TOWN OF PLAINFIELD BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS. April 15, 2002

TOWN OF PLAINFIELD BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS April 15, 2002 The Board of Zoning Appeals met on Monday, April 15, 2002 at 7:30 p.m. In attendance were Mr. Blevins, Mr. Haase and Mr. Matrana. ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM Mr. Carlucci administered the roll call. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Haase made a motion to approve the minutes of the Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of March 18, 2002 as submitted. Second by Mr. Blevins. Motion carried. OATH OF TESTIMONY Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Testimony. PUBLIC HEARINGS Mr. Matrana reviewed the Guidelines Governing the Conduct of Public Hearings. Mr. Daniel said this is a five-member Board of Zoning Appeals and there are only three members present tonight. That allows us to have a quorum to conduct business but it takes a majority vote of the entire board to take any action on any petition. To take any action on a petition tonight would require a vote of all three members that are here tonight. If there is anyone who has a petition before this board tonight that would like to ask the board for continuance so that they could return when more of the board might be here at another meeting, you can do that at this time. Mr. Matrana said at this time the chair would accept any proposals for a continuance until the next meeting if you desire. Being no one coming forward the first public hearing will be BZA-02-004 to accept a Special Exception use to permit the development of a skate park at Anderson Park in a residential district with a waiver for the number of accessory structures. Mr. Higbee said this is a Special Exception request. This is procedurally the same process that you went through with the community center at a recent hearing. This one is down at Anderson Park, which according to the information that was filed I believe the whole park is around 15.5 acres. However, what they are proposing is just a portion of this park that would contain a new facility being a skate park located near the west property line of Anderson Park. It will begin close to the road, 45 feet from the road and running south. Along that west property line there would be 10,000 square foot concrete pads poured that each would contain skate ramp equipment in the future. As it was explained to me by the parks director and the people that he hired to prepare his petition and site plan, they had proposed to do this in multiple phases with Phase 1 being the northern most 10,000 square foot concrete pad and ramps. Then there would be Phase 2 and Phase 3 in the future where they would put in the additional pads and some ancillary facilities around those pads. I hope that the site plan that they are now preparing is clear to you. Let me point out where I just pointed to was the northern most pad and you will see a sidewalk curving around that and a concrete, what I refer to, as a bulb they are entering off of the existing drive. If you are familiar with Anderson Park, there is a curved drive along Center Street now so there would be a connection from that area over to that first pad. There would be a sidewalk around part of that. In addition, the whole facility would ultimately be surrounded by a chain link fence, obviously, only partially in the beginning because only the first pad would be erected. As each additional pad is added, ultimately all of them would be surrounded by that chain link fence. You also see on the west property line a lot of existing landscaping there that is existing. They are not proposing anything! 1

additional at this time. We had some discussions about that and I will bring that up in a minute. You will also see along the existing drive that I was just describing off of Center Street, some parking spaces. But that is not part of Phase I. I believe that it would probably be Phase 2 or possibly Phase 3 when they would ultimately put those parking spaces in. There were 20 shown on that plan for that future phase. It was felt that the parking requirements for this would be minimal given the type of client that it is serving, being kids who may walk or be predriving age. Also, because of the proximity to our trail system people can get there off of the road. So, perhaps it would require less parking than you might normally think of for a facility at a park. I m going to talk a little bit more about parking in a moment as well. But I m just trying to get you a feel for what will be built right now. On the north near the first pad they also had a couple of shelters shown on the site plan in your packet. Those were labeled as future concrete block shelters. Those, as it was explained to me, would also be put in during a future phase. What they are trying to do by shifting things to future phases is probably one, put off some of the financial expense in putting it in. And two, perhaps allow for some experience with that first phase so that they can make some adjustments later as they go into Phase 2 and Phase 3. There are a lot of things on that plan that are either marked future or Phase 2 or Phase 3. The waiver request is similar to a waiver request that the community center was granted because on that site there were a lot of accessory structures that they needed to be able to put in at the rear of the community center building. Likewise here the two shelters that I just described, or any other structure that they might have to put up in the future, would be another accessory structure. If this were treated with just the underlying zoning, which is residential, they would be limited to only two. So, right away we have more than two immediately and we want to allow for the park to add other structures needed in the future. So, that is the waiver request that is in front of you. Under design in the Staff Report is where we got into a lot of the issues of this one. The first one being parking. There is no parking standard in the ordinance for a skate park. It is a very specialized use. So, the ordinance contains, basically, a fall-through clause that says when there is no specific standard for a use, that the director can determine what the appropriate parking need is for that use based on comparison to other uses that may be similar. The only use in the ordinance that I thought was similar was for an outdoor recreational enterprise, which could include a broad range of things such as a driving range, for instance. Anything that would be outside. That parking standard was one parking space per 600 square feet of accessible site area plus there was an additional add-on for the amount of square footage of a building. In this case there is no building. It is all outdoor. So, using that baseline you might just apply the one per 600 square feet to those three 10,000 square foot pads for the ultimate future parking need for the site. But again that doesn t take into account the uniqueness of this use with the pre-driving age, teenagers mostly, and the accessibility to the pedestrian trail system. However, if you did apply that standard, it would yield a need of about 50 parking spaces and it is my belief that what they have shown here would probably ultimately accommodate 10 to 15 vehicles perhaps on the existing turn around as well as the 20 spaces that they are going to put in. I have no way of knowing if that is sufficient, however, the verbal indications based on discussions with the Parks Director that it may be sufficient. I visited the site and I looked and there is a lot of grassy area there that has nothing on it. If there were a need in the future for additional parking for any reasons, I believe that could be added and accommodated at that site. As I had mentioned, there is a lot of existing landscaping. There was a lot of discussion about whether an additional landscape plan should be submitted. There was a desire not to do it at this time because of the expense and also the need to get the facility up and running. This seems to be on a kind of fast track. As we discussed it more, we also thought it might be beneficial, since this is a unique type of facility and we really don t know exactly what it is going to look like until it is up, that perhaps it would be beneficial to wait to ask for additional landscaping. Once the first pad is in and we get some idea of how it would actually operate and what pieces of ground! 2

people are going to walk on, etc., it would give us a better idea perhaps of how to develop additional landscaping, if any. One idea that was discussed was low level mounding between the northern most pad and the street, being that it is only 45 feet from the street. But you don t have that in front of you today. I just wanted to point out that the only landscaping going in on this plan would be what is already there. Mr. Carlucci said I m sure everybody knows what is next to this facility, that fence row. Mr. Higbee said there is a facility to the west. exactly what is on that ground. I don t recall Mr. Carlucci said it is an INDOT maintenance building. building a brand new pole barn on that property. They are Mr. Higbee said this park sits next to that facility on the west as well as another park to the north. Obviously, the remainder of this park is to the south. The nearest residential is several hundred feet away, even from the southern most part of this facility, probably at least 400 feet to the nearest house. The northern part or the first pad that would be erected is even farther than that from the nearest residential use. Mr. Carlucci said you talked about it being on the greenways. Actually, as you come into the Anderson Park at that location, the path extends across Center Street and runs along the park all the way to the Friendship Gardens Park and beyond. And then there is one park that splits the ball diamonds right to the concession stand for the girl s softball league. So, for your information what we anticipate might happen is a lot of the kids may come over with their parents just because they are coming over to the girls softball league, which has games going on at 11:00/11:30 p.m. There is easy access across Center Street into this site. I want to point out that the path is right across the street so it would take them back into the trail system. Of course, the trail system comes along Center Street on the west side and connects all the way back to Hummel Park. Mr. Higbee said I covered a little about landscaping about the proposed buildings that would go in during a future phase. As I said, the parking would be a future phase. There was also an indication that lighting would be put in but that was not available at the time of our last meeting. I don t know if that has been made available yet. At some point, typically, we would review a photometric plan when lighting is going to be installed. In your motion, which I will go over in a moment, we did indicate a reference to that. Finally, the last issue that I think bears mentioning is that some noise level is going to be expected from this type of facility with the skate boards on the ramps, etc. But given the location and the distance from the surrounding uses it is not expected to have a negative impact but we really don t know. We don t have measurements to bear that out. Normally, I would take a request for a Special Exception for a park to the Design Review Committee prior to the BZA but as you know, every once in awhile the schedules get flipped-flopped and this month the DRC meets the day after the BZA. So, this will be in front of the DRC tomorrow. In your motion should you decide to grant approval, you may want to reflect some issues being Deferred to the DRC s judgment. In the Staff Comments Questions and Concerns I pointed out that there was an operational plan provided in your packet that gave some hours of operation. Hours that lighting would be operated and some other guidelines that the facility would use that was provided by the Parks Director. I mention the parking issue that I already explained and how there really is no standard for this. So, in essence, we have to base it on what we think the need is going to be and the best source that I have for that is the Parks Direction. A landscape plan was not supplied other than showing the existing landscaping. So, if there is a desire to elevate that at any future point, that will need to be reflected in the motion. The same thing for lighting, there seems to be a plan for lighting but we have not received a plan at this point. The same thing for the building elevations. They are shown on the site plan as being put in during a future phase but we don t actually have building elevations to elevate. I did point out to the Parks Director that there has been a high degree of scrutiny for any kind of Town proposed building that is near a corridor of any kind. So, he can! 3

except it if and when it is ever reviewed by the DRC or other body of the Town, that there will probably be comment on building materials and landscaping. Those issues are reflected in your proposed motion in such a way that if you read the motion as it is, some of them would be deferred to the DRC for their review. If you want to modify it so that it comes back here, you can do that instead. But that is the way that I wrote the proposed motions. I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Mr. Haase asked, if we give approval tonight, is it for just the first section or for the entire Phase 1, 2 and 3? Mr. Higbee said it would be for the location of the facilities for Phase 1, 2 and 3. You could add onto this proposed motion if you wished, that as details are added at the Phase 2 and 3 stages as well as some of the other plans that were missing that I alluded to directly, you could state it in such a way that it is broken down and would have to come back for review to either you or to DRC. But they are requesting at lease the site location approval for the whole thing tonight. Mr. Carlucci asked, is Center Street a Gateway Corridor? Mr. Higbee said it is not a Gateway Corridor. I said corridor as opposed to Gateway Corridor. I do regard this as a substantial significant street and corridor in Plainfield but it is not a Gateway Corridor. An example of a facility that the Town erected that is not on a Gateway Corridor would be the one that is just south of the post office, which is a utility building. That underwent a pretty high degree of scrutiny but obviously our other facilities were all located on Gateway Corridors, such as the Visitors Center, Police Station, Town Hall, etc. Mr. Carlucci said you always give the wrong example because the pumping station was not subject to BZA or Plan Commission approval. But it is the pattern of the Town where we have taken existing water plants and bricked them to upgrade and make sure that we build the highest level facility no matter where it is. No matter whether it is on a Gateway Corridor or not. Mr. Higbee said I personally think that is debatable whether that is the wrong comparison or not but that could be for another time and discussion. Mr. Carlucci said that wasn t even subject of review at all, is that correct? Mr. Higbee said it could have been if it had been submitted in the proper form but I don t want to discuss that at this hearing. It wouldn t have been before the BZA or Plan Commission if it had been reviewed. But it would have been reviewed in a certain manner. In this case it would be unique that we are dealing with a park. For instance, the concrete block facilities are typically erected in parks. We have them up at Franklin Park by the ball fields, for instance. One thing that is different with this facility than that is the proximity to the street. Mr. Prince, the Parks Director said I just wanted to clarify that I don t think we are building it out of concrete block. I call it a split-faced block. To me a concrete block indicates flat surfaces on all sides. What we had proposed was a split-faced block we have used in all of the parks for our dugouts and some of ancillary buildings such as concession stands. It is a pretty attractive product but yet it is cost effective. Mr. Haase asked, where is the split-faced block going to be used on Phase 1? Mr. Prince said no where. Mr. Carlucci said something that you might want to talk about on the landscaping is that I think one of the concerns might be on the landscaping putting some in now is we want the police officers, when they are traveling north and south on Center Street, to make sure that they can see in the facility as they drive by. That is paramount that they be able to look into that facility when they drive up on the halfmoon driveway there to be able to look in there and see what the kids! 4

are doing. That is probably one of the reasons for not putting in landscaping in at this time until we see how that works. Mr. Haase asked, what height is the fence going to go? Mr. Prince said we proposed a six-foot high fence for the perimeter, black vinyl coated that we have typically when we replace fencing in the parks. We have a very high specifications for our fencing now. It is the same fence that we are slowing replacing at the Swinford Ballpark fences. It is the same fence that we are replacing there. The Franklin Baseball diamonds that we have replaced as the fence has become damaged, is all vinyl coated black fence. this? Mr. Haase asked, could you show me where the fencing would go in Mr. Prince said we actually have a close-up of what we think will be included in Phase 1. As you see the curbed section of the fence here, that is going to be of a typical design. You may wonder why the fence doesn t seem to be as attractive in this park but that fence would be removed as the other phases would be put in. So, that is why that fence is sitting where it is. If you can remember the other pad would be about in this area. As we placed permanent fence, we would add curvature to it to make the fence more attractive. Mr. Larry McIntire with Banning Engineering said Mr. Higbee has hit all of the mechanical aspects. I thought Mr. Prince and I might want to be here to fill in some of the gaps as far as the phasing questions that we thought might be asked. And some of the thoughts on landscaping, which Mr. Carlucci has covered and I feel like that is true. We want to see how this looks after all of the things are in before we start to camouflage very much of it. I also probably would want to answer some questions pertaining to some of the items that you would normally see at this time that we don t have. The lighting and photometric is being done by Cinergy. They are doing that I believe at no cost to the Town. I m hoping to have that soon and we can review that with Mr. Higbee over at the DRC if it happens to fall at just about the right time. We are going to watch the levels that we are going to try to keep track of. I don t anticipate there being more than the allowable amount over the property lines when we do that given that most of the light will be concentrated on these very specific pads and not be that high in the air where it would spread over the property lines. Mr. Higbee has covered the high spots on this so all I would like to add at this point before answering some questions is I have met with some of the kids and some of the parents that are behind this and they are really excited about the possibility of getting the skate park going this year. If you have any other questions, I will be glad to answer them. Mr. Haase asked, is it just skateboards or is in-line skating going to be allowed on it? Mr. McIntire said I have heard that it will be all three. Mr. Prince said that is true. The park is being built for inline skates, skateboards and BMX styled bicycles. Mr. Haase asked, would they have to use them at different times? Mr. Prince said that is what we will be proposing. There will be segmented times where the bikes would be allowed and at other times where your in-line skates, skateboarders and the smaller wheeled equipment would be allowed in there. We are further proposing in the summertime to have some programming out there that would include a time for younger kids to have time inside the facility with none of the older kids around at all. So, that they could learn safely to use the equipment and to skate. When they reach an age that they could be in there by themselves, they would be ready for that. We have a pretty solid list of operational rules in there based on age and based on using the facility without parent supervision. There will be safety equipment that will be mandatory. There will be operational policies that address the weather. Pretty much any time that the ramps and surfaces are dry, the park can be used even in the winter months. Mr. Haase said stepping outside the park for a minute I realize that most of the traffic is going to be crossing south Center Street there. Is there any form of crosswalk that could be put there that a child could press the button and the lights would alert the drivers! 5

that more kids are crossing the street? I see this as a potentially busy crossover and south Center Street is busy so I have safety concerns there. Mr. Prince said I think we could look at several different ways to control traffic. Some of them are already in place. That is a crosswalk already for our path system and from time to time that can be re-coated. What I mean by that is there could be striping on the road to indicate that there is a crosswalk through there. The Public Works Department has already put rumble stripes on the street to slow the traffic down, which I think has been successful through that corridor. That corridor contains the majority of the Town s recreational opportunities right now. I think we have been successful in slowing traffic down there a little bit. I think there are a lot of different ways that we could control it. Some are more costly than others but maybe there could be some even some caution lamps lit at certain times of the day, similar to what is used at school crossings, etc. Mr. Haase said I m sure you guys have thought about these things but I would just like to echo the fact that I think that maybe in this particular area there warrants something. Mr. Carlucci said I think it is probably going to have to be done because it is just like everything else if people get used to seeing those lights, they will ignore them like they do everything else. But on the other hand if you have the crosswalk and the rumble stripes and the signage and the flashing activated light, that is probably something that will have to be done. I see it all of the time on U.S. 40 with the flashing lights that they fly through there and say that they didn t see it. Actually I was wondering when Mr. Haase asked this question are there going to be times when the bicyclists, roller bladers and the in-line skaters can all be out there at the same time? Mr. Prince said no. There will not be that time. That is when the injuries occur. Those two activities don t get along well with one another. Mr. Carlucci asked, is that something that is pretty standard with the other skate parks that you investigated? Mr. Prince said yes. Even the unsupervised parks have that as an operational rule and sometimes in some parks it is not followed. There are other parks that they run properly that it is followed. But the bikes and the skaters are something that we would want to segment. here? Mr. Carlucci asked, where is the ambulance parking area over Mr. Prince said they would use the loop and we are putting in a six-foot wide concrete sidewalk to get to the park. We have thought about that and have addressed that they can get right up to the front gates if need be. We can pull up our bollards is what we are proposing. Some of those entry bollards will be in sleeves and we can get them right out to the pad if need be. Mr. Carlucci said also the police department, through the Township, have purchased extra bikes for the police department s bicycle patrol and forerunner. The fire department already has rescue equipment that is set up because with the greenways set up there are a lot more safety issues coming to the floor on how we get out to these places and get these people. Especially after the section opens up between Saratoga Boulevard all the way down to Friendship Gardens. Mr. Matrana asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to have any questions about the Anderson Skate Park? Being none, we will close the public portion of this hearing and the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Haase made a motion to approve BZA-02-004 requesting a Special Exception for a skate park subject to the following conditions: 1. Subject to substantial compliance with the site plan file dated April 10, 2002. 2. Subject to substantial compliance with the proposed operational plan dated April 9, 2002 provided by the Parks Director.! 6

3. All photometric plans prior to installation shall be supplied to the DRC for their approval for Phase 1, 2 and 3. 4. All landscape plans for Phases 1, 2 and 3 shall be supplied to the DRC for their approval. 5. Elevations, material details and landscape plans shall be provided for the proposed shelters subject to DRC approval prior to their construction. 6. This approval is for the site location plan for Anderson Park Skate Park Phase 1 construction. 7. All additional phases shall come before the BZA for approval without a public hearing. Second by Mr. Blevins. Roll call vote called. Mr. Blevins yes Mr. Haase yes Mr. Swarn absent Mr. Shrum absent Mr. Matrana yes 3-ayes, 0-opposed, 2-absent. Motion carried. Mr. Haase said I heard you talking beforehand that they have a group and are getting a name and they will be charged with some of the responsibility of policing this place. Mr. Prince said we want to approach that very carefully and work with Mr. Daniel on that because there are some transfer liability issues. What is so nice about it is this is parents too. This is parents getting together and wanting to comment on our planning and wanting to be involved in wanting to run some events at that park. I think that is very similar with what we do with the softball leagues and the baseball leagues. We have parent groups that are a catalyst for that. Mr. Haase said what I meant by self-policing is making sure that nobody that uses it destroys it because if you abuse it, you are going to lose it and nobody wants that. Mr. Prince said the kids are good kids and I think you will be very happy with how we are going to manage this park. It will be typical of Plainfield and be done correctly. Mr. Higbee said BZA-02-005 is a request for a Variance of Development Standards to permit a side yard setback reduction in a PUD District, the PUD being Nottinghill. In the plans that you have in your packet you can look at Lot 18 of Nottinghill and note that it is right against a drive and then against a common area immediately to the west of the lot. That is the area in question. You also have in your packet an elevation of the building that shows a couple of bump-outs on that west elevation for some architectural features that are being proposed. That is what gives rise to the variance. When they added those, as I understand the original plan, there were some modifications that brought the bump-outs to within 4.3 feet of the west property line. They then violated the development standard for the PUD. The PUD had a minimum of a six-foot side yard setback, which is the minimum setback in any residential district in Plainfield. So, we are talking about a 1.7-foot encroachment into that side yard. The first question that would arise in most people s minds is how far away will that structure be from the adjoining structure when they are eating into the required side yard. There is no adjoining structure to the west because that is a common area and then you have the road. I didn t do the exact measurements but the bump-outs would be in excess of 25 feet from the roadway and there is no adjoining structure on that side. So, that is the request before you. I don t want to belabor it because it is just a simple request. The only item that I mention in the Staff Report was whether or not the Findings of Fact for a variance had been met, which is a test that you have to ask for yourself for any variance regardless requiring that an unnecessary hardship would be placed upon this if they had to comply with the ordinance. I would be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mr. Matrana asked, what would happen if the variance was not granted? Mr. Higbee said you can look at the west elevation and see the couple of features that we are referring to there and you would have to! 7

pull those back to be at least six feet. That would probably eliminate those features I would assume. I would have to defer to Mr. Andrews on that. Mr. Kevin Andrews, the developer and builder of Lot 18 said what transpired in this case is I had in my head that Lot 18 was a lot wider than what it was. We sat down and designed the home with Steve Cagle and he really has two fronts of his home. We wanted to make the side more like a front as opposed to a side of the home. So, we said, alright, let s change some of the texture, which we went to stone as opposed to brick on those bump-outs. Before that we said if we change the texture on the side of the building, it won t look right on the same plain. So, that is where the bump-out came to give it some depth when you change from brick to stone. Then, obviously, I went to Banning and got my plot plan and found that I was in trouble. That is what happened. We are trying to make that side of the building look nice as people pass and I think that will really do it. Mr. Haase asked, could he put his garage on either side? Mr. Andrews said yes. Mr. Haase said I think that you put it on the best side. wall. Mr. Andrews said I think so too because it eliminates the long Mr. Carlucci said this is something that will probably not come up again and is a unique situation. Mr. McIntire said that is correct. This is a situation where this lot could have been bigger against that area like it was and it just wasn t. It is a good spot for this particular location for this house to have this bump-out and extra architectural feature. As Mr. Andrews points out, it is a long road where you can see it as you drive along the side and it will enhance the look of the building. Mr. Haase said it is a plus to the community and to the Town of Plainfield. Mr. Higbee said I also might point out favorably that this is being brought to us before it is constructed. We have had a couple of instances where people have constructed things and they had a similar encroachment into a setback and they had already been built by the time that they were discovered. We did grant variances with the condition that this is the only time that it is going to happen in that subdivision. So, this one is being brought to us before it was built. Mr. Haase said the only good thing that I have to say about this and the only reason that I consider voting yes on this is because there is no other house or structure to come beside it. Therefore, it really doesn t encroach upon anything other than the right-of-way of the Town of Plainfield. It doesn t shorten the distance between two homes to create a potential hazard. Mr. Matrana asked, is there anyone in the audience who would have any questions or comments on this hearing? Being none, the public hearing portion of this is closed and the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Haase made a motion to approve BZA-02-005 requesting a Variance of Development Standards to permit a side setback reduction to four feet for the west side of Nottinghill Lot 18 subject to the following condition: 1. Substantial compliance with the plot plan file dated March 14, 2002. Second by Mr. Blevins. Roll call vote called. Mr. Blevins yes Mr. Haase yes Mr. Shrum absent Mr. Swarn absent Mr. Matrana yes 3-ayes, 0-opposed, 2-absent. Motion carried.! 8

OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS None. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Haase made a motion to adjourn. Motion carried. Second by Mr. Blevins. Meeting adjourned. Mr. Rick Matrana, Acting Chairman Richard A. Carlucci, Secretary! 9