PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION August 7, :00pm

Transcription

1 PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION August 7, :00pm CALL TO ORDER Mr. Smith: I d like to call the meeting to order. Welcome to the August 7 th meeting of the Plainfield Planned Commission. We have a long meeting this evening, so we will try to move along quickly. ROLL CALL/ DETERMINATION OF A QUOROM Mr. Smith: If I could begin with our commission secretary to call the roll please to determine a quorum. Mr. Klinger: Everyone is present and accounted for. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mr. Phillips- here Mr. McPhail- here Mr. Brandgard- here Mr. Smith- here Mr. Kirchoff- here Mr. Bahr- here Mr. Slavens- here Mr. Smith: Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES- July 6, 2017 Mr. Smith: if everyone has had an opportunity to review the minutes from our meeting on July 6 th. Does anyone have any corrections, additions, deletions, changes? Mr. Kirchoff: I move we accept the minutes as submitted Mr. Philip: I second that. Mr. Smith: All those in favor say aye. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARINGS Mr. Smith: There are a number of items tonight that will be the discussed as public hearing. So, I ask at this time, the town attorney Mr. Daniel to administer an Oath of Testimony Plainfield Plan Commission

2 OATH OF TESTIMONY Mr. Daniel conducted the Oath of Testimony. Mr. Smith: We have some guidelines to help us conduct these hearing in an orderly fashion. The proceedings are recorded for public record purposes so please come to the podium in the front of the room. Give you name and address, and make your presentation. Please make presentations as concise possible. Try to limit your comments to no more than 5 minutes, and avoid repetition of points made by previous speakers. Each speaker will be allowed to speak once. If possible please designate a spokesperson for a group that might have the same concerns. Before your presentation, please print your name and address on a sheet of paper provided by the Planned Commission Secretary, you should find it there on the podium. Alright, I think we re ready to begin. PETITIONS CONTINUED FROM THE JUNE MEETING Mr. Smith: I will call upon our planning Director. Mr. James: Good evening. The first order of business tonight is the remonstrance letter received this afternoon, requesting a continuance for the development plan for the Ambrose site DP They had some concerns about the screening and the landscaping. I just received an from the property owner saying that they have reached an agreement with the petitioner and they are dropping their request for the continuance of the development plan. Mr. Smith: Alright, thank you. Up next on our agenda I see the TA Two items related to the zoning ordinance. Mr. James: These are two proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance. First proposal is an amendment to what we call our sign code zoning ordinances. Because of a Supreme Court decision, I believe it was in 2015 they ruled that regulating temporary signs have to be content neutral, that means you can t regulate a sign based on the message. If You have to read it to determine what kind of sign it is, then it s not content neutral. In order to be consistent with the Supreme Court ruling, we had to make these changings to the zoning ordinance. So, that s what brought about these recommended changings to the sign code. Hopefully you ve had a chance to look these over. If you okay with them, we ask for your recommendation for approval. Mr. Smith: Is there any questions, comments concerns? Mr. McPhail: have these all been reviewed by legal counsel? Mr. Daniel: Yes, we probably spent too long. Reed vs. Gilbert is a very unusual and tough decision to have to deal with and we spent a lot of time satisfying ourselves that these agree with the Supreme Court case. Plainfield Plan Commission

3 Mr. James: Second amendment of the ordinance would be a new article. This would be article 4.19, the outdoor product display in the I-2 and the I-3 district. This was requested by a tenant in one of our industrial warehousing districts. They wanted to display their product outside so the public could see what they make. We didn t have any standards for this, so it wouldn t actually be allowed. So, what this proposal is doing is creating an article to allow this with specific standards, like identifying a product, where they can go, keeping them out of required side yard setbacks, what kind of surface they can be on and even to do landscaping around it. So, hopefully you ve had a chance to look at this new article. If you re okay with it and can recommend approval and take these amendments to the town council. Mr. Smith: I ll begin with asking if there are any questions from the commission at this point. I will then open this matter for public hearing if there are any comments for or against these two changes in the zoning ordinance that our planning director just outlined. Hearing none, I will close that portion of the public hearing. Any final questions or comments? This would be to send a positive or negative recommendation to the town council. Mr. McPhail: I will move the plan commission send a favorable recommendation for the Plainfield Town Council to approve TA Mr. Brandgard: Second. Mr. Smith: Thank you, I have a notion and a second. We will call a roll. Mr. Klinger: Mr. Philip- Yes Mr. McPhail- Yes Mr. Brandgard- Yes Mr. Smith- Yes Mr. Kirchoff- Yes Mr. Bahr- Yes Mr. Slavens- Yes TA is approved. PETITIONS FOR PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Smith: Now we have several petitions for public hearing. Plainfield logistics center 2, and this actually has 3 parts RZ , PP , DC Mr. Berg: Thank you Mr. President, commissioners, members of the audience. We are talking about three different proposals for one parcel RZ which is to rezone 29.2 acres from general commercial to industrial office distribution. Primarily to combine 5 parcels into one industrial lot including a pair of waivers. One to reduce right-of-way on Klondike Road. Second is to not require a sidewalk on the West side of Ronald Reagan Parkway and the third is architectural design site review of a 482,000 square foot warehouse distribution facility on 29.3 Plainfield Plan Commission

4 acres which has been proposed to be rezoned to I-2. Location is on the west side of the intersection of Wamsley Way and Ronald Reagan Parkway. The site plan did apply for the administrative depth of yard development incentive which in exchange increases landscaping, reduces the building setback, it also did receive a variance on the West side to allow parking and the drive aisle to be placed there. There is a level 3 buffer yard, we will take a look at that later, because we have residential uses up there. Structure is the orange/rouge color rectangle in the center ingress egress is proposed here where the current location Wamsley Way is. They have proposed an entrance and exit here on the future Klondike Road. I believe you guys received a memo from our transportation director regarding that. They requested not to have a connection on the west side of Ronald Reagan Parkway because there is no sidewalk over there. They are proposing 286 parking spaces along the West side of the building they have outlined this area here as 155 potential future spaces. Trailer parking they are showing 48 with the potential of 46 along the North. That would most likely require developmental incentive as well. This is the view here so to speak, from the South East. When looking at the North, here s the largely nebulous white and argos is a grey color, that s going to be the general theme the nebulous white and argos along both sides of the building. Foundation landscaping is in compliance. Should they add the 155 spaces they will be required to do 11 parking lot trees. Based upon the line of sight analysis that has been provided, we believe you will not be able to see the rooftop units. Photometric plan the LSI slice for lights the metric values do comply. The rezoning, as you can see in the comprehensive plan it does show that area as being light industrial warehouse, which means it in compliance. Our transportation plan shows the Klondike Road being closed and rebuilt I don t think it was called Klondike Road at the time, but it is in our comprehensive plan as something we were working towards, so that is in compliance. As I mentioned we were requesting wavers to reduce the right-of-way on Klondike Road and to now require the sidewalk on the west side of Ronald Reagan parkway. The design review committee looked at this on the 18 th of July and recommended approval as submitted. As I mentioned they did receive the waiver to diminish the setback on the West side to allow for parking and a drive aisle. Two questions we always seem to ask with buildings this size, are there enough design elements to break up the bulk of the elevations and if there are any type of external trash enclosures or compactors. They will require an improvement location permit, as that was not brought forward in this process. They did increase part of our landscaping on both the east and west side as a requirement of the depth of yard development incentive. They asked me to revise the rezone commitment into a memorandum of understanding agreement for the shared improvements. As I mentioned a couple times they are requesting waivers to reduce the right-of-way on Klondike road and to not require a sidewalk on the West side of Ronald Reagan Parkway. The applicant is here if you have any questions about this plan. Mr. Smith: I ll ask the applicant at this time, if they would like to add anything Mr. Touhy- Mr. President, member of the Plan Commission committee thank you. My name is Brian Touhy, I am an attorney, here with me tonight are the principals at Ambrose Grant Goldman, Bill Blue from JRA architecture and I believe Ryan Lindley is still here with us. Thanks Plainfield Plan Commission

5 again for hearing our case. So, Eric did a terrific job of outlining the requests. I just might fill in a few more details. The site is a 29-acre site, right here on the west side of Ronald Reagan Parkway where Wamsley Way comes in, and Wamsley Way is a cul-de-sac that doesn t go anywhere except into this site. So, part of our 3 proposals would be to pack this site into one commercial lot for this proposed development. Let s take a second a see what s around us. Tillman s automobile business is right here, there are some residential R-2 lots, there are homes, there are residence back here but this is GC, there s a sign saying it s for sale for commercial uses. Here is automobile sales, this is called Gale and an auction business is down here is where Indiana University Health facility is. Then the warehouse distribution facilities are along there. So, this is a mix of uses around our site. There s commercial, industrial, residential, and about any use could think of is around this site, and of course Ronald Reagan borders it on the East side. So, then what does it look like on the site. There is a pretty heavy existing tree line on both the North and the South border. so, I took this photograph recently this is looking south, I m standing in Wamsley Way, the tree line is along the South border. those trees are not on our property, we ve determined for the most part that the heavy standing trees are on our neighbor s property and the same is true for the North. So, as you can see, I m standing on Wamsley Way I m looking straight north, you can see the edge of the camera caught Ronald Reagan and the homes that are along here there s a pretty good strand of trees that would remain in place because they are on our neighbor s property. and on this photograph as Eric mentioned most these homes are zoned R2. We have a level 3 landscaping border that will be along here. So again providing additional screening from our use to the R-2. This is looking Southeast. This street by the way, Wamsley Way, we ve asked for a vacation of that, that would be vacated and the site would be developed. This is looking straight East towards Ronald Reagan and the airport would be behind that. Here s one of the businesses to our West automobile auction, again this is looking North from the South end of the site by the IU building. And as I mentioned the zoning around it, so here s the site, you ve R-2 over here, you ve got I-2 here. The comprehensive plan as Eric said calls for light industrial as you can see that stretch in front of Ronald Reagan. This is the building that we would propose to build that sort of looking at it from the view of Ronald Reagan Parkway. 0ur site plan we did ask for and we appreciate the board of zoning appeals giving us a variance. Klondike Road is not in yet, but we have anticipated its coming and have accommodated that with our site plan and we have obtained a variance for a slight reduction in what is now a backyard but one day we will have two front yards one here on Klondike Road and one on Ronald Reagan. Here s our primary plan, that has to do with is taking Wamsley Way and vacating it and turning it into a one lot commercial subdivision, in this case industrial subdivision. Here s our landscape plan, level 3 along here, level 6 to level one next to the GC on the south side to provide a buffer in between us and our neighbors. Planting plan to give you an idea along this area here I think there s somewhere between 47 to 54 trees and shrubs. there s a 50-foot buffer yard in here also. The distance of the building from the north property line, I thought this might be of interest to the board, that s about 220 feet and then from that property line to those homes along there, the two eastern most homes is about another 300 to 350 feet. My point about that is, from the Plainfield Plan Commission

6 edge of that building to the point of the actual homes on these two lots over here approaches 550 plus feet, so almost 2 football fields in distance, so it s a fairly good distance separated by the tree line. So, to recap what the planning department said and we are very respectfully asking your approval after tonight, we ve got a GC site, 29-acre site now. We would like to change that zoning to allow an I-2 use, which we ve shown you. That I-2 use, that proposed zoning we believe meets your comprehensive planning we believe that because we ve seen it and your planners have told us that. The design review committee has met and reviewed our plans, and they recommended approval of the proposed plan. We have received a variance to accommodate the eventual extension of Klondike Road, so well have two front yards of the site and we believe that the rezoning and development plans are consistent with the comprehensive plan and are consistent and compatible with the existing uses of Ronald Reagan Parkway. We will certainly try to answer in questions you might have and thank you for your time this evening. Mr. Smith: Thank you. We will open at this time for any hearing comments for or against this particular project. If you would come forward to the microphone, give us your name and your address. Is there anyone else who needs to be sworn in? Mr. Fields: My name is Mike Fields I live at Old National Road. As he referred to me as a resident, I m a human being. I want to know why, well first and for most if somebody could pull up the one sheet that showed my property. I want to know about the lighting, the noise, the white elephant that you guys want to put there. Why can t you guys get a building that s already existing? So, I own all that property along National Road there. I m just asking honestly. Since I live there, I m entitled to know about the lighting, the noise, the fencing, are they going to do any of this? He said it s like 500 feet, he makes it sound like it s nothing. But I ve lived there 25 years and now suddenly, I ve got to put up with another white elephant. There s plenty of them in Plainfield already, why can t they take one that s already existing? Why do they have to come in my back yard? I just want to vent, I think I m entitled to that. You guys wouldn t enjoy it either, none of you would. So honestly, I m just curious. Can someone show me how the lighting is going to be, what the noise pollution is going to be. What kind of berm or what kind of wall they re going to put up. I know they re going to do everything you people ask them to do, and that still isn t going to satisfy me, but anyway thank you. Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mike. Is there anyone else at this time concerning this project? Hearing none, I will close this portion of the public hearing and perhaps, shall we look to Mr. Touhy can you answer any of Mr. Field s questions? Mr. Bade: Good evening my name is Aasif Bade with Ambrose property group, 55 Monument Circle Suite #450 Indianapolis, IN Thank you for hearing us this evening. As Mr. James referred to earlier this afternoon we received notice of a request for continuance, we spoke to that neighbor to the North and we ve agreed with them to create the maximum berm possible with no less than 2 feet plus 6 foot fence with a total of 8 feet of screening in addition to the existing trees that are present, plus the level 3 landscaping buffer that we have. The lighting as Plainfield Plan Commission

7 we recently did with the UPS facility that you are all familiar with will have deflectors to not be visible from the neighbor s property to the North. I m happy to address any other concerns you may have. Thank you again for hearing us this evening. Mr. Smith: Let me turn back to the commission to see if we have any questions or concerns. Question for Scott, can you tell us about the transportation situation with the new road on the west side. And also, I will be curious about the turns in and out of Ronald Reagan and how that s accommodated. Mr. Singleton: Good afternoon. As many of you know, last year we started down this path of getting Klondike Road designed and built and put on our comprehensive plan for many of years. And what drove it honestly was the activity on the west side of 40. The towns long term view the real benefit is seeing that connected from Airtech to Bradford Road with the fire station, that would allow very easy access to the developing industrial areas up and all points and faster access to US 40 without having to go to Reagan and come back around. So, we were down this path, we had the southern section south of this building is practically fully designed. From this property line to down south to the retention ponds there at Airtech, is where that will intersect. I think I covered some of that in the memo, but this particular version we entered into a design contract back in May I believe with American Structurepoint and we are really focused on how to tie in the Old National Road connection both from today s standpoint and to service all the residents and business that rely on that, but then also have a solution for long term If areas are going to develop around it. and of course, this came in right around the same time that we were entering into those discussions. We ve been working with a developer. We did have an early concept knowing the shape of these parcels, knowing that a building like this probably would show up here someday and that we might try and get Old National moved back a little bit further and realign that down. That design wasn t cohesive with what they wanted to do. It simply doesn t work with their design to get their drive in here and push that back. which that s okay, but it does leave some questions on how were going to be able to tie things in, in the long term. So, Old National Road access to Klondike will become restricted access at some point. It s just too close to US 40 to not become restricted. Mr. Smith: What do you mean by restricted? Mr. Singleton: You can t take a left into it, right now you come down Old National. But, there are more solutions that we will be looking at in order to provide access off US 40 as things redevelop. So, with all that being said the biggest challenge with this site today is that it has a single entrance point off of Ronald Reagan because the design of Old National and the design of Klondike Road is developed to show how they are going to tie in. they show it right here at this straight end and that is definitely long term position that we expect them to tie in with this development being proposed but in the long term there might be a need to make some type of connection over here to Old National Road or to make sure that Klondike Road gets built from this stretch of where it turns into Old National down to their drive. So, that was the memo that was sent out. Their proposal shows that single point of access and in the long term 3 access Plainfield Plan Commission

8 points seem to be suitable for the development. With two on Klondike and one on Ronald Reagan, with the one of Ronald Reagan will expect to get restricted over time whether it becomes a left in, right in, right out or just a right in, right out. It s not just going to become a signal. At least that s not the intent. But, this development would have access to Klondike which would get to Airtech which would signal someday along Reagan. And that would help service this development in the long term. In the short term, the two options creating some type of access from this location through here. Either two on National, or over here somewhere depending on how our design goes and how far we can get and know that we are building something that is appropriate for the long term as part of this development. At least that is the requirement that we think this proposal should have put on it. That some type of connection is made before this is allowed to go into operation. Mr. Smith: Immediate access is the one drive point off of Reagan. That s both directions, that s full access basically. Mr. Singleton: It s a full access being proposed, yeah. So, they ve got the left in, right in, right out in the long term, but today it s a full access, yeah. The traffic study indicates that they can t exit the site without the changes that they need at that point, that s why the access on the backside of the building is necessary, even from day one. Now of course, you guys all know different users have much different traffic demands. So, they have analyzed this site as a highend user with a lot of traffic car volume, and then a more traditional use as well. But, a lot of different moving parts to that traffic study to be honest with you so there s some concern in there. I couldn t speak to the details of the traffic report, but definitely having the two access points is a start and to have all 3 in place in the not so distant future is where we are at. But the requirement to have that access to US 40 from day one is something that we recommend. Mr. Smith: What is your time frame for Klondike South? Mr. Singleton: We would definitely plan on having it built next year. Getting into construction In an ideal world we would see construction starting in the spring. I think the developers got a spring opening schedule, so were going to be trailing behind him. But hopefully we can get enough of the design done that we can work out some type of early construction phase, just up in here. We have a property owner with property on the West side that we have to work with and coordinate with to get rights secured. If not, that s where Old National tie in could come into play if there s any concerns there. But, our schedule would be to have it built next year. Mr. Philip: is this second exit suitable for truck and automobile traffic? Mr. Singleton: I think it does need to be suitable for trucks, yes. So, from that access point to 40 it definitely needs to be suitable for trucks. We would probably look to do some type of restriction to limit trucks to where they can t go East on Old National Road. Mr. Kirchoff: Okay, my discussion with staff last week that I would add, is that it s unique up there right now. So, it s only appropriate that we put some restrictions on it, until the building Plainfield Plan Commission

9 can be occupied. The other thing is that if you look at the property between there and US 40, who knows what it s going to look like in 5 years. So once that plays out, we might have a better sense of what ingress and egress we can have there. Is that a fair statement? Mr. Singleton: That is a fair statement. There are some odd shaped parcels along 40 that are challenging to develop, but you know, if somebody comes in and starts to assemble they re going to see the benefits of access that we would promote and work with them on that, and that would help there. Mr. Kirchoff: if we knew what that was going to look like, we could plan that now. But, we don t know what that s going to look like and how that s going to redevelop and it is one of our locations that we are looking at and talking about redevelopment. So, if you had a crystal ball, you could say well that s what we could do, but we don t really know what that s going to look like. Mr. Smith: Anything more on transportation and roads at this point? I m sure that you ll watch to make sure that stacking distance on Ronald Reagan is adequate for any trucks. Mr. Singleton: All indications are that inbound there is no issue with stacking. The developers made it to billing that the Southbound right turn lane as well. It s more off the exiting traffic that s a problem that will stack up and make it seize up. Mr. Smith: Alright, thank you. There s a little more question about the lighting there. And there is a lighting study. Eric or Joe can you explain that page for us? Mr. James: Yes, the photometric plan which determines the amount of light candles, that a pole light would produce and the ordinance requires that it has to be 0-foot candles at the property line so, right here there should be no light pollution. And also to comply with light standards it has to be a flat lens and the lens has to be shielded. These days developers are going to the LED lights which are more efficient and they are better at controlling the light pollution. But, I do want to add that they are proposing future trailer parking right up in here, so if they do have to do the future trailer parking, they will have to come back and get a variance, so we would probably ask for more landscaping at that time. Mr. Bahr: Does that hold true for the South Side as well? Mr. James: Well no, they are showing trailer parking right there. But, as far as the lighting yes. At any perimeter, they have to have zero-foot candles. Mr. Smith: Thank you. Anything further from members of the commission, or are we ready for a motion? Mr. Kirchoff: I had a question. So, Eric in your presentation you showed that we needed to modify that first condition. Do you have your correct wording for that? Plainfield Plan Commission

10 Mr. Smith: While, he s finding that slide, let me address a question that came up in the back of the room. Mr. Fields, I saw your hand and I apologize that we have already opened and closed the public hearing. so instead if you had questions or comments, you could talk to Eric, or Joe and they will be able to help you out with anything I think you may need. Mr. Sears: I had a question in regard to the Roads. Mr. Smith: Come up to the podium. Mr. Sears: My name is Ron Sears at 1751 Bealer Avenue, Speedway Indiana and I had represent Deb Tague. I own a real estate company, RJ Sears investment Group in the state of Indiana for 20 plus years. First of all, I would like to say thank you again for letting us come up here, I appreciate your time, and thank you for Scott talking to us. But Is this an appropriate time and opportunity here, we didn t have all the information in front of us to close. Mr. Smith: Well, we are pretty far out of order, and out of our usual thing. But, I understand the concerns so I will allow one or two more here, so go ahead. Mr. Sears: Thank you, and I appreciate that, my only concern here is, for the record with talking about road restrictions and right in, right outs. For Deb Tague, she has a property that is to the West of the site up there. And we love working with Scott, we see a lot of value in what you guys are doing. Also, in the same respect we don t want to limit Deb s ability to get people in and out and if we have a limited access road off of US 40, that means I m not going to have retailers or people that are going to want to get in there or that can get in there and can get out. So, just for the record, what we would like to see. We would love to see some more information on this access road that is going north to Old National and just see how that design is. Again, I know we are way early, I just want to make a record that we have some concerns with that, and we want to work with you guys, and Scott. And that is what my concern is at this point that we understand the access points, because it s critical to Deb and the development of everybody around us. You ve got Gale s and Deb s and Andy Mohr s as well. Mr. Smith: I think that Scott mentioned that they re sensitive to the homes and businesses along there, so you ll want to make sure to stay in touch and make sure he has your contact information. Mr. Fields I ll give you one more minute. Mr. Fields: Thank you. I just had a couple issues. We already have semis going down National Road, I live there. I was trying to follow the gentleman exactly with his plan to filter back to Washington Street. Gentleman, in the evening time it s a cluster of trucks right now. I mean, I don t know how many employees your planning on hiring, and I don t know how many of them are going to go out to Washington Street but I just wanted to make you gentleman are aware, it s already bad and if you get a bunch more 500 or 1,000 people that want to get out on Washington Street, there s going to be some serious planning going on and I just don t want the semis. And they do, there s already a couple of them living on that street. So, I just want to point that out, I thought I was entitled to that. Plainfield Plan Commission

11 Mr. Smith: Thank you. I know Scott will keep you informed on that. Anything further from the commission members at this point? Mr. James: Also, we do have a commitment for 2-foot minimum berm and a 6-foot fence on the North side of the property. Mr. Kirchoff: We do respectfully request that the transportation all be condensed into one document being the MOU that s being required before we go forward just so it s comprehensive and all in one document. Thank you. Mr. Kirchoff: Mr. Chairman, I agree the plan commission certify the zone RZ as follows the Ambrose Plainfield Industrial 3 LLC requesting rezoning of 29.2 acres on the West side of the intersection on Walmsley Way and Ronald Reagan Parkway from the GC commercial district to the I-2 office/warehouse distribution district subject to the following commitment being submitted on Form A before being certified to Town Council: 1. the town and petitioners shall enter a memorandum of understanding agreement for the shared improvements. Mr. Brandgard: Second Mr. Smith: I have a motion and a second concerning RZ will you call the roll. Mr. Klinger: RZ has been approved. Mr. Philip- yes Mr. McPhail- yes Mr. Brandgard- yes Mr. Smith- yes Mr. Kirchoff- Yes Mr. Barh- Yes Mr. Slavens- Yes Mr. Kirchoff: Are you ready for the next motion? Mr. Smith: Yes, I am. Mr. Kirchoff: Mr. President, I move that the Plan Commission I approve PP as filed by the Ambrose Plainfield Industrial 3 LLC requesting approval of primary plat to allow for one lot industrial subdivision on approximately 29.2 acres finding that: 1. adequate previsions have been made for the regulations of minimum lot width, minimum lot depth minimum lot area. 2. adequate previsions have been made the widths, grades, curves and coordination of subdivision. Plainfield Plan Commission

12 3. adequate previsions have been made for the extension of water, sewer and other municipal services. 4. subject to a waiver from subdivision control ordinance article 3.3 C-1 referring to table 3.3-A. Minimum design standards for streets to allow for leniency and right-of-way requirements for Klondike Road through the site, and subdivision control ordinance article 3.4-A referring to allow for lenience in requiring a sidewalk along the West side of Ronald Reagan Parkway. The planned commission finds that: 1. the granting of the waver will not be detrimental to the public safety, health or welfare or injurious to other property. 2. the conditions upon which the request for a waiver is based are unique to the property for which a waiver is thought and non-applicable generally to other property. 3. because of particular physical surroundings and topographical conditions of the particular property involved the particular hardship to the owner would resolve as distinguished to a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of these regulations are carried out. 4. waiver will not contravene the previsions of Plainfield Zoning Ordinance or the comprehensive plan. 5. where the waiver impacts on design construction or maintenance obligations of the facilities that the appropriate public agency has reviewed and approved the proposed development in writing to the planned commission, and such approval shall be subject to the following conditions. 1. compliance with the town standards including but not limited to the Plainfield ordinance 1-96 regarding flood plain management. Plainfield ordnance #4-94 and #3-86 regarding the sewage works. Plainfield ordinance #17-97 regarding drainage. Plainfield ordinance #19-97 regarding municipal waterworks, and ordinance #18-97 regarding access permits. 2. compliance with the standards and specifications of the Plainfield subdivision control ordinance for which waivers have not been granted. 3. substantial compliance with the primary plan submitted July 21 st, Mr. McPhail: Shouldn t that be subject to the town council approval, the rezoning? Mr. Smith: Yes, and number four, the town council approving the rezoning. Mr. Slavens: Second Mr. Smith: I have a motion and a second for PP , would you call the roll please? Plainfield Plan Commission

13 Mr. Klinger: PP is approved. Mr. Phillip- yes Mr. McPhail- yes Mr. Brandgard- yes Mr. Smith- yes Mr. Kirchoff- yes Mr. Bahr- yes Mr. Slavens- yes Mr. Kirchoff: Thank you, I move that the Planned Commission approve DP as filed by Ambrose Plainfield Industrial 3 LLC requesting architecture and site design approval for on the 482,000-sq. ft. flex/warehouse/distribution center for the 29.2-acre partial to be zoned I-2 with a gateway corridor finding that: 1. the development plan complies with all of the development standards of the division district in which the site is located. 2. that the development plan complies with all applicable provisions and subdivision control ordinance for which a waiver has not been granted. 3. the development plan complies with all applicable provisions for the architecture and site design review for which a waiver has not been granted. 4. the proposed development is appropriate to the site and its surroundings. 5. the proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Plainfield zoning ordinance. And that such approval shall be subject to the following conditions. 1. substantial compliance with the site plan, building elevation, landscape plan and line of sight illustration dated July 21 st, an external trash enclosure or compactor if needed shall be reviewed with an improvement location permit. 3. developers committed to install a 2-foot berm and a 6-foot fence on each side of the property and adjacent to the residential use property only. 4. that any approval of this development shall include a requirement for the building to not be allowed to be formally occupied and operating until suitable access is made available to the signalizing intersection at Main Street, US 40 and Old National Road. 5. is subject to the zoning approval of the Town Council. Plainfield Plan Commission

14 Mr. McPhail: Second. Mr. Smith I have a motion and a second for DP call the roll. Mr. Klinger: DP is approved. Mr. Phillip- yes Mr. McPhail- yes Mr. Brandgard- yes Mr. Smith- yes Mr. Kirchoff- yes Mr. Bahr- yes Mr. Slavens- yes Mr. Smith: Thank you very much. Let s take a five-minute break if we could. (Break) All right, lets resume the Plan Commission, we still have a lot of agenda ahead of us. We have a little bit of a situation, Joe will you explain what you would like to do. Mr. James: Yes, with the Plan Commission s approval, I would like to switch up the agenda a little bit. We ve got a young lady here Ms. Nicole Bradley representing Ms. McDonald who resides at 312 Pickett Street, and this is under Plan Commission Invitees at the end of the agenda, and she has to go to work. Ms. McDonald is hard of hearing, so she is here to be her ears tonight. So, this is a zoning violation for excessive outdoor debris. They have moved items from the front yard to the backyard, and they have a fence. This is the property with the front yard before, and this is back behind the fence. They do have a lot of stuff back there, and it is hidden from the street view by the fence. So, the question is, is that acceptable to move it back behind the fence, or should the whole property be cleaned up? Mr. McPhail: I certainly think the whole property needs to be cleaned up. Mr. Smith: Ma am if you would like to respond, go ahead. Give us your name. Ms. Bradley: I live in Indianapolis, I represent Ms. McDonald, because she cannot hear. As far as the stuff being moved to the back yard. Ten years ago, they owned another property right next door on Pickett and they were told by Judge Spencer that they could move the stuff to the backyard. Now he is going to have to junk his cars that he has been working on and turning into racecars, that he sells because they re in the backyard, and other than having them in the front, where can you put them without seeing them? We can move the stuff into the backyard, that s not a problem he planned on moving them. He set down with me, and basically went over each week of what we could do as far as getting everything done. I am having a baby so where are on a time limit as far as what were able to get done. Each one is set for a one-week goal, but I don t think it will take a week to accomplish some of these things, some might take a little bit longer, and some might take a little bit less. I m really not quite for certain. With Ms. McDonald, she works here in Plainfield at Walmart, she has for a very long time now. She really Plainfield Plan Commission

15 can t do too much. We do most of the stuff for her and Henry, he s on disability so he s limited to what he s able to do. And, what the rest is we have friends coming in to cover up slack. But, with the cars, as far as that goes will be moved out of there as of the first of the week. Mr. Smith: How many weeks do you estimate it will take until you re done? Mr. Bradley: I said three weeks. I don t think it will take any more than three considering. I think even when we talked, I gave him two weeks, and that was to just go over the overall and making sure everything is done. That s taking care of the shrubbery and the grass and the scrap metal in the back which we have someone who said they would come and pick it up. Other than the cars, for the most part he has been working on it. If you went over there now and took a picture of it, which I wish I had taken pictures, it is a big difference. But, he does work on cars, so he is making a mess in those yards. I mean, it s what he s done for years, it s what he s good at. Mr. Smith: Joe, do you have a suggestion? Mr. James: Yes, I m not sure that s totally accurate with Judge Spencer s court order was for the property to the North, which is on Harding Street. But, we did have to go to court on that property and I don t recall if we had to bring in an outside service to get the property cleaned up, but the rear yard of that home was in much worse shape than this home and it was back behind the fence. But, we did get it cleaned up and now I think the property was sold and the property looks nice now. Mr. Smith: But, were still left with this one. Mr. Brandgard: Joe, where are in the process? Mr. James: I think Terry sent a notice in June and he s been checking on the property they have made some progress, but again all they did was relocate it. This is the first time it s been before the Plan Commission for this property. Mr. Smith: You think you can make a commitment of three weeks? Ms. Bradley: Yes, we can have it done in three weeks. Mr. Smith: And if not, we start fining process Mr. Kirchoff: Would it be appropriate to bring them back at the end of the month and review how their progress is? Mr. Smith: I think, she says they can get it don t in three weeks, so we ll honor that. And, if not we will start the fining process. Mr. Kirchoff: I would like to get a copy of your schedule. How about you give Joe your contact information, that way Joe can work directly with you. Thank you. Plainfield Plan Commission

16 Mr. Brandgard: I just thought of something, we may not have a meeting in September. If nothing gets continued tonight, we have no petitions for September. It could be October. Mr. Smith: Back to the agenda. RZ David and Stephen, LLC. Mr. James: This is a request to rezone 11.8 acres from AG Agriculture to the I-2 light industrial office district. And from AG to the general-purpose district located at the northwest corner of SR67 and CO 700S for Camby Rd intersection. This is a wide view, just to get you oriented. Here s I70, 267, and then Camby Rd. And so I-2 would be right in there and GC. A better representation, This would be the I-2, which is adjacent from the I-2 that was rezoned in and then the GC is a small piece along the 267 rights-of-way. So, in 2011 the adjacent 48.2 acres was to the West and rezoned to I-2 and then 4.4 acres to the south were rezoned to GC. This is what was rezoned in 2011 and then this little GC piece right here. The subject property and the adjacent properties are undeveloped, there is a Grace church to the South that is zoned in the GC. There s a comprehensive plan use recommendation that recommends highway commercial, but in reality, the main use was set in 2011 when that was rezoned to I-2. Here s the transportation plan, it shows no recommended improvements to Camby Rd, or any other type of access. The rezone to I-2 in 2011 really set the stage for how this area will be developed. Rezone commitments in 2011 capped the building size at 270,000 square feet. These would be more flex type buildings that would have more of a commercial look than your basic light industrial look. I just passed out the revised commitments for this 11.8 acres we were supposed to rezone tonight. They would like to bump that building cap up from 220,000 square feet to 240,000 square feet. So, considering the previous rezone to I-2 is this rezone appropriate? There were some different commitments because that property was next to Sycamore Estates to the west. So, they are not offering the same commitments, but they are offering similar commitments. Based on the road improvements needed on CR 700S and also to prevent truck traffic on 825E, but the same commitment regarding the execution of a memorandum of understanding for road utility improvements needed has not been offered at this rezone. So, should that be included in this rezone that was done back in 2011? And, to eliminate any confusion regarding rezone commitments and a portion of these commitments, they could have a building that half of it would be on the 2011 rezone and the other half would be on this rezone site. So, that s why their asking to increase that building cap up to 240,000 square feet. So, is that acceptable? Representatives are here and I m sure they d be glad to answer your questions. Mr.McNaught: Mr. President, members of the commission my name is Harry McNaught I have an office at 320 North Meridian St Suite 700, Indianapolis. I represent David and Steven Strange, the owner of these properties. They inherited the property from their father Kelly Strange. This is part of a memorandum when 267 got created back in the sixties and the Strange family was a partner with the Williamson family to the east, and long story short the over years ago Mr. Strange finally said I need to do something with this property so he had a partition action and the court awarded him this parcel as well as the northeast corner of Plainfield Plan Commission

17 277 and Camby Rd, which we acquired back in This 11.8 acres plus the.68 acres, again oriented to 267, the only reason we didn t include the MOU is because the property is essentially land locked. There is no direct access. There is a dogleg easement through the church property, but the only access really that will happen to this property is through the 48 acres, and that of course picks up MOU to what happens to Camby Rd. I ve met Tim Belcher and Don McGillam about Camby Road, and we will propose that MOU which will apply to the existing I-2 property as well as this property if you will recommend this for approval, the town council approves that the rezoning on the GC piece. What we did is we aligned that the proposed rezonings would be the same as the abutting property. So, the thin yellow area is more of a remnant piece created by 267 that would go with the existing GC properties, the church as well as the corner that use to be Highpoint Oil Company, which we acquired in The northern piece would go with the I-2 zoning to the west. Joe is right, as we looked at various layouts there was a building that extended across the imaginary, but it is a real property line in terms of development consequential line extend over the 48 acres, and Joe and I were talking about interpretation about that whether it would be prorate or how that would work. And this was clear to change that commitment. You have two sets of power lines, you have a pair that parallels I-70, that s a Duke Energy line, you also have a Duke Energy line that goes north and that really limits the power layout for a building that size. So, with that I would be glad to answer any questions. Thank you. Mr. Smith: Any questions or comments from the commission at this point? Mr. McPhail: Seems to me if my memory serves me correctly, that when we rezoned that 40 acres back a few years ago we had some commitments on a road development going west into that subdivision and some restrictions and things like that. So, there still in place and this wouldn t have any affect. Am I assuming that correctly? Mr. McNaught: Yes, that s exactly correct. I think we included some of that including making sure that the access point of Camby Road would be designed to prevent and discourage as greatly as possible any trucks from turning from the west. That was a key commitment. Mr. Smith: Also turning south, I remember a lot of conversation that we had to protect that road to keep trucks off. I will now open the public hearing for comments either for or against this petition RZ David & Stephen, LLC. Mr. Daniel: Conducted Oath of Testimony. Mr. Woods: My name is Terry Woods I live at 8048 Redbos Ct. which is in Sycamore Estates. We have been pretty lucky over the last 40 years because our little subdivision there has been out by itself and everything else has developed on the other side of the interstate. It s inevitable that this was going to happen to us someday, but we ve enjoyed it up until now. To have businesses develop around our homes, some concerns I m sure I share with a lot of my neighbors is the additional traffic. Because it is very difficult to get in and out of our subdivision in the morning hours when a lot of people are trying to commute to work. The traffic coming Plainfield Plan Commission

18 out from the south is pretty heavy and you don t get much of a break. So, if we re going to have additional semi traffic and things of that nature it s going to create quite a traffic hazard. And I certainly don t want to see any fatalities happen here at that intersection, because it s bad now. And, I think that were just waiting on one more fatality to get a stop light. I think it s sad that we have to have things like that to happen to motivate us to move forward. I m also concerned about some of the utilities that might be available to us if this is going to be developed. Are we going to get city sewers and things like that made available while developing in our direction? Maybe we can take the good with the bad, so if we re going to have to deal with some commercial building and some traffic there, then maybe some of that might benefit us getting some utilities and things like that down there. Thank you. Mr. Smith: Thank you Terry. Is there anyone else, for or against this project? Hearing none, I will close that portion of the public hearing, and move back to members of the commission for any comments. I might begin by turning back to Scott, or ask if there has been any traffic studies done in the area, or if you know anything at all about the area of 267, and what impact there might be on sewers, or water, if that might become available to those folks. Mr. Singleton: I can speak to traffic study. The developer performed with the original rezone briefly had some improvements from where the development picks up on the west side from that drive headed back to 267 but that also included I think, the recommendation of a stoplight to go in as the development occurs there. I don t know about any existing situations, or whether it meets warrants today, I have not seen those numbers performed. Mr. Smith: That traffic study would have been back in 2011, so it s been awhile. Mr. Singleton: Yes, so the traffic could have increased from other sources obviously. Mr. McPhail: Scott, that intersection is under INDOT? Mr. Singleton: Yes, that is correct. That intersection is fully INDOT, so we do not have any jurisdiction. We would be working with the developer to coordinate the improvements together. Mr. Smith: Any other questions of Scott at this point? Tell us about the utilities. Mr. Belcher: There is water in all of Sycamore Estates, some have and some haven t got on the water, but it s there, and available. The town has a plan, it s always the cost. This particular project won t run sewers through the neighborhood or anything like that as far as part of its development. So, there are no development plans specific for the corner yet. But, I don t see this project running sewers through the neighborhood or anything like that. So, it would get them closer, but closer doesn t get them. it s very expensive to run sewer, especially through neighborhoods. The town has always been opened to serving areas, but usually the problem comes down to the cost of doing it. We just take the cost divided by the number of homeowners and the number unfortunately is very difficult to take sometimes. There s no Plainfield Plan Commission