TOWN OF PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION. April 10, 2008

Transcription

1 TOWN OF PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION April 10, 2008 The Plainfield Plan Commission met on Thursday, April 10, In attendance were Mr. Satterfield, Mr. Brandgard, Mr. Dunkin, Mr. Kirchoff and Mr. Gibbs. ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM Mr. Carlucci administered the Roll Call. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES Mr. Brandgard made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 3, 2008 Plan Commission meeting as printed. Second by Mr. Dunkin. Motion carried. Mr. Kirchoff abstained from voting on the minutes since he was not present at the above meeting. OATH OF TESTIMONY Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Testimony. PUBLIC HEARINGS Mr. Gibbs reviewed the Guidelines Governing the Conduct of Public Hearings. The first case this evening is RZ Mr. James said the first request tonight is the North South Corridor Properties, LLC. This is a request to rezone 17.9 acres from Agriculture to Commercial Industrial and 57.3 acres from Agriculture to the Office/Warehouse Distribution District. The property is located east of the Ronald Reagan Parkway. It is south of the Airtech Parkway. It is pending annexation. When property is annexed, it is given the AG District until such time it is petitioned for rezone. The requested zoning pattern matches the adjacent property to the south. When it was rezoned in 2006, it established the location of the frontage road and the depth of the industrial portion. The industrial commercial portion would be along the Ronald Reagan Parkway and then you have the I-2 portion. There are two existing single-family homes on the I-2 portion. If rezoned, they will be legal nonconforming and there are also six accessory structures on the property. There is a cell tower but it is permitted by right in the I-2 District. There are power lines on the north border of the property so Airtech Parking is extended to the airport perimeter road. The power lines will be between property in Airtech Parkway. Here is the property right here. This is Ronald Reagan Parkway. This is I-2 over here. You have two 300,000 square foot distribution center over here and here is Airtech Parkway right here. The power lines run along in this property. There is floodplain back here. This! 1

2 is the rezone of 2006 where it is C-I in the front portion and the I-2 on the back. (Inaudible). Here is a conceptual site plan. It shows the proposed frontage road that aligns with the road that is currently being built to the south. This property was zoned C-I (inaudible). Here is Ronald Reagan Parkway. There will be frontage on the parkway but will not be on Airtech Parkway. Staff Comments: This proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The petitioner has committed to the Gateway Corridor development standards for both the C-I and I-2 portion. So, we will get the Gateway Corridor standards and then other zoning commitments regarding the green space (inaudible) is consistent with other rezones along the Ronald Reagan Parkway and what is recommended by the Ronald Reagan Corridor Master Plan. So, with that I will turn it over to the representatives and I m sure they would be glad to answer any questions that you might have. Mr. Jeff Banning at 851 Columbia Drive, Suite 100, Plainfield said Mr. James has a great job introducing the project to you. Mr. Wamsley has been before this commission previously on another project. Just to kind of give everybody a little overview Albert s is the south property he owns; Bert was a parcel of ground and then Charley. Bert s is south of U.S. 40 and it s between Albert and Charley. That was approved through the Plan Commission and has recently been constructed and you can see that out at that site now. We are here this evening to request zoning and annexation for this property as Mr. James said C-I and I-2. Here s a little bit of another drawing here. The Bert parcel actually we have some 2007 aerial photography so you can see right where this road was constructed. There is a temporary cul-de-sac on the end. Mr. Wamsley owns this ground basically in this area. This is the south shown up just like this. As Mr. James said, this is the East Plainfield Business Park. This is Airtech in here, Ronald Reagan and U.S. 40 and the airport over here. Basically, the Comprehensive Plan we are staying consistent with what the Comprehensive Plan is showing and then with the zoning map we are located in this white area right here. Here is the East Plainfield Business Park recently rezoned. There is C-I here and I-2 here and the proposed frontage road that would run along here. This is airport property here where Airtech Parkway comes into the Ronald Reagan at this point. That road eventually will be extended over to the perimeter road for the airport over here. This road hopefully based on the Comprehensive Plan will then extend up and tie into that road. So, we are setting things up based on what was done with the East Plainfield Business Park with the Comprehensive Plan that the Town has put into place and really there isn t much more to say other than that. It is pretty straightforward. We just request approval or recommendation for approval this evening and I would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Gibbs asked, is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak on this public hearing? Being no one coming forward I will close the public portion of this hearing and open it up for commission members or a possible motion.! 2

3 Mr. Brandgard made a motion that the Plan Commission certify the zone map amendment request RZ as filed by North South Corridor Properties Albert, LLC requesting rezoning of approximately 17.9 acres from AG, Agriculture to the C-I, Commercial/Industrial District and approximately 57.3 acres from AG, Agriculture to the I-2, Office/ Warehouse Distribution District with a favorable recommendation pending annexation subject to the following commitments being submitted on Exhibit A forms prior to certification to the Town Council: 1. All development shall be subject to Gateway Corridor standards. 2. Minimum lot size shall be 10,000 square feet. 3. All lots fronting the Ronald Reagan Parkway shall have a 30 building setback and green space with a minimum Level 3 perimeter landscaping. 4. No commercial parking lots shall be permitted in either the C-I or the I-2 Districts. 5. Subject to the land uses and development standards as stipulated in the administrative document dated April 10, Second by Mr. Satterfield. Roll call vote called. Mr. Satterfield yes Mr. McPhail absent Mr. Brandgard yes Mr. Dunkin yes Mr. Kirchoff yes Mr. Gibbs yes 5-ayes, 0-opposed, 1-absent. Motion carried. Mr. Gibbs said the next thing on the agenda is RZ Mr. James said with this request we are going to head north on the Ronald Reagan Park, north of U.S. 40. This request is to rezone 41.8 acres from Agriculture to Commercial/Industrial and 30 acres from Agriculture to General Commercial on property located mostly west of the Ronald Reagan Parkway. It is south of CR200S and north of U.S. 40 and this is also pending annexation. The property abuts the Medallion Meadows single-family subdivision zoned RA, Rural Residential in Hendricks County. Ronald Reagan Parkway will split the property and has already created in essence outlots between the Ronald Reagan Parkway and CR1050E east of Ronald Reagan Parkway. Then there are some homes east of CR1050E. Properties to the north are mostly buffered by wooded parcels. There are three residential properties on CR200S that would abut this property. Then the property to the west is the ADESA business zoned General Commercial and then northwest of that you have the AllPoints Midwest Industrial Park zoned I-2. This is the property right in here. All of this area is currently undeveloped. There are some farm fields and here is Medallion Meadows right here. (Inaudible). You have wooded parcels between (inaudible). All of this right here is (inaudible). You have the I-2 to the northwest. Ronald Reagan Parkway when it was built for better or worse changed the character and the access.! 3

4 The Comprehensive Plan recommends Mixed Use Office/Flex Space for the C-I and then this area here is recommended for General Commercial. This is our transportation plan. Ronald Regan Parkway is right here. We do have a proposed road right through here with an access in this area. This is all (inaudible). I can t recall the name of the street and maybe taking it through here but in their plan they show a connection at CR200S. So, they will take this road and move it up here and provide another means of access and then also on the west perimeter there is a proposed road at CR200S coming down diagonal to ADESA Road and to the signal and U.S. 40. Here is a conceptual site plan. Here is Ronald Reagan Parkway. This is the perimeter property that is being heard tonight. ADESA is over here and Medallion Meadows, CR1050E and then the small access road that is being built at CR1050E. Country Road 1050 east has been cut off down here at U.S. 40. So, they have a proposed road and an access at this road up to (inaudible). It is pretty consistent with what is recommended by the transportation report. The petitioner has met with Medallion Meadows. They have talked about what could be done along this south property line between the subject property and Medallion Meadows to provide a buffer and some screening from the residential/commercial uses. So, they have proposed a bufferyard on the south perimeter with significant landscaping with a berm and they have committed to a Level 3 perimeter landscaping along the Ronald Reagan Parkway and a 30 foot wide green space buffer area that is consistent with the Bert rezone to the south. Mr. Banning talked about that earlier. It is also consistent with what is recommended by the Ronald Reagan Corridor Master Plan. There would be a bufferyard and a Level 4 landscaping between the residential and the commercial. This is a diagram of the bufferyard and landscaping that they have proposed along the south property line between the (inaudible) property and Medallion Meadows. They are proposing 46 foot tall (inaudible) berm with a Level 5 landscaping. That is pretty significant landscaping. This will be more than what the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance would require. They have almost exceeded by almost a Level 2. Here is a photograph of the area. Here is Medallion Meadows over here and looking north the wooded area is to the north. Under Staff Comments: The proposal is consistent with what is recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. The petitioner has committed to Gateway Corridor standards (inaudible). We will get our Gateway Corridor architectural standards for any development. And the zoning commitment of the 30 foot green space and the Level 3 from the landscaping level. The Ronald Reagan Parkway zoning commitments are similar to other commitments done with rezones. A uniform development pattern can be created as recommended in the Ronald Reagan Corridor Master Plan. It will help provide uniformity along the Ronald Reagan Parkway. The bufferyard and screening commitments along Medallion Meadows is almost two levels higher than what is required by the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance. They have committed to a 40 foot bufferyard where the C-I and General Commercial require a bufferyard and they have committed to a Level 5 landscaping with the four to six foot tall berms. Then is the Level 4 bufferyard adequate for the other perimeters?! 4

5 Since this proposal was written the use restrictions for the Commercial/Industrial and General Commercial adjacent to Medallion Meadows have been proposed. They match what was done to the Bert rezone to the south and U.S. 40 and that area was also surrounded by some residential. These are the modified commitments; the increased landscaping, the berm, the increased bufferyard and then the added use restrictions. They also need to add that it s subject to the land use development standards dated April 10 th and also the subsequent annexation. These are some of the uses that have been restricted under the General Commercial; cell towers, motels, parking lots, auto sales (inaudible). With that I will turn it over to the representatives. Mr. Jeff Banning said Mr. James as usual has done a great job of setting the stage for the project. I wanted to add a couple of comments before he puts our slides up there. This property, as Joe mentioned, Ronald Reagan Parkway now runs through this. This is in a lot of ways very similar to the Bert project that I had mentioned Mr. Wamsley had gotten approved previously south of U.S. 40. The alignment for Ronald Reagan however that was developed, and we won t go there, it was moved to the west of CR1050E and affectively created an opportunity, a situation, where properties were on either side of Ronald Reagan. So, Ronald Reagan is here, here is the crossover, here is CR1050E so there is ground actually here on the east side of Ronald Reagan and ground over here on the west side of Ronald Reagan. Here is the current crossover, here is the part that is somewhat under construction, somewhat built and CR200 up here. We met with the neighbors at Medallion Meadows. Actually we sent out and had a meeting in our office a couple of weeks ago with all of the people that were notified for this project. We wanted them to come in and hear their concerns. I affectively told them, and I m sure you will hear this from them, that we are going to make them happy. I mean it changed but the change that we are proposing goes along with the Comprehensive Plan and because of the way the Ronald Reagan comes through there and how this is set up what I told them is we are going to try to make this change as less impact on them as we possibly can. Medallion Meadows is here. We have the new Speedway Gas Station here and another potential outlot here. We have existing storage buildings here that have been there for years. We have a little apartment complex here. Of course, ADESA sits here and Duke got this parcel approved and made that part of AllPoints/Midwest, which is looking at numbers anywhere from 850 to 1,200 acre industrial development. We have parcels all around this including this parcel that are currently zoned RA through Hendricks County. As Mr. James mentioned, when we annexed to the Town, we came in as Agriculture so we are requesting annexation with a change coming in as Agriculture and then a change now concurrently to go to the C-I and the GC zoning. When we had our meeting in the office a couple of weeks ago, I was also told that Earlham Drive sets in here and that is another residential neighborhood where several of the homeowners were notified because of the zoning. From what I was told they have actually hired a real estate agent to market their properties. So, I think what we are seeing happening in this area, and this is the former Hobbs property! 5

6 here, which has been for sale, and I have talked to the owner of that, there is a lot of activity proposed on that and people looking at that. General Commercial use I believe is the zoning on that. Here is the Comprehensive Plan, which shows that what we are proposing, this property, sits right in here so we are meeting what the Comprehensive Plan shows. Here is the Hobbs property, here s the Earlham Drive area and U.S. 40. And then here you have what is currently annexed to the Town Industrial, General Commercial, the property we are looking at this evening, Earlham Drive again with several houses here, a couple of larger tracts of ground, which I know this parcel here actually has a variance through the County to allow for a commercial type use. So, I guess what I m saying is because of the Ronald Reagan coming through and because of what the Comprehensive Plan has established in this area we are being consistent in our request here this evening for the uses on this particular property. And Mr. James states that in his Staff letter. We are trying to work with the neighbors. Here again from the Staff Report we meet what the Comprehensive Plan has requested. Here is the existing zoning. I would like for a lot of the neighbors to come up and see this but I have told them from day one when we met, that we were really going to try to work with them on this and at least try to make this as amenable as possible. Several of things that we talked about, and the majority of people that came were from Medallion Meadows down here, and one of the things that we proposed originally was a four foot high mound and about a 20 foot wide or 25 foot wide buffer area with a Level 4 landscaping. We have actually bumped that level of landscaping up to a Level 5 and actually it is above a Level 5 if you really look at the way the points are calculated and what we have from a planting standpoint. Several things that we have done is we have put evergreen trees along this line. The ordinance requires evergreens as well as deciduous trees so what we have done to meet the ordinance is the deciduous trees we have actually put on lot lines. So, what we have done is if you look out your back window, you are going to be looking at evergreens but where we had the deciduous trees would actually be on the lot lines. So, you wouldn t look out your back kitchen window or whatever is in the rear of the home and be able to look at a deciduous tree at this time of the year and not have any leaves. We have tried to think about how we are going to screen that area so we have kind of moved those to the lot lines for the Medallion Meadows. The other thing that we have committed to or we would like to commit to is trying to save any existing trees that are along there; there aren t very many but we don t intend to take down any of those trees. What we have shown in our detail, and it s really hard to see; I apologize for that, is we have shown coming off the property line five feet plus or minus so that we don t get into the canopy of the existing trees out there. We don t want to kill the root system and we don t want to lose any of those trees. We are going to be really cognizant of that from a development standpoint. Here again the deciduous trees would be planted on top of the mound; they would be planted on the lot lines for Medallion Meadows lots and then we would have interspersed evergreen trees up and down the mound and what we have shown in planting heights is the evergreens would be six feet and the other trees would be 12 and then in a five year period 11 foot for! 6

7 the evergreens and 18 foot for the deciduous trees. So, we have tried to give what to expect or what you would see there in a period of time. I want to point out that we are showing a proposed future road here. We do not know where that road is going to go. Mr. Wamsley has absolutely no ideas as to what is going to develop on this ground and has not talked to anyone. We are just coming in to get the ground set up for when time would come for development. What we have shown is the proposed road system for today from a planting standpoint makes sense. We are tying into where the crossover has been created by the County with their design. So, it makes sense to line up with that crossover and we are just showing the road straight through with a temporary culde-sac on the end and as I had discussed with the property owners previously, this road is proposed to continue on west. This is the big berm over here at ADESA so ADESA actually goes up along this property line here and here is the future road for the Town s Comprehensive Plan that would run from the stoplight at ADESA up through and to CR200 up here. So, we are showing a connection point. It might be here or it could be up here. One thing we have done is we have said that the distance at a minimum from Medallion Meadows to the centerline of our road would be 300 feet. So, that is another commitment that we would like to make with respect to this. I had to give a little more of a tie down of where that would go. It could be farther north but it will be no closer than 300 feet. I also pointed out to the Medallion Meadows people that there is a loop that comes around here and when we get an opportunity when I m done talking on this plan, there is also a proposed connection from Medallion Meadows to this future road wherever that might occur. That shows up on the Comprehensive Plan, the traffic study or the traffic plan that Mr. James had showed previously and we will point that out here in a little bit. But we are proposing mounding and a Level 4 landscaping up here if this is where our roadway goes. Mr. Wamsley has talked to other property owners and there are other property owners that might sell and might not but with the ground that he has potentially that is our access to CR200. So, what we have committed to is to put a Level 4 landscaping and mounding here and then I also talked with the Weavers. Their property is over here and their property was bisected by Ronald Reagan. They had a remnant parcel here that I believe the Town purchased and I have been told potentially a water tower might go on here or maybe a detention basin or something. But what I have talked to the Weavers about is that we would put a mound here and a Level 4 landscaping as well. The reason that curve is like that is this is the infamous ditch that runs across the Ronald Reagan Parkway so we are allowing for that as well. We will have a Level 3 landscaping everywhere else. As you can see, there are woods here, there are woods along this property line and along this property line. We have committed to at a minimum coming up to a Level 3 landscaping whether that be planting new planting materials, saving the existing trees or what have you. We are committing to trying to save all of those fencerows. So, I know that the neighbors really want to have a lot of say in this. I think I have kind of explained the overview of this. The intent of right now as I said, there really is no development here. We are just trying to get it zoned and be ready for any future development. As I told them previously as well, we have to come back before this Plan Commission from a platting standpoint. We have to! 7

8 come back to this Plan Commission for any specific use standpoint for the architectural, lighting, landscaping, signage, you name it for an individual site. So, this property even though we are requesting zoning this evening there will be multiple other opportunities to review uses and so forth on this property and what types of buildings and uses would actually be built on here. So, with that I would entertain any questions. If not, I know the public will want to speak. Mr. Gibbs asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this matter? Mr. Tyle Milligan at Medallion Drive said actually I live to the south where the property line is being proposed. The first question that I had is that not everyone in the subdivision was notified. Actually, I heard from a couple of the neighbors stating that this was in fact going on and as I said, I kind of live to the south, which is actually not even shown on the diagram here. But I do have a couple of concerns with it. First of all you never like to see new things, changes, always perceived as bad but I don t necessarily feel that way. I will just kind of run down through my list of concerns. First and foremost is the drainage; how they are proposing to shed the water off of this site, which is actually very much impeding our subdivision just as a farm field right now. I happen to live at Lot 32, which is where the utility easement runs through the middle of our subdivision and I know I deal with underground water that I have been told from the Town of Plainfield and I believe the surveyor s office that there is a reinforced concrete pipe that runs from somewhere on this property that runs around the outer loop and outlets out by the new Speedway store. I ve talked to several offices, Indianapolis Water, Plainfield Water, surveyors, engineers, soil and conservation; I haven t talked to the board so you are the last ones in my sights here. But there s actually a cleanout in between my property line and the neighbor s property line that after we get a quarter inch to a half inch of rain you can take the top off this clean out and it will shoot water out like a fire hydrant. You put the cap back on this clean out that goes to this reinforced concrete pipe underneath the ground and the water bubbles up through my driveway, over my curb and my boy plays with boats and he can put the boat down and it will travel two or three property lines in a couple of minutes. That is my biggest concern. The developers who are coming in I don t know if they are planning on putting in underground or doing it with swales or whatever. I didn t see in the landscape plan for the berm that it is actually built up what their intentions are as far as catching the water that s coming to the Medallion Meadows site. All of our drainage in the subdivision with the exception of this fabled RCP that nobody seems to know anything about is all along our gutters, which falls to the outside, falls around to the perimeter properties, if you will, and then outlets down by the Speedway. In the wintertime I will tell you that any one of you council members can drive in there and you are going to be slipping and sliding on Halliburton in order to make a left onto Medallion or to get to Bradbury. It s dangerous and it is unsightly and I would appreciate some direction on who I might be able to further talk to about getting the drainage issue fixed or eliminated. That is my number one concern. My number two concern is annexation. I respect the Town of Plainfield, which is where we are but I also made the decision to put! 8

9 my kids in Washington Township, which is Avon schools and I m kind of seeing Plainfield wrapping around our nice little quiet subdivision. I m against it; I ll fight it to the very end. Plainfield has a lot of nice things going for it but as I see annexation of Plainfield coming north of us and annexation coming south of us, coming up through the Speedway into the storage area there it seems like a matter of time before you guys are going to swallow us up. I strongly oppose that. I feel that everyone that lives there made the decision to move there based on their own reasoning but one was the school system and that is very important for myself and family and I m sure other people in the neighborhood. A couple of the other things that I would like to hit on is the neighborhood used as a turnaround. Right now we are seeing excessive traffic that is coming through our neighborhood from the new proposed Speedway. I know that it doesn t necessarily have anything to do with what we are dealing with now but I did see a gentleman with a proposed road that comes through Halliburton to tie into this industrial park. That is absurd. We have such a small subdivision, we have such a limited entrance and exit into our subdivision that I feel that anymore cutting up of our subdivision in order to get into or out of an industrial park with our children, with our dogs, our animals that are taking a walk, I think that is absurd and I hope that the board would strike that down. I don t know who made the Ronald Reagan Parkway come through and progression is good; I don t want to come across as one of these neighbors who doesn t want to see progression because I feel that it is for all of our wellbeing that we bring money into our community and whatnot. But coming from having a 13 year old and a six year old that now I used to have a nice quiet neighborhood to ride around we have now cut that in half and we have people who are cutting through our neighborhood all of the time. Along those lines there are no stop signs in our neighborhood but I really can t do anything about that. Lastly and then I m going to turn it over to my other neighbors here is the four foot berm. We appreciate Mr. Wamsley and the attempt of making this a nice transition period but for noise, for drainage, and for just for sight we feel that a higher dirt berm, maybe the eight to 12 feet, as opposed to the four to six that is being proposed here, would be our preference. Give us a little more of a buffer. We have 40 to the south; we are getting ready to have development to the north, we ve got ADESA to the west and we have a Speedway now, we have Ronald Reagan to the east. It seems like we have a lot of these developers coming in. Again, I don t want to strike that down; I think that is a good thing but with the developers coming in they have to take on the responsibility of the water shed and making it as comfortable on us who have been here for six, 10, 30 years so that it is a progression to change and not just forcing it on us. I know that they are talking about a new road running from CR200 down to ADESA where that lets out. I just ask the Town to say when s enough? If we have CR1050 that is not being used and we have Ronald Reagan that is within a quarter of mile from this new proposed road that runs to CR200 and then we are going to tie in through the complex another proposed road that is going to tie into CR200, why do we need so many roads within such a short amount of distance? I would challenge any of you either in between the hours of six and nine o clock in the morning or from three to six o clock in the evening to drive into our subdivision and try to get out on Halliburton Drive on! 9

10 Washington Street without being honked at or skidded on. They gave us a right only exit off of Bradbury that ties into Ronald Reagan. We can t turn in coming southbound on Ronald Reagan into that. We can only go southbound coming out of our subdivision. What if we want to go north to Brownsburg, which this is supposed to tie all of this nice little corridor together? We actually have to go out of our neighborhood in order to get out of our neighborhood and go down to the light and make a U turn to go back north. It seems ridiculous. Our entrance to our subdivision from Ronald Reagan Parkway to our entrance of our subdivision is only a building parcel. We re talking a few hundred feet. We all work; we all work during the day, the majority of us, so for us to be coming out of there we kind of fought it in the beginning with Speedway, progression is going to happen, I m all for that, but, you know, have some consideration for the homeowners who are there and who have been there. We ll adjust. We ll adjust whether it was a subdivision, whether it was a development or whatever but have some understanding for us who have to actually deal with this on a day to day basis. The proposed 300 feet would be our north line to the proposed road; I think that is right on. I appreciate you guys taking that into consideration. You could have moved the road up right next to us and developed as much land as you can. I see that as a step in the right direction from the developer s standpoint to say we are going to buffer you guys a little bit; we re going to give you a break. But there s enough dirt on that site, there s enough money to be made on that site that I feel that landscaping should be of the utmost importance and I feel that the dirt berm needs to be raised. With that I will close my comments. Mr. Carlucci said at the end Mr. Banning will answer some of your questions about the development but I m going to answer just a couple of questions that you had. When you talked about being notified, and you may be outside of this, but we notify the people who abut the property and those who abut those people. So, we go two property owners deep. We do post a notice in the paper in legal ads but unless you are me you don t read those things. Mr. Milligan said or get the paper. Mr. Carlucci said and by the way I was going through the drivethru at Taco Bell last Thursday or Friday and there was a gentleman there who was working and he was telling us about this property. He didn t know who I was but he was talking about going to a meeting and he was talking about the meeting with Banning. It was just kind of interesting but on the annexation the Town hasn t shown any inclination of annexing your community. Mr. Milligan said that is a good thing. Mr. Brandgard said just to add to that quickly. Even if it was annexed into Plainfield, you still are in the Avon school district; that won t change. Mr. Milligan said I can speak for dealing with the Hendricks County Plan Commission here a few years ago and I understand a lot of things have changed but there was a pretty fast number of individuals that we had to notify on a given project that I was trying to get through. So, that raised my question as far as how far do we have to! 10

11 actually go but if it is two property owners, I would actually be four out of the property but yet I m still in the subdivision. Mr. Carlucci said and you have a right to come here and talk to; it s just there are different ways; you re always going to miss someone but your neighbors told you about it, which is good. Mr. Milligan said absolutely and you know we have a good group of neighbors; I don t think any of us are totally against it. We understand that as soon as Ronald Reagan comes through, a lot of things in our neighborhood were going to change. I ve been there for six years and I ve already seen a lot of changes on Washington Street, Ronald Reagan, CR1050, of course, just like Mr. Banning said we re not going to go there but whoever decided to cut CR1050 off and put Ronald Reagan that s in people s hands that is much higher than I believe all of us sitting here. There are concerns. I feel that Mr. Wamsley is the individual who will look at and I know in working with Mr. Banning in the past that I think we can all come together and all be happy but let s not just spoon feed of force feed us what we feel what we have to take. I appreciate your time this evening. Mr. Dan Sheeran said I live on Lot 19 and I appreciate the time that you are giving us tonight. Just some concerns that I have and I have discussed with some of my neighbors is obviously some of the other people here have been in the subdivision for years. One of the biggest concerns is obviously our property values are going down with the warehouse district coming behind. So, I was glad my neighbor brought up the higher berm; that s a very good point. According to Article 3.5 there are certain industries that can go into that area that is going to be zoned C-I. Some of the concerns that I do have is the noise. Obviously we could have people move into there where it could be manufacturing or whatever and have a noise level that may not be suitable for our neighborhood. ADESA while they are a good neighbor the noise level from there can sometimes be very loud with their loud speakers so that is a thought that I m having with these warehouses, the manufacturing or whatever else that may take place there. The only limit I saw for C-I was for a parking garage. Some of the things that you list under Article 3.5 there could be race car testing or race car manufacturing in there. Everybody knows that can be very very loud. So, I think one of the things that is a concern on this to me is the noise compatibility with our neighborhood. The second things is, and was touched on a little bit but I wanted to go into it more, environmentally. If there is going to be things in those warehouses that may seep into the ground, we are all on wells basically, or a lot of us are, so we are concerned about things seeping into the well water and it washing back toward Medallion and getting into our well systems. So, we are concerned about that as well. The other thing under Article 3.5 for C-I it mentions the architecture and site design regulations. All the processing, racking, storage, etc. is supposed to be contained within the buildings and I think that is something that all of the racking would be a very unsightly thing for the neighborhood. So, I m hoping that we will stick to that; that is in that article.! 11

12 I think everything else that I had was already touched upon but there is one other thing. We were wondering in the future if Plainfield had an idea of whether they were going to put sewers in our neighborhood basically because of all of the warehouses that are going in and most of us are on septic. The City water is already running there so we were wondering if there were plans for that as well? Thank you. Mr. Floyd Beckley said I have a map of our addition and I wish you could all see it. All that you are hearing tonight is about the street up there, Bradbury. I live down here on Lot 56 on Medallion Meadows Drive and I m concerned about it too. I m 92 years old; I ve been there 28 years so I know a few things about Medallion Meadows that you probably don t know about. I m concerned basically about drainage as has already been mentioned by Mr. Milligan. All these years now I ve been paying $5.00 a year drainage assessment for two six inch tiles that run around and goes down Medallion Meadows Drive to Halliburton and back up Bradbury and across here and across Center Street. A five dollar drainage assessment for what? Where does it go now? There s no place to go. That s why he has water over there where he s at; it doesn t go anywhere; back up through the ground. I ve seen it come up through the ground in several holes there. So, I think we can get rid of that five dollars drainage assessment because we don t need it anymore unless they prefer to do something other than that. I wish you would take time to look at this but I know you won t. I know legally you don t have to notify the adjacent property owners; I think I m an adjacent property owner after 28 years there; I ve been there for awhile. Well I ve commented on some things that he already has talked about, Mr. Milligan has, he s not been there nearly as long as I have but the fact of the matter is I have been watching the progress and Ronald Reagan Parkway it has been June 6, Do you remember that? How many of you here know about that? Two, three out of the bunch? Well the question that I have about Ronald Reagan Parking is I think they missed the boat because they built that road with just a 12 foot median in between. They ve got one going south and one going north; two lanes but there s just that much between them. You can t get there from here. Try it sometime. Go south on that piece and if you live on the east side of the street, you have to drive up to Washington Street to get around and go back south. You can t get across there. I think what I see here on this it looks like they are doing the same thing there or will be doing the same thing. They need to improve that somewhat so we have a chance to get out on the road some way. I know you can t do it now because you can t get across the median. So, that makes it a little bit difficult; you think about that. As already mentioned, the only out that we have is Halliburton Drive and the right turn only, which is more than we had. It gets you down to the stop and go sign and then you can go south and you can go east and you can go west. That s the only outlet we have to do that. I come out on Halliburton Drive and like he mentioned, there is a death threat to get out to go somewhere because they are coming out the filling station, they are coming out of the new road, they are coming this way from Plainfield; where do I go now? Try it sometime. Come down; I invite you to come down and drive up to my house on Medallion Drive and try to get back out on the road sometime. He mentioned about! 12

13 everything that I think is worthwhile mentioning and I won t go into it any further. But just one other thing now I think the fire department is required dual access to all housing additions in Washington Township; is that right? Does anybody know? Mr. Carlucci said the parts that are in Plainfield maybe different than what Washington Township requires for dual access. We have places in Town that don t have dual access; there are cul-de-sacs and they are pretty long but most of the time we are responding out there to begin with so we are the ones coming out. Mr. Beckley said the trouble is with one access to it Halliburton Drive is the only way that you can get in there; you can t get in there off of Ronald Reagan Parkway. If you come from Avon, you can t get in from that way. You come clear down to Washington Street, turn right, come back in on Halliburton. If we had a major fire in that addition, I don t know what we would do. We would just wait for the ambulance to come in and pick us up I guess but anyway I m concerned about it and he s concerned about it. My neighbor right behind me is concerned about it and I m concerned about it. I m 92 years old; I ought to be concerned about something. Thank you. Ms. Dorothy Thompson at Bradbury Drive said one thing that concerns me is I look around and I see all of the empty warehouses that are being built from speculation and now we are having proposed additional buildings being built on speculation. Part of this parcel is for General Commercial. That is not an area that would be easily accessed. People come down Washington. If they are coming on the Reagan, they are going between points. They are going between I-70 over to Avon; they are not planning to stop there for a restaurant or any other type of business unless it would be another gas station. So, that would be another area that would probably be sitting vacant. Now we are already seeing the lowering of our property values because of having to be backed by warehouses. They will be lowered further by vacant warehouses. Another issue is this land has been purchased on speculation. Mr. Banning has given us a diagram of a four foot high berm. A four foot high berm is about this high. Now my husband drives a semi; that would hide the wheels of a semi going through there. When someone else purchases this from Mr. Wamsley, what guarantee do we have that the berm will be kept up; that the landscaping will be kept up and replanted when it dies? The people that have been in the neighborhood before ADESA went in speak of the landscaping that was promised on the berm there. It was put in but allowed to die and it has never been replanted. ADESA does not comply with the promises as far as noise and lighting. Who enforces that? Who will enforce all of these promises that are being made? I don t know; I don t hear that being addressed. All I know is Mr. Wamsley is planning to sell this and what guarantee do we have that the next buyer, when he puts up his empty buildings, will keep the landscaping alive? I don t think it is a good entry into Plainfield. Newcomers and strangers coming along historic highway 40 entering the beautiful City of Plainfield and all you see are empty warehouses. It doesn t speak well of the City in my mind. I think we need to address that issue before you put up additional warehouses.! 13

14 Mr. Carlucci said I would like to address one issue about you talked about what guarantees we have. One thing we do when a developer makes zoning commitments and all the ones that Mr. Banning talked about tonight and the other ones that the Plan Commission may add on, those commitments are then recorded at the County Recorders Office. And it is the responsibility of our Staff, the planning staff to make sure that they follow those commitments and adhere to them or they are subject to being brought back and fined by the Plan Commission for noncompliance. So, unfortunately there are trees that die. I remember one warehouse project on Stafford Road where I think the trees were dead when they planted them and they took them out and they replanted them again and they had to go back in and replace the ones that died after that. So, those commitments are recorded and they run with the land so if Mr. Wamsley sells that property, he will make available to that person who buys the property those commitments and those commitments have to be followed. Ms. Thompson said again I want to re-stress the drainage issue. At least six feet of our back yard, all across the back of it, is under water and that follows that drainage line that, I can t remember what his name was, he was talking about. I have a washer that I can t use; I have to go to the laundry mat whenever we have a little bit of rain because I don t dare put that much stress on our septic system otherwise we wouldn t be able to wash our clothes. Mr. Carlucci said I know Mr. Beckley talked about the five dollar assessment that you pay on your bill for the drainage tile out there. Typically what happens, and our Town Engineer, Mr. Belcher is right behind you, the water just sheets off that farm field and heads south. When the developer comes in there, we have specific stormwater rules in Indiana and that is where you get all of the retention and detention ponds is to hold that water so that it doesn t affect the property owners to the south. Again, that is in State law. There are federal regulations on that. We have a stormwater department that these new businesses will pay into and we will do the best to make sure, unless with the monsoons we ve been having lately it s kind of hard, that with the development going in there and putting in those improvements it should substantially improve your problem with the drainage that you are having now. Ms. Thompson said I m having a hard time understanding how a retention pond will lower the level of the ground water. If you take water that would normally fall on a large area and you pave that area so all of this water has to drain off into a retention pond. But how does that lower the level of ground water in our neighborhood. Mr. Carlucci said ground water and surface water are two different things. If you have water coming up, whether it is raining or not, that is a whole separate problem that I can t answer. I m just guessing that it is probably sheeting off that property and all I can say is those improvements that they will have to make will be substantial and costly for them and they have to prove to the Town Engineer that it will do what it says it will do so that water does not enter your property. If you have another problem inside the subdivision, that s a different story. Mr. Brandgard said in general when a developer comes in to developer, he can t put more water onto your property than what is! 14

15 already coming there. It may be too much but that was there before the developer. The developer cannot do anything that will increase that amount. When we know there are water problems or drainage problems, we try to work with the developers when they put it in there to minimize that on the adjoining property and to help the situation. Now the drainage area that you have is an issue; your area was developed 50 years ago before a lot of the controls and a lot of things that we do today were even thought about or put in place. This is part of the area that you get into; you re still in the County so that five dollars that you pay goes to the County and the County is responsible for working with you to try and fix the problems that you have. If you were in the Town, the Town would be working for you and normally the areas that have come into the Town we have helped them improve those areas a lot. Mr. Beckley said (inaudible). Mr. Brandgard said exactly and that s what I m talking about but again that s not in the Town so there s not a whole lot the Town can do about it. When we were working with the Speedway, you told us about what happened at CR1050 when they put Ronald Reagan in there and they cut that off. So, the Town went in there and spent Town money in the County to fix the situation that you had to help you out there. Now from the standpoint we can only do so much. The money that our taxpayers pay or give to the Town has to be spent in the Town; we can t spend it outside of the Town. With that I think as this goes on, I m sure Mr. Banning if he has the engineering for that area up there, will be looking at your drainage down there and I know our engineer, Tim Belcher will also be looking at it and about the most we could do is give you advice on what to do with it; we can t do anything. (Inaudible). Mr. Gibbs said please come to the podium so we can have this recorded. Mr. Milligan said I understand it s not Mr. Wamsley s problem to fix problems in our subdivision; that s not what I m standing up here trying to get across. We are just saying in this proposed area whether it s commercial, residential, whatever should come take your problems and your water and keep it on your property as opposed to that falling over and falling into our property. I respect what the board is saying as far as we are in Washington Township, which is the Avon district so this isn t necessarily your fight but if this gets rezoned in your area, it is your fight. Although we are in Avon we expect our board members here to stand up for us and I have dealt with subdivisions and whatnot in the past so I understand that subsurface drainage and swales and manholes that will help our situation. But I just don t want something that is underground that is running from Plainfield into Avon. I ve talked to six offices that I have talked personally about my particular problem and short of getting a petition from everybody that is here tonight I m getting passed around. I initially thought I had a water leak in my yard on the main with how the water was coming out. The water company comes out and says it s not our problem. Plainfield comes out and says it s not our problem. The surveyor says it s not our problem. Soil and erosion says it s not our problem. I m going to talk with Mr. Banning and maybe the board can direct me to! 15

16 where we can talk to somebody and hopefully this issue will come up in the next meeting. Mr. Brandgard said talk to our engineer, Tim Belcher who is right behind you. Mr. Milligan said I have not talked to Mr. Belcher. Mr. Brandgard said Plainfield does not want to cause anymore problems than what you already have out there and what we do will probably help that. But letting him know what you have he may be able to give you some direction. Mr. Milligan said thank you. Mr. Brandgard said I would like to address one more thing. Ms. Thompson mentioned something about empty buildings. In Plainfield there are not very many empty buildings. Developers build spec buildings and then people come in and move into them or they sell them to somebody. But if you look at Plainfield where there are empty buildings, you really can t tell they are empty other than there may not be trucks around them. The grass is kept, the shrubbery is kept and it still looks like it should look. Mr. James said I would like to address a couple of concerns that have been raised quickly. Regarding the extension of Halliburton through Medallion Meadows that is assuming that this is zoned Commercial and development does occur. I don t think the Town of Plainfield will build that; it will be the responsibility of the developer. (Inaudible) instead of doing this we would add an extension here. As far as issues with ADESA, we usually don t do anything about a violation until we hear about it so after hearing these concerns tonight we will definitely look into it. As far as the landscaping that dies, it is the responsibility of the property owner to replace any dead landscaping. So, we try to stay on top of that. Another concern is drainage from the berm. On the Medallion side I will let Mr. Banning address that and as far as the height of the berm that is going to be somewhat (inaudible) based on the 40 foot width. We still have to maintain a three to one slope that allows you to maintain the berm. But at 40 feet it can certainly be raised. And then as far as the uses in the C-I, the noise is a valid concern. Maybe we could take another look at that and restrict some uses but also the C-I does not allow any outdoor storage, any manufacturing done; it must be done indoors and it is only limited to 10% of the gross store area of the building. Ms. Ann Richardson at Bradbury Drive in Lot 12 said I don t want to beat a dead horse to death on this drainage problem but I wish Charlie was here but he s the man that farms the land that was back behind our homes. I have lived there since 1986 and I have seen Charlie in his field particularly back behind my home and then it actually extends back to three homes putting in an all new tile system because he can t plant in numerous areas because of the drainage. It floods every year for him and thousands of dollars that he has put in there has been to no avail. So, there is a major drainage problem in! 16