PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION September 8, :00 p.m.

PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION September 8, 2016 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Gibbs: I would like to call to order the Plainfield Plan Commission meeting for September 8, 2016. ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM Mr. Gibbs: Mr. Klinger would you poll board to determine a quorum. Mr. Klinger: Mr. McPhail- here Mr. Brandgard- here Mr. Smith- here Mr. Kirchoff- here Mr. Bahr- here Mr. Gibbs- here All are present and accounted for and we have one open seat. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mr. Gibbs: If you would please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Gibbs: I assume that all of the Board members have had the opportunity to review the minutes from August 1 st. If there is no corrections as noted I will entertain a motion. Mr. Kirchoff: So move. Mr. Brandgard: Second. Mr. Gibbs: carried. All those in favor signify by saying aye, opposed, motion PUBLIC HEARINGS Mr. Gibbs reviewed the Guidelines Governing the Conduct of Public Hearings OATH OF TESTIMONY Mr. Daniel conducted the Oath of Testimony CONTINUED TO OCTOBER MEETING Mr. Gibbs: The first item on the agenda is DP-16-013 asking for a continuation through October, is that correct Joe? Plainfield Plan Commission 9-8-16 1

Mr. James: Yes, good evening Mr. President and members of the Plan Commission. Yes, this project is still not ready to bring to the Plan Commission yet so we are requesting a continuance to the October meeting. Mr. Gibbs: I will entertain a motion by the board. Mr. McPhail: So move. Mr. Brandgard: Second. Mr. Gibbs: I have a motion and a second, all those in favor of continuing DP-16-013 say aye, opposed, motion carries. PETITIONS FOR PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Gibbs: Next on the agenda is PP-16-002 and DP-16-014, are you doing those together Joe? Mr. James: Yes. Thank you Mr. President. This will require 2 motions from the Plan Commission tonight, two separate petitions. The first one is the review of a primarily plat to create one commercial lot of 1/54 acres. This is located approximately 142 Williams Trace. Here is US 40 right here, this is the Crew Carwash and Williams Trace back there. It is paved to about right there and then it is unapproved lane that provides access to these residential properties back in here. This site was rezoned to General Commercial back in June. So the second petition is review of a development plan for 2 proposed 7200 square foot flex type structures. It is within 600 of a residential district so the building and the site has to comply with the gateway corridor design standards. As I mentioned that the site was rezoned from R-3 to GC back in June and you have GC to the south, GC to the west and then you ve got R-3 to the north and to the east. Buffer yard was required at the north perimeter and the east perimeter and the east perimeter because of the residential zoning, and they also have the depth of yard development incentive to reduce that front setback off of the private drive. When this was first brought to the design review committee they needed several waivers and a variance but the DRC continued it to allow them to make some changes to the plans and so when they brought it back they eliminated several of the needed waivers and they eliminated the need for the variance. They still need 2 waivers, one for the building material waiver and one for the reduced truck court width. Staff supports both waivers. They want to use cedar board and batten as a primary material for the east facades, they use that because that would help represent and promote their business. Part of their business is barn renovation, so with the elimination of several waivers DRC supported the 2 waivers. With the primary plat we review it to see if they have made adequate provisions for access, utilities and drainage there is an existing 50 wide access easement that is unapproved and they are proposing a 20 private drive within the access easement that would not be built to Town standards for a private street, so they are going to have to get a waiver from the subdivision control ordinance in order to do that. Access to the lot can be provided from a public or private street and sidewalks are not required with private streets, only with public streets. The utility and the drainage plans appear to be adequate. Again here is the site, officially zoned GC so it should be red that is an old map. Here is the site plan 1.54 acres, one access to service both buildings, here is the buildings and the footpads of the buildings. This is the reduced truck court width, our standards for the large warehouses, so it is not appropriate for this site, the truck court width so that is why they need a waiver because this is a Plainfield Plan Commission 9-8-16 2

smaller project, small site, and smaller buildings not the large warehouses that we normally see. We go the required parking and setbacks and buffer yards comply. This is the utility plan and they have made provisions for utilities. Here is a rendering of sort of what the building could look like. They have added a stone wrap around all elevations and they have changed, the first generation had metal siding but they have changed all of the metal siding to EIFS so that eliminated a waiver right there. Here is the elevation drawings. This would be the cedar board and batten and the stone wrap that would be EIFS stone wrap and EIFS around the north and south buildings. This is just a photograph that represents what they want to try to do with the appearance of the building and to promote the barn renovation business. Landscaping plan complies, you got the buffer yard here and here. Our new transportation plan does propose a street through here someday turning Williams Trace into a public street and to provide access to properties the properties to the north across the Vandalia Trail. Then this is what they provided just to show you want the impacts could be, but this has a 70 right of way, which a local street only requires a 50 right of way, so I think we could build a street within the existing 50 wide access easement and not have to take additional right of way. So besides the requested waivers the plans comply with the gateway standards, the new transportation plan shows the possibility of Williams Trace becoming a public street. This has been disclosed to adjacent property owners and I think the adjacent property owners are in the audience tonight, so they instead of doing the acknowledgment letter they asked them to come to the hearing tonight in regarding to the primary plat are there any concerns regarding to the proposed access to the site and how the right of way should be dedicated if a public road is built in the future. In the staff report I did propose some language that would be added to the secondary plat with regards to acceptance and dedication of a right of way of that access easement that the petitioner owns. It would just be that portion and not any other portion. So is that plat language adequate, it was borrowed from language that was on the plat for the lots to the south regarding that Williams Trace that is improved. So with that I will have a seat and the petitioners are here and I am sure they would be glad to answer your questions. Mr. Gibbs: Anyone on the board have any questions for Joe at this time? Mr. Smith: the Is there anything in the language about outside storage around site? Mr. James: No. Mr. Gibbs: Would the petitioner like to address the board this evening? Mr. Williams: Robert Williams, 151 Williams Trace. I am the owner of BGW Construction and Hoosier Barn Heroes and this is my project. I will go ahead and introduce too Robert Williams my father and Arnold Gath my uncle. They represent the rest of the property owners. My grandmother is not here, she is 85 years old and it would be difficult but my father speaks on her behalf, that would be all of the other residences on Williams Trace, it is just family. I asked them to come here, we have been working on this for 8 months and you haven t seen them other than my father has come a couple of times and I wanted you guys to be aware that everybody knows what is going on and we ve had some concerns. Joe has been awesome and the entire staff at Plainfield the Town, has been great working with us and answering our questions. This is a new project and a new kind of thing for me, but to answer your question, there won t be room for outside storage even if we wanted too. If you can Plainfield Plan Commission 9-8-16 3

see we really fill up that space. We want the buildings to store the wood to keep it under weather and as far as my goal, I think when we first started this and you might remember we were going to use the north building for ourselves and then potentially rent out the south building, that is still plan B, what I am hoping is I can build these in such an efficient manner, we could use the space. So we will use them both. I don t know if that makes you feel any better about that. As I have said many times we all live there, we don t want it to look like the barns to the south that is a big goal of ours. I think I told you guys at the DRC meeting that I have tried to buy those buildings twice in the last 6 months and they are just not willing to give them up. Mr. Gibbs: Any more questions from the board? At this time I will open it up for the public for anyone in the audience who wishes to address the board in favor or opposing this petition. Mr. Jaco: My name is Floyd Jaco, I live at 10274 E. C.R. 200 South, Avon. I am not opposed to the warehouses. I am here to make everyone aware of my condition. Several years ago and I am also a decorated disabled Vietnam veteran. Several years ago I was hospitalized for a year, diagnosed with severe post-traumatic stress disorder. I worked on it I was in therapy for over 20 years, 5 days a week 6-8 hours a day. I got to the point where I didn t have to take medications. My nightmares had gone away and my flashbacks have gone away. Something that triggers this is stress. Since this has all started all of that therapy has been wiped away. My nightmares are back, my flashbacks are back, and I still don t take medications. But I would like to know how you are going to deal with me. I am the second house west of Ronald Reagan on the north side of the road. This has just been driving me nuts, I have actually gone back to guard duty. Different times at night I go out and pull guard duty on my property. I go out and these trucks park in front of my house day and night sits sometimes for 30 minutes at a time. I go out and run them off, I ve had my life threatened several times by truck drivers. I have prepared myself for the first one that comes and kicks my door in I am ready and waiting for that to happen. So I was just going to tell you that you guys need to do something with me. And something else that triggers me is loud banging noises at night and bright lights shining in my windows. I really don t know what to do about it. I talked to another therapist at the VA and he said to make everyone informed of your condition because my life could be laying in your hands. I know that I am not up here to make you stop building warehouses, I know you are going to build them but when you build the one across the street from me, I don t want loud banging noises day and night, I don t want bright lights shining in my windows at night because I won t be able to handle that and I am letting you people know that right I won t be able to handle it. I feel like sometimes I feel I am already right on this edge teetering or flipping out. This is what this has done to me and so far no one at all has offered to work with me. I have offered to sell property to get out of there, no one wants it, Town of Avon doesn t want it, and the Town of Plainfield doesn t want it so I really don t know what to do. So that is my story and I will wait for you guys can mail me a response or something but, the one main thing is these truck drivers, someone is going to get hurt, I promise you if these drivers don t, I literally 120 off the road, so when they park out there at 2:00 in the morning or 3 and let those trucks idle and those valves release and compress air, I m sitting straight up in bed. One night a truck came through and hit his engine brake right there. The next thing I knew I m back in the woods behind my house back into a flashback. So you all know now what I am going through and I would appreciate if someone would work with me. Plainfield Plan Commission 9-8-16 4

Mr. Gibbs: Okay, thank you. Anyone else from the audience? If not I will close the public portion of the meeting and open it up for the Board for further discussion. Mr. McPhail: I guess I d just ask the Council if this requirement on block A is sufficient for future road right of way. Mr. Daniel: In fact we had a meeting this afternoon at 4 with Tim and Scott and I redrafted that provision that you are referring to. I ve got a few slight changes to that because when you look at the plat without getting into a lot of detail. On the preliminary plat itself, block A actually is identified as road that apparently belongs to Joe Rankin or at least the item number there is Joe Rankin, so that just got carried over from a prior. What we are dealing with is the property owned by Mr. Williams that goes north of that. Can you see what I am talking about, Kent? See where it says block A. In fact if you look up at the top of the preliminary plat there is a legal description of that private roadway. That legal description on the right is a description of that private roadway. So I have revised that to refer to that description rather than otherwise, so if you would like for me I will read that revision into the record. Mr. McPhail: All right. Mr. Daniel: What that paragraph should say is private roadway as described on the preliminary plat shall be dedicated to the Town of Plainfield at no cost to the Town for use as a public facility if at a future date the Plainfield Plan Commission determines such dedication as appropriate and in the best interest in the Town of Plainfield. Plainfield Town Council shall have final authority to accept the improvements and or rights of way associated with said dedication. Upon acceptance by the Plainfield Town Council of such dedication of the private roadway the street and the improvements thereon shall thereafter be maintained by the Town of Plainfield. So that is the revision of that paragraph. Mr. McPhail: Thank you. Mr. Kirchoff: I guess I have a question for staff. Do we have a concern that the road will be constructed to town standards and Tim or Scott either one, when that time comes for that to be a public road, what does that mean to us? Mr. Belcher: As you noticed by the sketch that Joe showed, which they put together for us of what a future road might look like, at whatever time that would develop, but the alignment changes and that is why the road can t be developed now because of the folks on the east side of the road, first of all you could easily hit a house, things like that they are not ready to do anything so where they are building the pavement which is not Town standards and things like that would likely be built anyway. When the new road, when it does happen goes north then that would be curbing, sidewalks, and a lot of things would happen which I think would mean everything would come out and be redone and regraded, so I don t think we would be losing a lot and we really don t know if it will ever happen. Mr. Kirchoff: I understand. Plainfield Plan Commission 9-8-16 5

Mr. Smith: Tim I have one other related thing. I am wondering just about a small safety issue, maybe some signage or something would be in order. Especially for traffic that would be southbound on their private road when you get to the jog you have a blind corner practically, you have a fence, a house and what not on your right, so people coming of the Mike s drive thru, we ve all probably done this, you are blind to the traffic coming down this Williams Trace Road. Now putting more buildings back up here with employees and maybe customers, I don t know I am a little worried about the potential Mr. Belcher: Yes we talked about that and we thought the first thing to try which would be relatively simple is a stop sign at each stop, so I am coming out of Mike s after my car and I ve got to be thinking about stopping right there and paying attention as opposed to what I do now which is just roll on out. So that would be maybe our first attempt but there is some large electrical box there, things that we can t necessarily move right now, but I think that concern has been noted and we are going to try to address that if it goes forward. Mr. Smith: Well I don t know if there could be signage also for the Williams Trace road sign, or both ways. Mr. Belcher: Yes that is what I was thinking we just stop everybody coming other than incoming and then that way everyone is more aware of what is going on in the intersection. We had tried to get the whole connected road going to the west we haven t gotten that done but again that could pull more traffic there. The intersection is something we need to take a hard look at. Mr. Smith: Good, thank you. Mr. Gibbs: I think Mr. Smith raised a good question about outside storage. It may not be today but in the future we don t know how these flex buildings might be used and I think there should be something in there about outside storage. Mr. Smith: Well we don t allow it in the big warehouses. Mr. Brandgard: It is already in the ordinance. Mr. James: Outdoor storage isn t really allowed in the GC district. I mean you can have merchandise displayed adjacent to the building but it doesn t really have any standard for outdoor storage. Mr. Gibbs: What do you define as outdoor merchant display? Mr. James: Like Kroger puts flowers out. Mr. McPhail: It seems as we went through that a few years ago with particularly some of these gas stations and it seems like we have gotten that under control by trying to police it where they were just putting everything out there. Mr. Gibbs: Yes we ve done that for camper shells and then they end up on the ground and everything else and we just don t know what that is going to be in the future. Mr. Kirchoff: I have a question on the motion then does paragraph 4 or item number 4 go away Mel or do we simply just reference what you just read? Plainfield Plan Commission 9-8-16 6

Mr. Daniel: Item 4 stays and you can just refer to what is in the record as far as what is in there or I will read it again, whichever makes you feel more comfortable, if you want it in the record as part of the motion. Mr. Kirchoff: It would probably be better in the motion, wouldn t it? Mr. Daniel: Yes probably re-read it. Mr. Kirchoff: And that is where we are talking about it on the first motion, right? Mr. Chairman I move the Plan Commission approve PP-16-002 as filed by Robert G. Williams II, requesting approval of a Primary Plat for a commercial subdivision creating one lot at 1.54 acres finding that; 1. Adequate provisions have been made for regulation of minimum lot width, minimum lot depth and minimum lot area; 2. Adequate provisions have been made for the widths, grades, curves and coordination of subdivisions public ways with current and planned public ways; and 3. Adequate provisions have been made for the extension of water, sewer, and other municipal services, And that such approval shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Town Standards, including but not limited to: Plainfield Ordinance 1-96 regarding Floodplain Management; Plainfield Ordinance Nos. 4-94 and 3-86 regarding Sewage Works; Plainfield Ordinance No. 17-97 regarding Drainage; Plainfield Ordinance No. 19-97 regarding Municipal Waterworks; and Plainfield Ordinance No. 18-97 regarding Access Permits. 2. Compliance with the standards and specifications of the Plainfield Subdivision Control Ordinance of which waivers have not been granted. 3. Compliance with the Primary Plat submitted file date September 2, 2016. 4. The following language shall be added to the Secondary Plat regarding dedication of the private lane within the Access Easement owned by the Petitioner as represented on the Primary Plat. 1. Private roadway as described on the preliminary plat and the improvements thereon shall be dedicated to the Town of Plainfield at no cost to the Town for use as public facilities if at a future date the Plainfield Plan Commission determines that such dedication is appropriate and in the best interest of the Town of Plainfield. Plainfield Town Council shall have final authority to accept the improvements and or rights of way associated with said dedication. Upon acceptance by the Town of Plainfield Council of such dedications of the primary roadway, the street and appurtenant improvements thereon shall thereafter be maintained by the Town of Plainfield. Plainfield Plan Commission 9-8-16 7

And, regarding the waiver from Article 3.3.F. of the Plainfield Subdivision Control Ordinance to allow a private street not built to Town Standards, I move that the Plan Commission grant the waiver finding that: 1. The granting of the waiver 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 sought and are not applicable generally to other property; 3. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the specific property involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of these regulations are carried out; and 4. The waiver will not contravene the provisions of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Smith: Second. Mr. Gibbs: board? I have a motion and a second, Mr. Klinger would you poll the Mr. Klinger: PP-16-002 passed 6-0. Mr. McPhail- yes Mr. Brandgard- yes Mr. Smith- yes Mr. Kirchoff- yes Mr. Bahr- yes Mr. Gibbs- yes Mr. Kirchoff: Mr. Chairman I move the Plan Commission approve DP-16-014, as filed by Robert G. Williams, requesting approval of a development plan for 2 7,200 sf flex-type structures on 1.54 acres finding that: 1. The Development Plan complies with all applicable Development Standards of the GC General Commercial for which a waiver has not been granted. 2. The Development Plan complies with all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Control Ordinance for which a waiver has not been granted. 3. The proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 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, regarding waivers to allow cedar board and batten as a primary and secondary material and a reduced truck court width between buildings, the Plan Commission finds that: 1. The proposed development represents an innovative use of primary building materials which will enhance the use or value of area properties; Plainfield Plan Commission 9-8-16 8

2. The proposed development is consistent with and compatible with other development located along the Gateway Corridor; and 3. 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 building elevations, site plan and landscaping plan submitted file date August 26, 2016. Mr. Brandgard: Second. Mr. Gibbs: (inaudible) Mr. Klinger: DP-16-014 is approved. Mr. McPhail- yes Mr. Brandgard- yes Mr. Smith- yes Mr. Kirchoff- yes Mr. Bahr- yes Mr. Gibbs- yes Mr. Gibbs: Next item on the agenda is RZ-16-005 and DP-16-018 Mr. James: This also involves 2 motion. It is two separate petitions. The fist petition is a petition to rezone about 8.82 acres from General Commercial to R-6 high density residential district. The second petition is review of a multi-family development plan for a proposed 64 unit age restricted apartment complex on 8.2 acres and proposed density is less than 8 units per acre, it is about 7.3 units per acre. The multi-family development incentives are not required but the plans must comply with R-6 development and design standards. So here is the site it is former Just for Fun site between Clarks Creek Road and 267 south of 40 and the old car wash site. Down here is the Plainfield Health Center, this is the old staples building that is being converted into a St. Vincent medical facility. Then over here you ve got Williams Trace Mobile Home Park with high density and then you ve got the apartments Crown Plaza and Gladden Farms so there is a lot of density in this area and some similar type of services. All plans comply with the standards so no waivers are needed. As I showed you the site and then there is also a Walmart nearby so you have shopping near too. DRC recommended approval of plans as submitted with some minor changes. No traffic study was requested, any traffic generated by issues would be less than if the site was zoned General Commercial and you had a General Commercial use in there. So it would be a negligible impact to the road system. Here is the site plan, Clarks Creek Road is right here and then there will be a 2 story building right here situated like this. Here is 267 over here and then the parking lot is one means of access from Clarks Creek Road but then they could also use the interior access drive that has served the Just for Fun site and the other buildings in the commercial area. Elevations of the building, 2 story building and it is all brick and stone it has a stone wainscot wrap around the base. Here is the black and white elevations it complies with the building material percentages required in the R-6 as stone and brick. They have revised the garages, they did have metal siding but they revised them to be brick to match the primary building and then they also did that with the trash enclosures so the garages and the trash enclosure now comply. Black Plainfield Plan Commission 9-8-16 9

and white elevations, landscaping plan. They have put in the required landscaping and they did add some foundation landscaping that was a DRC recommendation. They got the parking lot screening and the perimeter requirements. Light plan complies, that would actually be a light for the sign. The parking lot and wall packs comply, trash enclosure complies. The sign DRC asked them, it was an all metal sign but they asked them to do a brick base to match the building, they ve done that. So the proposed zoning and the use are not consistent with the new comprehensive plan recommendation of local/corridor commercial, the proposed use is compatible with adjacent density and services. In order to finalize the projects tax credits are being sought, so we need to add the formal commitment and that is off of the letter that I provided them to the petitioner that they had to provide in order to move forward with this project, so I passed that out to you and I always passed out a revised motion, cut and pasted and put in the wrong motion in there but that has been corrected. So is the above rezone commitment adequate or are additional commitments necessary for the rezone and the development plan? And the representatives are here and I am sure they will be glad to answer your questions. Mr. Gibbs: Any questions from the board at this time? If not would the petitioner like to come forward? Mr. Banning: Good evening, Jeff Banning, Banning Engineering, 853 Columbia Drive, Suite 101 here in Plainfield. Thank you for hearing this this evening. I am here to represent Keller Development. In the audience with us this evening is Greg Majewski with Keller Development down from Ft. Wayne, and Mark Smith the architect for the project. I almost stand before you this evening in mourning. My daughter has worked at Just for Fun for multiple years, I know there are going to be a lot of people disappointed in the change of use but as you know the property owners had this property for sale for quite a while and the opportunity has really presented itself to fit into an area that really makes sense for this type of use. So we are in agreement with what Joe has presented his evening with what the staff report states, I just wanted to make one clarification on page 2 of 4 just so there is no discrepancies in the future, Joe I apologize I didn t mention this to you earlier either, where it says the HVAC will be behind the building, there are also some that are actually in front of the buildings but they are all screened per the ordinance, so I don think that will be an issue but I just wanted to point that out just in case anything would come up before approved this evening. With that I am going to keep it short and sweet and ask if there is any questions and ask for your approval with this project. Mr. McPhail: Jeff I have one question. On the overall site plan I am assuming that the access drive off of Main Street is part of this piece of property. Mr. Banning: It is. Mr. McPhail: And conveys to the owner. Mr. Banning: Correct. Mr. McPhail: I guess the other question I have is, this is an age restricted community, what governance assures us that that is age restricted, and I know there is some statutes out there and should that be part of our approval process referring to that? Plainfield Plan Commission 9-8-16 10

Mr. Banning: And we have actually as you well know with at rezoning commitment, we have to submit an exhibit A with restrictions on there. Of course Joe put the one restriction up there, one commitment I guess and we had that discussion earlier, you know this is for this this project only. I don t know, Mel if we need anything further than that. Mr. Daniel: That s a good question. Mr. McPhail: I support the project but I want to make sure that we are protected and what we are getting. Mr. Majewski: My name is Greg Majewski with Keller Development, 453 Merchant Drive, Fort Wayne. So the tax credit program that was mentioned that we are using to fund this project is a federal program administered at State level and we will be audited annually to make sure we are in compliance with it. When we submit our application for funding we will commit to this being an age restricted property which means 100% of the units will have to be leased with someone on the lease being at least 55 years old and in our experience in having many of these properties like this around the state, it is usually a single individual so they have to qualify by themselves or a couple in which both members qualify. That is how the age requirement will be restricted. If we don t comply we are in at risk of having to return funding to the State, so we don t want to be in that position. Mr. Bahr: Just out of curiosity, you say 55, does both members have to be 55, or just one member. Mr. Majewski: One person on the lease must be 55 or older. Mr. Kirchoff: So no school children. Mr. Majewski: I don t want to say definitely not because there are situations where a grandparent could have a legal custody of a grandchild. Then in that case it could happen but I couldn t think of any real examples where we see that, so we can t rule it out but we don t expect it. Mr. McPhail: Thank you. Mr. Smith: Jeff I don t know if you can adjust this, there is a very small architectural feature, a difference in your drawings. This came up at the DRC meeting and DRC suggested that the gable vent, the vent in front of the gables this functional vent. It is also decorative and would be really visible even out to the street so we thought maybe if that could be made, compared to the original design which is rather small and rectangular, we thought a little larger. I see one of the drawings they show that, but I wasn t quite sure which. Mr. James: It has been revised. Mr. Banning: We have revised that, it is not on there. Yes we did revise that, we made all of the revision that you requested. Mr. Smith: I knew you would. Mr. Banning: Of course. Bill to your comment about schools we talked to the schools and let them know the expectation of children is minimal but you can t guarantee 100% as Greg mentioned. Plainfield Plan Commission 9-8-16 11

Mr. Gibbs: No further questions at this time from the board? If not I will open it up for the public for anyone in the audience in favor or opposing this petition. And I close the public portion of the meeting and open it back up for the board for further discussion or a motion. Mr. Kirchoff: I have another question to Scott or Tim again. This is a unique piece of property and even though you say there are 2 access points, really one. Do we have an ordinance or something like this, what does our ordinance say about access? If you had something at that bend where the elbow is coming in you don t have 2 accesses you have 1. Mr. James: Yes it says any major residential subdivision containing 30 or more lots, it doesn t really talk about access for multifamily. It says 30 or more lots secondary means of access from an approved perimeter, public street or have a divided boulevard. Mr. Kirchoff: I understand that but I think you have that in the entrance, but with that narrowing down to that corner there. If you have a bad accident there you d have no access out of that property. Mr. James: It is a Boulevard entrance. Mr. Kirchoff: I m talking back at the elbow, come west of there. If you had a bad accident right there, you have no way out. Mr. Brandgard: Or in. Mr. Kirchoff: If you have a bad accident or something and you try to get public safety equipment through there. Mr. Belcher: I think the ordinance that Joe just read, it is 2 lanes coming in, one side could be blocked but that divide is what, what he read is what is required. Joe didn t talk about it, another thing about public safety is they worked some things out with folks to the south there about access in there too. Mr. James: I think that was in your report and I provided the agreement that Plainfield Health has agreed to let them use their drive for emergency access. Mr. Kirchoff: Then how do they get on the property? Mr. James: Well this is going to be unobstructed through here so they will enter Plainfield Health s drive to get to the property. It would be more for fire access. Mr. Smith: I wonder if there is enough room to put, I don t know what you would call it but it is like a reinforced grassy passage. Do you know what I am talking about? It looks like grass but it actually reinforced for ambulance or something like that. To the west end of your building. Mr. Banning: You mean over here Bruce? Mr. Smith: Yes, I don t know if there is enough Plainfield Plan Commission 9-8-16 12

Mr. Banning: I don t think we can, the grade starts dropping off and that starts becoming an issue. I mean we could maybe reconfigure this to help matters I guess. Mr. Kirchoff: Do you see where I am coming from? Mr. Banning: Yes, honestly we have a lot of subdivisions a lot of developments where we have just the single access like that. Mr. Kirchoff: sensitive. I understand that but this is a senior citizens trying to be Mr. Smith: Maybe widen that out quite a bit. Mr. Banning: meeting. I hate to design things in the middle of the Plan Commission Mr. Kirchoff: I m not going there, I look at it and I just have a concern if you somehow had a bad accident in there that the access would be Mr. Banning: Yes, no totally understand. We can look at that as we go through the construction plans, do an opening there to widen that out. I appreciate you bringing that up. Mr. Smith: Is there any intention to repave or improve that interior driveway there? Mr. Banning: That is a long story. Mr. Smith: Maybe the short. Mr. Banning: The short story is everyone associated and along this are supposed to maintain that. That was established back when it was McDonald s and Laughner s, way back when and I am not sure title work has really carried over well on that. I believe Mr. Scott, the property owner, the majority property owner has maintained that more than anyone else? I don t know did the Town ever do anything there, Tim? It seemed like there was a project. Mr. Belcher: Last time we paved the Town needed to go through there with utility and we worked with the property owner and said rather than to pay for utility lets go through and repave it and that is what he needed. Essentially Mr. Scott said the only way I will get my money is if I sue all 7 people and I will spend more money doing that than fixing it so he was sort of stuck, so he found a way to get paved but I don t know what part you are talking about. Mr. Smith: Well the last time I drove through there it seemed like it was in pretty poor condition. A lot of pot holes, I don t know what it is like now. Mr. Banning: I think it is okay right now, definitely something from a title standpoint needs to be taken care of. Thank you. Mr. Gibbs: If there is no further questions I will entertain a motion. Mr. Daniel: I do think Kent has a good point as far as adding a condition to the first motion there that the rezoning is for an age restricted apartment complex only. Plainfield Plan Commission 9-8-16 13

Mr. Bahr: Bill I understand your concern about the 2 accesses, but on a resident level, that is actually a benefit because you don t have drive through, and when I say that I live in Hunter s Ridge and we only have one access. Mr. Kirchoff: I move that the Plan Commission certify the zone map amendment request RZ-16-005 as filled by Keller Development, Inc. requesting rezoning of approximately 8.82 acres at 3650 Clarks Creek Road from the GC General Commercial District to the R-6 High Density Residential District with a favorable recommendation subject to the following commitments being submitted on exhibit A forms prior to certification to the Town Council. The property shall be rezoned to R-6 subject to Keller Development, Inc. being awarded tax credits needed for the development and the closing on the property being completed by September 2017. If the Plainfield Town Council votes to rezone from GC to R-6 the rezoning would provide that in the event the either the tax credits are not awarded to the development by March 2017 or the closing of a purchase on the property does not occur by September 2017 the zoning on the property will automatically revert to GC General Commercial district by April 1, 2017 regarding the tax credits and by October 1, 2017 regarding the purchase of the property. 2. Commitment number 2 is the rezoning is for an age restricted apartment complex only. Mr. McPhail: Second. Mr. Gibbs: board? We have a motion and a second, Mr. Klinger would you poll the Mr. Klinger: RZ-16-005 is approved. Mr. McPhail- yes Mr. Brandgard- yes Mr. Smith- yes Mr. Kirchoff- yes Mr. Bahr- yes Mr. Gibbs- yes Mr. Kirchoff: Mr. Chairman I move that the Plan Commission approve DP-16-018, as filed by Keller Development, Inc. requesting architecture and site design approval for a 64 unit, age restricted apartment complex at 3650 Clarks Creek Road finding that: 1. The Development Plan complies with all applicable Development Standards of the District in which the site is located. 2. The Development Plan complies with all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Control Ordinance for which a waiver has not been granted. 3. The Development Plan complies with all applicable provisions for Architectural and Site Design Review for which a waiver has not been granted. 4. The proposed development is appropriate to the site and its surroundings. 5. The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance. Plainfield Plan Commission 9-8-16 14

And that such approval shall be subject to the following condition: 1. Substantial compliance with site plan, building elevations, colored renderings, landscaping plan, trash enclosure plan, sign plan and lighting plan file dated August 24, 2016. Mr. Smith: Second. Mr. Gibbs: Motion and a second, Mr. Klinger would you poll the board? Mr. Klinger: DP-16-018 is approved 6-0. Mr. McPhail- yes Mr. Brandgard- yes Mr. Smith- yes Mr. Kirchoff- yes Mr. Bahr- yes Mr. Gibbs- yes Mr. Banning: Thank you very much. Mr. Gibbs: Now we will move onto the next item which is RZ-16-006 and PP-16-003. Mr. James: We have another docket for several motions, this one actually has 3 separate motions. The first one is to modify a zoning commitment regarding the dedication of right of way for the proposed Klondike Road. The site was rezoned with commitment of a half foot right of way of 35 feet would be dedicated down the west perimeter. There is a ditch at the southwest corner of the property that could turn the way the proposed Klondike Road alignment would be and where the right of way should be dedicated. Then there is a primary plat, the view of a primary plat to subdivide 90.95 acres to create 2 industrial lots. Adequate provisions have been made for access utilities and drainage. A traffic study was done to develop an access plan and a memo was provided to you yesterday with staff recommendations based on the analysis of the study and that is the memo that I just passed out to you. Then the final petition is review of a development plan for a proposed, it is actually 892,620 square foot warehouse distribution building to be built on lot one, on 48.3 acres. The site was rezoned with commitments, the commitment plans had to comply with gateway corridor development standards and also they had to do a south buffer yard. The commitment was made with the rezone to provide screening from Medallion Meadows, they also need to use the depth of yard incentive for the north and west perimeters and also the loading dock orientation development incentive for the west perimeter because those docks will eventually be facing Klondike Road someday. So here is the site, 90.95 acres. Here is Ronald Reagan Parkway, County Road 200 South, here is Medallion Meadows and the county, then this is all zoned I-2, except this was zoned GC but they have acquired this property and they are going to use that for their drainage plan, then down here is US 40 and then over here is Adesa, that is the Regal building. The new comprehensive plan, the transportation plan does show a potential collector from 200 South on the west perimeter of the property and just east of Adesa and that way this road can utilize the existing traffic signal from US 40. Here is the site plan, building 1, 892,000 square feet, 200 South, Ronald Reagan, then this would be the Klondike Road that could be built someday, but they would have to go ahead and build this portion right here in order to occupy the building and then they would use the existing intersection on Ronald Reagan and take a road Plainfield Plan Commission 9-8-16 15

interior access drive over from that to this site. Here is the colored version it shows how they will bring the interior access drive over and build this right here to serve the building. Rendering of one of the corners of the building with the offices in the corner and yellow basins, DRC recommended approval as submitted. Landscaping plan, this is the north so this would be 200 South. They had to do a level 2 here, and level 6 here, then they required a level 5 down here with an 8-10 berm that was required because of the rezone commitment. Photometric plan complies, the light fixtures comply. We wanted to make sure there would be no light spillage across the property line so it would not impact the Medallion Meadows residents. This is the primary plat conceptual plan, two lots, lot 1 and lot 2. Drainage, this would be dry detention and that would be wet retention pond. They would do an additional pond here at some point. This would be the utility plan, utilities are in place to serve the site. DRC supported the plans with conditions that the trailer parking not be allowed at the east perimeter until the second building is built. Is this a valid condition? What if the second building is not built? To ensure proper screening of loading docks and trailer parking from the Ronald Reagan Parkway if the second building is not built the petitioner could bond for the perimeter landscaping required for the loading dock develop incentive as a condition of approval. Plans comply with commitments in the gateway standards, adequate provisions have been made for access drainage and utilities. Are there any concerns regarding the modifications of the commitments and dedication of the Klondike right of way? I have also passed out some revised language regarding that modification of that zoning commitment. Are there any concerns regarding the access plan and the staff recommendations based on the traffic study? Plans should be approved with a condition, a memorandum of understanding is executed with Town Council regarding the cost maturing of improvements needed for this project being developed. With that I will have a seat and representatives are here to answer your questions. Mr. Gibbs: Any questions for Joe at this time? Would the petitioner like to come forward? Mr. Churchill: Good evening, we appreciate the opportunity to be here. My name is Andrew Churchill with JRA Architecture, offices at 7222 N. Shadeland Avenue, Indianapolis. This has been a project we have been working on for several years and we glad to be coming before the Commission. The Ambrose intend to start construction on this project this fall. So we have our engineering plans in also, so we are ready to make something happen here. Joe presented, we have our docks oriented away from the neighboring developments. Joe raised the point that the DRC had concerns of potential trailers storage along the east side of the docks. We are showing that as future, I did check the dimension on that kind of from the halfway point along Ronald Reagan. That is over 1100 feet away so it is nearly a quarter of a mile from the west edge of Ronald Reagan to where the trailer storage would occur, so I think that should be a consideration in the near thought process, I don t think they ll be very prominent but landscaping would be one way to address that. There has been a lot of effort by staff working on this and analyzing the traffic impacts and I think we have come to a good understanding on that. Ambrose is willing to commit to making future modifications with Town deems necessarily along Ronald Reagan there. Mr. McPhail: I think the concern we have is that funnel access is too close to that Main Street at US 40. Mr. Churchill: Right. Plainfield Plan Commission 9-8-16 16

Mr. McPhail: Long term if that gets heavy traffic we ve got a problem there, so do they have some long term plans to move that north? Mr. Churchill: That is in the report, at the time that building 2 goes in that full access point and its location would be a consideration and being looked at again as part of that development plan. The other thing that is acceptable to Ambrose, if it becomes a problem there, is closing off that full access point of where it is shown now and making that right in right out only so that would be another approach there. And then with the proposed extension of Klondike Road there we expect that that would be a good reliever for a lot of that traffic. Mr. Smith: I wasn t quite sure which of these maps is the current one. The one in the screen shows your full access road dipping to the south of the pond area and the one in the booklet shows it north of the pond. Mr. Churchill: Yes that sketch plan 1 is actually part of the ordinance for doing the development incentives, since we had the orientation of loading docks development incentive so that is something that we are definitely not going to do because that just has docks on one side. But we are showing what a fully compliant plan that didn t have docks facing Klondike Road would look like. Mr. Smith: So this is out of date. Mr. Churchill: So that is out of date and we didn t bother to update the loop road at the south because we are not going to do that one anyway. The colored site plan is the direction we are going. Mr. Smith: Can you get along without the full access road since you could have 1 or possibly 2 entrances off of 200. Mr. Churchill: I think based on the traffic studies we ve done and typically until Klondike Road goes in, I think it is the consensus that the full access there may actually help the operation of the facility and Scott or Tim may want to address that, but I think it will become less important as Klondike Road goes in and that is something that is under our active discussion to make that happen fairly quickly. Mr. Gibbs: Does the Board have any other questions at this time? Mr. Churchill: I think one thing that was also noted in the staff report was the traffic, I think that left turn movement on Ronald Reagan would have to increase something like 15 times over what the volume, there is a pretty good buffer, it is not like a close call, relocating that full access will certainly be considered if needed. Mr. Smith: Would you create a left turn lane for the northbound Ronald Reagan to turn west into your drive, you would create a left hand turn lane there? Mr. Churchill: Yes. Mr. Smith: Any idea how long that would be, how many trucks you could stack in that? 100 that is like 2 trucks? Plainfield Plan Commission 9-8-16 17

Mr. Churchill: It is kind of the minimal. There is a little bit of balancing on that if we make it too long it starts to, you know now there is room to extend the left turn lane southbound onto US 40. I guess the other thing with the idea that might become right in and right out there is the question of how much do you want to put in now and have to move in a couple of years maybe. Mr. Gibbs: Thank you. At this time I will open it up for the public for anyone in the audience in favor or opposing this petition to address the board. Mr. Miller: Good evening my name is Mike Miller and I live at 10246 Bradbury Drive. First of all I am very much opposed to that access road because that is going to put traffic 65 right there behind my house, all day long and all night long. So I would like for you all certainly reconsider allowing it to be where they are proposing it to be and it is going to certainly a real headache on Ronald Reagan, I am on that road every day and it is a headache already. That access road where it is proposed there is going right behind all of our houses and the majority of us that live there are senior citizens and we certainly do like our peace and quiet and we are not going to have it anymore with all of this traffic back there. I can sympathize with the gentleman that was sitting here that left, I hope it doesn t ever get to that extent, but we do need some peace and quiet there and this is not going to be helping that. Talking about putting in a 8-10 berm, I would encourage that to be increased to at least a 12 berm so that it would cut out some of the noise from the trucks and the lights from over there, that would greatly help. The other concern I have is the possibility of putting a security fence up because we are going to have employees from that warehouse on their lunchbreak they are going to decide they want to go over to Speedway and get them something to eat or drink and they are going to cut right through our property, so I would encourage you to have them put up a high security fence to block that. That is basically all I have, thank you. Ms. VanHorn: Well it has been a long process. I was in a lot of these zoning meetings. I am Zaina VanHorn and I am at 10160 Bradbury Drive. Since we started the zoning I think there was a concern that we are putting a high industrial area right next to a residential which is not the norm, but because they didn t feel they could use the land for anything else we ended up passing the zoning putting that right next to the full length of our residential land. At the time I know it was not the Plan Commission but there were drawings of what could be done and how we could be compensated because we were having this high usage area put in right next to us. It was not like this, that road has got to go. 200 South is already pretty much dedicated for truck traffic because you have warehouses half way down there and there is no need to bring those trucks right in behind us like that. I do leave every morning out Bradbury to Ronald Reagan and the traffic backs up way past that and they are very kind to let us out of there or otherwise we would never even get out in the morning. So that to me the road cutting down like that is, first of all the warehouse is huge, I mean there is warehouses smaller than that and then to put that road right down there, not only the noise the exhaust from those trucks and I know that those kind of trucks you can t turn them off especially in cold weather so they are going to leave them idle, so the closer they are going to be sitting down there and probably instead of parking on 200 South, they will be parked all along that road maybe to pick up or discharge their loads. I just think that is not acceptable. I think we deserve to have some compensation for the fact that has been put right next to residential. If it weren t right next to Plainfield Plan Commission 9-8-16 18