort of easement
agreement between those property owners to which they are not a party too.
Mr. Kirchoff: I understand that but he said there is still a gap.
Mr. Daniel: There is a receptacle easement agreement on those easements, is
that what it is?
Mr. James: You are going to create an easement, right?
Mr. Conrad: That is correct.
Mr. Kirchoff: But what he said was there is still a gap it doesn’t connect
to the current easement on the east.
Mr. Conrad: We would create an easement to connect them. We are proposing
too. That has yet to be done with the other parties to the east.
Mr. James: They will create an easement with the plat that goes to the
property line.
Mr. Daniel: So that notch will connect the easements then?
Plainfield Plan Commission 02-01-16 18
Mr. Conrad: Yes it will.
Mr. Daniel: Okay that is what I…
Mr. Kirchoff: That is not what I heard a while ago.
Mr. Gibbs: When they establish that easement then it will all be connected.
Mr. James: Then how do we get it punched through to get American Mattress to
participate.
Mr. Conrad: We are working on that now.
Mr. McPhail: You can connect but then you will have to have a receptacle
agreement with them.
Mr. Conrad: Correct. There is about, I don’t know the exact distance but
there is about a foot to two feet that is currently grass between where we
are proposing to extend the asphalt to the property line and there is
currently about 2 feet of grass.
Mr. Gibbs: That grass is on the Mattress property.
Mr. Conrad: That is correct.
Mr. Gibbs: So if you can enter into a cooperative agreement with them you
would be willing to go ahead and pave that area to make it match even though
it is on their property.
Mr. McPhail: Then they have to add 2 more feet to their easement. Now we
know where it is at.
Mr. Daniel: How wide is that strip there Ryan? The easement part of it?
Mr. Conrad: Well it would be about, are you saying wide north and south, it
is 30’.
Mr. Kirchoff: My point is there some way that we can guarantee that gets
done because if you look at the 3rd page in you see that there is a gap.
Mr. Brandgard: I think Bill I know where you are coming from but I don’t see
how we can tell them what somebody else has to do.
Mr. Daniel: And they have already agreed dedicate theirs.
Mr. Conrad: We are certainly willing to (inaudible) if and when the times
does come that neighboring property agrees and accepts that. They are more
than willing to extend that all the way across, that is our intent.
Mr. Brouillard: I think it would be almost unfair not to grant this just
because somebody else isn’t allowing that road to go through.
Mr. James: We have done this in the past and the condition to be that they
continue to work to make that happen.
Plainfield Plan Commission 02-01-16 19
Mr. Kirchoff: That is all I am saying. I understand that we can’t do
anything when it is not their property, but to me this is part of the beauty
of that plan is to tie all of that together.
Mr. McPhail: Absolutely. And that was the intent when it developed. I mean
the attempt has been there forever for that to be through there.
Mr. Brouillard: Does the Town have any authority to say hey you are parking
trucks on this area that we plan to be a road. All we got to do is connect
that, if we grant this there is one foot of paving that has to happen, but if
they are parking their trucks there, does the Town have any authority to say
you can’t park trucks on that road.
Mr. Daniel: Probably depends on that easement, it is a private easement or a
public easement.
Mr. Gibbs: At this time I would like to open it up to the public for anyone
in the audience that would like to speak in favor or opposing this petition?
If not I close the public portion of the meeting and open it back up to the
board for further discussion.
Mr. Gibbs: I just have a general question and comments that may have come
from the DRC and other people here on the board. Is anyone concerned that
the majority of this parking for this retail space is in the back? Did the
DRC have anything to say about that?
Mr. Conrad: I don’t recall that being too much of a comment, I think it was…
Mr. Smith: It wasn’t a big issue as I recall. I kind of recall thinking
about it a little bit at the time as I am looking at the plan. The back of
the building is kind of bland like most of the strip centers are. I suppose
we could ask them to put logos, company signage on the back. That might help
for someone to know what door to walk in. I kind of sort of thought about it
the other way around, this is getting cars off of Main Street and parking
back where we are not looking at them in parking lots. So I hear what you
are saying but I wasn’t personally immediately offended by having only one
strip of cars there, the rest of them are off the lots and maybe down the
side. The parking plan didn’t bother me but I know what you are saying about
the back of the building bland. Maybe we could ask for a little more
treatment back there.
Mr. Conrad: I am thinking another one of the comments that was made was
something to the effect that it was a good situation for employee parking as
well. That might have been DRC or TAC.
Mr. Gibbs: I believe that discussion happened in TAC, it was discussed that
employees would park in the back and then customers would park in the front
and to the side. Is there a walkway around the east side of the building?
Mr. Conrad: Yes.
Mr. Brouillard: Along that line of questioning it looks like, I’m assuming
that landscaping meets the… because it just looks kind of sparse. There is a
little out front but it doesn’t look like there is a lot of it.
Mr. Conrad: It is level 1 perimeter landscaping. The screening to the
parking lot is compliant.
Plainfield Plan Commission 02-01-16 20
Mr. Brouillard: Now that you said level 1, your right you don’t need
anything greater than that in that area.
Mr. Smith: The back elevation might be a little more important when the
private road behind goes through, you might have more traffic back there, so
the back elevation may be more visible.
Mr. Brandgard: I agree but to me if you look at back of the mattress factory
it looks like the back of this. If you look at Big O and all you have is a
wall over there.
Mr. Smith: Some of the buildings that are right across the street don’t have
too much on the back maybe a little signage. Starbucks and Panda building.
Mr. McPhail: Pretty bland on the back.
Mr. Brouillard: I understand that the seating in one of these areas is going
to be reduced because of a reduced parking.
Mr. Conrad: Well when we received it originally it was over 200 in an area
that it wouldn’t matter. It was overestimated in my opinion and what they
brought in at DRC was more again my opinion more realistic for what the space
that the restaurant was.
Mr. Brouillard: My question was how do you enforce that going forward, is
that part of the lease that you can only have so many seats?
Mr. Conrad: No, it is how it was approved at the time.
Mr. James: It depends on the seating area and the fire code.
Mr. Smith: Did you consider at all making this a 2 story building? I
realize parking is limited and money is limited, I know but in terms of scale
you have other 2 story buildings that you are within a block or two. The
Taco Bell to your west looks to be about 4-5’ higher in elevation than your
current level so they seem to tower over your building a little bit. So I
just wondered if that was thought at all.
Mr. James: The parapet adds some height.
Mr. Smith: It does, yes.
Mr. Gibbs: Any other questions or comments from the board.
Mr. Kirchoff: The only question I have is in the motion can we say something
to the effect that the petitioner will make reasonable efforts to secure the
connection of the access easement to the property on the east. Is that
reasonable?
Mr. Daniel: Yes.
Mr. Kirchoff: Mr. President I move the Plan Commission approve DP-16-002 as
filed by Roger Ward Engineering requesting development plan approval for a
new 9,280 square foot retail building in the gateway corridor on 1.35 acres
zoned GC General Commercial District finding that;
Plainfield Plan Commission 02-01-16 21
1. The development plan complies with all applicable development standards of the district in which this 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 the architectural and site design review for which a waiver has not been
granted.
4. Proposed development is appropriate to the site and its surroundings. The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of
the Plainfield zoning ordinance.
5. Regarding the waiver utilizing metal clad canopy and hardy plain for an accent siting. The Plan Commission finds that;
1. The proposed development request represents an innovative use of building material and brick collar that will enhance the use or
value of area properties.
2. The proposed development is consistent and compatible with other development located along the gateway corridor.
3. The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of Plainfield zoning ordinance. And then such approval be subject
to the following additions.
1. Substantial compliance with the building elevations, colored renderings, trash enclosure details, site plan, landscape plan,
signage plan, photometric plan and lighting cut sheets submitted
file dated January 15, 2016.
2. The petitioner will make reasonable efforts to secure the connection of the access easement with the property owner to the
east.
Mr. Smith: Second.
Mr. Gibbs: I have a motion and a second Mr. Klinger would you poll the
board?
Mr. Klinger: Mr. Brouillard- yes
Mr. McPhail- yes
Mr. Brandgard- yes
Mr. Smith- yes
Mr. Kirchoff- yes
Mr. Bahr- yes
Mr. Gibbs- yes
Motion carries.
Mr. Gibbs: That concludes the public portion of the meeting.
OLD BUSINESS/NEW BUSINESS
Mr. James: I’ve got some things I would like for you to consider under old
business/new business. First thing I’ve got Dave Okerson he has patiently
waited all night to address you, Dave is the manager at Schutz business on
Reeves Road. A couple of weeks ago I sent you the email that they are in
violation of their outdoor storage. They’ve got a lot of containers out back
and we sent them a notice back in November and gave them until the end of
January to bring the property into compliance, so based on the email you said
before you took action that you would like Dave to come in and tell us what
they are doing to bring the property into compliance.
Plainfield Plan Commission 02-01-16 22
Mr. Okerson: Good evening I am Dave Okerson from Schutz Container Systems,
2375 Reeves Road, suite 100. We are a container manufacturing and
reconditioning operation. Started work here in 2009 when we really started
going. We make intermediate bulk containers, I don’t know if you are
familiar with them. It is a steal cage with a plastic inner bottle. We sell
them to the chemical companies. Mr. Uno Schutz was a Formula 1 driver in the
60’s and now he has been in racing yachts. We sell our containers to
chemical companies with the idea that they are sustainable and reusable. It
is the buzz word of these years are the sustainability, that is what the
chemical companies want and that is what we provide so we return these
containers after they are empty. Say the Town of Brownsburg, say your
swimming pool has chlorine and you are buy them in a 275 gallon container it
is empty, you got 6 of them, we will come and pick them up for free and bring
them to our return facilities. There is one here, there is one in Lexington,
NC, and there is one in Houston, Texas. And we will pull the bottle out
scrape out any residue out of the bottom, grind up the bottle, melt it down
and pipe it into another injection machine in another part of our building.
So the bottle gets made into other parts that we use when we have a plastic
pallet on the bottom or we have corner protectors. These are the containers
that is our problem, they are stacked outside. When we did zoning many years
ago Charlie was here to give zoning to put in the fenced area in the back
where we have managed to contain it until the market for these went away.
Some of our competitors/customers and other re-conditioners who don’t make
these, they like to take ours. They pull the bottle out and put somebody
else’s bottle in them and resale them. So there was a market for those,
people were actually be out there buying them and so my market had kind of
dried up and a lot of that was used in the oil fracking business. Fracking
businesses is now completely gone so a lot of those companies used to sell to
those customers they are not there anymore. So they are there not picking up
any of these, so we are still take them in. In 2008 when they started
building the plant and started to put the machinery in and the investment
nobody else was really doing much of anything. We maybe under estimated the
demand for how many of these things would be coming into us, so it has gotten
ahead of us the past year or two, and we realized we had to start selling
them outside for the past year. It has really gotten too far so they
invested in a shredder to deal with the problem it was just too slow going.
We are a private company and so everything is decided in Germany when
spending this kind of money and actually Mr. Shutz who owns us decides a lot
of this himself. He will say will this shredder go to Indianapolis,
Plainfield, so they held up on the shredder because they were afraid we would
be shredding something we could actually use. The steel shredder investment
was $232,000.00 for the shredder alone, the stand we had to build was
$43,000.00, the electrical connection was $46,000.00 and $322,000.00 we spent
and it just got going November 3rd is when we just started shredding the
cages. The cages that we can’t use. We’ve installed a plastic shredder on
the inside of the building to help speed up the process. So in general when
I talked to Joe, I said we would get on this we will get on this as hard as
we can. Our plant in Houston then had a rebuild, they also take these in, so
the worse timing they could have ever had they shut their reconditioning side
down and getting a brand new line and everything rebuilt. I got an email
hopefully they will be starting this week if not next week. The President of
the company is down there now making sure that is going to happen. So some
of what used to go to Houston has been coming into Plainfield. So just
increased the number coming in when we weren’t able to handle those coming in
in the first place so it just made it worse. Anything we did still couldn’t
keep up with the demand, so that will be starting up next week so a lot of
the work that has been coming in here will be going there again and give us
Plainfield Plan Commission 02-01-16 23
time to breath and let us catch up on some of what we have got to get done.
Bottom line is we were asking for some more time to get in compliance. We
have invested heavily, not to mention the overtime that we pay the guys to
work weekends and a night shift we added and temps so we could just run this.
We have been very successful over the years, business is down now because
like I said there just isn’t many to sell.
Mr. Gibbs: What is your estimated time to complete that?
Mr. Okerson: I thought we would get it done in 60 days but we did not. If
Houston gets going. If we could have 90 days we will have that lot cleared
up and have everything inside the fence.
Mr. Brouillard: How many containers do you have on site?
Mr. Okerson: About 15,000.
Mr. Brouillard: And what do you want to take it down to?
Mr. Okerson: About 5 or 6.
Mr. Brouillard: So you have 10,000 you need to get rid of.
Mr. Okerson: Yes.
Mr. Brouillard: And 90 days you are going to get rid of it.
Mr. Okerson: We got a plan put together. We are doing everything we can to
get into compliance. We’ve worked with Joe and Terry.
Mr. Gibbs: Do I have consent that 90 days?
Mr. Brandgard: Yes, I was going to say this is not what we want to see
happen. It is obviously not what you want to see happen, but you do have a
plan to address it and we all know that plans go array, so if we give you 90
days I would ask if for my approval if this plan goes awry you come in and
see us before we come and see you.
Mr. Kirchoff: Just keep us posted.
Mr. James: I have 2 more things. We met with Loves Truck stop a couple
weeks ago. Kent, Robin, Andrew and some other staff members. They are
looking at 595 South Perry Road. They want to do truck tire distribution but
they also want to do a retreading operation. They are getting anxious, they
need a place to get this started and they would like for us to give them an
answer if that would be an appropriate use at that site or not. There is
another similar operation at 37 and 465. I could set up a tour if some of
you would like to go.
Mr. Kirchoff: Give us a sense of where this is. You gave us the address but
where is it?
Mr. James: It is just south of 465.
Mr. Kirchoff: No, your proposed site here?
Mr. Brandgard: It is the building south of Galyan’s office.
Plainfield Plan Commission 02-01-16 24
Mr. Kirchoff: What did you hear as far as the impact on the neighborhood?
Is it noise, odors?
Mr. McPhail: Watching the videos Bill we don’t think there is an issue but
we are asking the same questions as you, is there a motor or there noise and
that type of thing. If you look at the videos it looks like it is really,
and I’ve looked at several but they have the state of the art. When they
take a tire in there they can buff that thing off and take all of that tread
off. Their operation is pretty well enclosed. It takes that grinding and
takes it direct to a trailer and blows it in that trailer to haul it off. We
can’t tell from looking at that video if it is getting an odor outside or
that type of thing.
Mr. Kirchoff: So a visit might be worth wile. To me my question is the
location next to it a really nice office building, isn’t that really crucks
of this?
Mr. Brandgard: Yes.
Mr. Gibbs: I think so.
Mr. Brandgard: If it was located deeper into the…
Mr. Kirchoff: Yes.
Mr. McPhail: Did we get a report back from the Fire Department?
Mr. James: No.
Mr. McPhail: We wanted the Fire Department to make sure that because it is
within a building that the walls and everything were up to code and that type
of thing. That was another question we needed to ask.
Mr. Brandgard: You can maybe take Joe along so he can see it.
Mr. Brouillard: It would be interesting if there is a smell.
Mr. Brandgard: I remember when (inaudible) made tires here in town, you’d go
down there and it smells. It is just like walking through Target and you
smell bicycles before you get to them.
Mr. Gibbs: We don’t have that problem.
Mr. McPhail: The only thing I am concerned about is liquid adhesives and
that type of thing. The only type of place that they are using any liquid
adhesive at all is where they butted the tread together the rest of it was a
film they put on there. Then when they heat the thing.
Mr. Brouillard: I don’t know anything about this technology but I am
thinking if you shred rubber, there is a little melting or burning involved.
It’s not to say that they are not masking it or controlling it properly, it
is probably worth a visit.
Mr. McPhail: You got other tenants in the building, if that odor is getting
outside or through those walls, you are going to have…
Plainfield Plan Commission 02-01-16 25
Mr. Brandgard: They are looking at the middle of the building.
Mr. Klinger: Where is this facility Joe that you want to visit?
Mr. James: 37 and 465.
Mr. Klinger: Is it in a multi-tenant building?
Mr. James: I’m not sure.
Mr. Brandgard: It is probably in one of those truck stops.
Mr. James: I think it is.
Mr. Kirchoff: There is a lot of truck stops down there. So it must be
adjacent to that. I would be interested in a visit.
Mr. McPhail: I told Joe I would go because I am curious because part of the
job is going to be pretty good jobs, they are a little higher pay in their
warehouse part. But it is also an investment in the equipment, but it is
going to be offensive to neighbors we need to find them another spot.
Mr. Smith: Another building that is more remote.
Mr. Gibbs: They didn’t say anything about traffic?
Mr. James: No it would be normal distribution traffic. I will schedule a
visit. I got one more thing. I got this from Kelly Lawrence with City
Scape. The apartments next to the mall, it says they are finalizing
construction documents and the 4 story building has been laid out with 39
units instead of 38, so that would be an additional 3 units total. So they
would go from 306 to 309. Then also two additional garages would be added
for a total of 6 garages would be added to the overall project and then based
on market demand, they said the market tells them that they need to do more 1
bedroom units. So their original mix was 39% 1 bedrooms, 52% 2 bedrooms and
almost 8% 3 bedrooms. So now they want to go to 44% 1 bedrooms, 47% 2
bedrooms and 8% 3 bedrooms. So they want to add more single family units.
Mr. McPhail: So they are increasing the number by a total of 3, and they are
adding 6 garages and they are changing the mix basically between 1 and 2’s.
Mr. James: Yes.
Mr. McPhail: I think that is good.
Mr. Bahr: A decrease on the school.
Mr. James: If these are considered minor changes we can just approve it with
the ILP.
Mr. Gibbs: Are park impact amenities calculated on a per unit basis and we
would we send them an adjustment based on the 3 new units.
Mr. James: Yes, it is just based on the number of units not the types.
Mr. Gibbs: But they are adding 3 new units right?
Plainfield Plan Commission 02-01-16 26
Mr. James: Right.
Mr. Gibbs: So will we send them an adjustment?
Mr. James: $1,500.00 more dollars.
Mr. McPhail: We asked them to build more garages to start with, didn’t we?
If I remember right.
Mr. James: That is all I have.
Mr. Kirchoff: When will we get the next draft for the (inaudible)?
Mr. James: Hopefully 2 weeks before the March 7 meeting.
Mr. Kirchoff: What is new on the Phillips 66?
Mr. James: I forgot to update you on that. The ordinance committee met last
week and we had some good discussions on what to do with gas stations, we
think a special exception is the way to go. Maybe create a new highway
business district.
Mr. Kirchoff: My questions is about the gas station out on West Main Street.
Mr. James: We scheduled a meeting with Mr. Jesse and he didn’t show so we
started the fining process again. Then to fill you in on the updates on the
gas station ordinance amendment and the micro cell towers. We are going to
define the gas station and a truck stop and eliminate it from the Town Center
district and the neighborhood retail district and then probably allow gas
stations by special exception. Then we are also looking at special design
standards for gas stations.
Mr. Kirchoff: So does that give us more control?
Mr. James: Yes. The micro cell towers we’ve looked at Fishers what they
adopted and everybody felt pretty comfortable with that so we are going to
use that as a template.
Mr. Gibbs: The gas stations there was a lot of discussion about the design
standards. A couple of us knew of experiences where if you ask they are
willing to give it, I had that experience with Giant Eagle and Get Go, which
of course that one never got built on the east side, but they came in with a
very basic plan that was really pretty ugly, and we just asked, put the pump
in the back of the building and they were yeah we can do that. Everything we
asked for they did.
Mr. Kirchoff: I’m glad you mention this, you know I have been in Florida and
in Stuart, Florida it is interesting to see they must have some pretty good
standards too, because even some of their fast food facilities are much more
kind to the eye if I can say that, than what we see here. I think it is
somebody saying can’t you do something a little better.
Mr. Brandgard: That is like the Village Pantry up there by me, what they
brought in is not what they ended up building and then they tried to paint
it, so we got that stopped.
Plainfield Plan Commission 02-01-16 27
Mr. McPhail: We have given Joe a real challenge to write these development
standards but leave some flexibility where those that are here that need to
be upgraded that we don’t push them so hard that we won’t get them upgraded.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Gibbs: All those in favor of adjournment.
Mr. Kirchoff: So move.