plainfield plan commission february 1, 2016 7:00 ...plainfield plan commission 02-01-16 5...

Plainfield Plan Commission 02-01-16 1

PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION

February 1, 2016

7:00 PM

CALL TO ORDER

Mr. Gibbs: I would like to call to order the Plainfield Plan Commission

meeting for February 1, 2016.

ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM

Mr. Gibbs: Mr. Klinger would you poll the board to determine a quorum?

Mr. Klinger: Mr. Brouillard- here

Mr. McPhail- here

Mr. Brandgard- here

Mr. Smith- here

Mr. Kirchoff- here

Mr. Bahr- here

Mr. Gibbs- here

All accounted for.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr. Gibbs: Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

APPOVAL OF MINUTES- January 4, 2016

Mr. Gibbs: Now I will entertain a motion if everyone has had an opportunity

to review the January 4th minutes.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Chairman I have just a couple of small words and spellings.

On page 4 about a 1/3 of the way down there are a couple over lighting rather

than over writing. And also on page 5 last paragraph or second to last

paragraph sighted is the wrong, it should be sited. Lastly on page 6 there

is an inaudible spot right there next to the last paragraph it says inaudible

that fifth word was intentional.

Mr. Kirchoff: With that being said I move to approve as amended.

Mr. Brandgard: Second.

Mr. Gibbs: I have a motion and a second to approve the minutes as amended.

All those in favor signify by saying aye, opposed, motion carries.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Mr. Gibbs reviewed the Guidelines Governing the Conduct of Public Hearings.

OATH OF TESTIMONY

Mr. Daniel conducted the Oath of Testimony.


PETITIONS TO BE CONTINUED

Mr. Gibbs: The first item on the agenda this evening is CP-15-001. Joe, you

are asking for a continuance on this one?

Mr. James: Good evening Mr. President, yes the Plan Commission workshop a

couple of weeks ago, it was more than a couple of weeks and so several errors

were caught in the comprehensive plan and the consultants have asked that we

continue it to the March 7th meeting to give them time to complete all of the

corrections and make sure that they get it to the Plan Commission in time so

you will have plenty of time to review it before the March 7th meeting.

Mr. Gibbs: I will entertain a motion to continue.

Mr. Brandgard: So move.

Mr. Smith: Second.

Mr. Gibbs: I have a motion and a second, all those in favor signify by

saying aye, opposed, motion carries.

PETITIONS FOR PUBLIC HEARING

Mr. James: Our first petition for public hearing is RZ-16-001. This

property just went through the super voluntary annexation process, it will

officially be annexed February 27, 2016. Annexed property is brought in as

Ag Agriculture zoning and only 1.6 acres and the property is legal non-

conforming because it is less than 5 acres, five acres is the Ag minimum for

a parcel. They are requesting the rezone to R-1, the minimum lot area in R-1

district is 30,000 square feet and the reason for annexation in the zoning

they want to build a single family home on the parcel. The R-1 Zoning is

consistent with the surrounding zoning and comp plan recommendation of low

density residential in a secondary growth area the R-1 does allow well and

septic but the site plan shows a possible connection to sanitary sewer and

water. The lot is a legally created lot, no subdivision is proposed

therefore they don’t have to go through the minor plat process. All they

have to do before they get a building permit if it gets rezoned is a

secondary plat and then they will dedicate the new right of way and they will

put the needed easements on the secondary plat. Here is the property and

here is Gibbs Road, this is Avalon Estates in Plainfield zoned R-2 and the

surrounding properties are in Hendricks County zoned Ag Agriculture and Ag

Residential. Here is Saratoga Parkway right there. Here is the site plan,

they proposed there are some issues with the site plan, and we need to figure

out how much right of way should be dedicated and what should be the front

yard setback. Sanitary sewer and water would have to be extended from the

Saratoga Parkway and Gibbs Road intersection. The current comp plan and

transportation plan have Gibbs Road classified as a local street. This means

required half width right of way that should be dedicated as 25’ and the

required front setback is 30’, and that is what they have shown on the site

plan. They have gone ahead and proposed a 40’ right of way because that is

what Avalon Estates dedicated but just a 30’ setback. Here is the proposed

footprint of the house 80X80 and then they are showing the 30’ front yard

setback. Site plan does show the right of way at 40’ with the 30’ front

setback because that is a combined 70 feet and then the 40’ matches Avalon

Estates. The new comp plan that will hopefully be passed in March has Gibbs

Road as a secondary arterial as part of the outer loop. Secondary arterial


half foot right of way is 35’ and the front yard setback is 40’, so this a

combined 75’ so there is a 5’ difference in what would be dedicated and what

the setback would be based on how Gibbs Road is classified. So what should

be the half width right of way dedicated with the secondary plat and what

should be the required front yard setback. These 2 issues, I think we can

work through them and come up with what would be appropriate before we record

the secondary plat. So with that I will have a seat and I don’t know if

anybody is here representing the petitioner or not.

Mr. Gibbs: Is there anyone here in the audience representing the petition?

Mr. Kirchoff: I guess my question would be wouldn’t we accept it for what

the provision is now? The comp plan hasn’t been approved yet.

Mr. James: That is true, but I just wanted to make you aware of that.

Mr. Kirchoff: I understand that Joe, am I thinking wrong? Anybody else?

Mr. Brandgard: I agree with you. This has to be approved for what we have

now and not to what it might be.

Mr. Kirchoff: I appreciate what you are saying but to me whatever the rules

are when we approve it is what it should be under.

Mr. McPhail: They are proposing the same right of way as Avalon, right?

Mr. James: Right, 40’ which is 5 more than what would be required if this

was a secondary arterial.

Mr. McPhail: So we would have the same right of way if we want to expand the

road. The only difference would be the setback.

Mr. James: That is correct, there would be a 5’difference.

Mr. Bahr: When the new comprehensive plan is approved.

Mr. Kirchoff: And that we agree to what the recommendation is, is your point

Mr. Brouillard: I agree with Bill’s point. Knowing what we do about the

comp plan, do you see the 5’ being any different, is that going to cause us

any problem in the future would you think?

Mr. James: I don’t think so.

Mr. Gibbs: At this time I will open it up for the public for anyone in the

audience in favor or opposing this petition. If not I will close the public

portion of the meeting and open it up for the board for any further

discussion or a motion.

Mr. McPhail: I have one more comment, I certainly think we should approve it

but I think we should approve it and they would have to hook up to water and

sewer utility. The County is going to make them anyway. The County won’t

issue a septic permit when they are that close to the sewer, but I think we

should just make sure that that is just part of the motion.

Mr. James: That would be a zoning commitment.


Mr. Kirchoff: Are you saying we should include that in our motion?

Mr. Daniel: Yes it should be in the motion.

Mr. Kirchoff: Mr. President I move that the Plan Commission certify the zone

map amendment request RZ-16-001 as filed by Crews Consulting for Geneva

Blanton requesting rezoning of approximately 1.6 acres from AG Agriculture

District to the R-1 Low Density District with a favorable recommendation

pending annexation with a condition that connection to be made to our Town

water and sewer system.

Mr. McPhail: Second.

Mr. Gibbs: I have a motion and a second, Mr. Klinger would you poll the

board?

Mr. Klinger: Mr. Brouillard- yes

Mr. McPhail- yes

Mr. Brandgard- yes

Mr. Smith- yes

Mr. Kirchoff- yes

Mr. Bahr- yes

Mr. Gibbs- yes

Motion carries 7-0.

Mr. Gibbs: Next item on the agenda DP-16-001.

Mr. James: This is the Whitmore Place development plan review for compliance

with the R2 development incentives so they can reduce some lots following the

R2 standards. The plans comply with required development incentives. The

Plan Commission can waive the R2 standards. Whitmore Place is zoned R2 and

was approved for 174 lots in 2005, the total number of lots does not change,

it stays at 174 with a density of 1.84 units per acre. After the housing

market crashed the building stopped, these are finished buildings on the

existing platted lots and the last home was built in 2013. 39 lots have been

built so they are proposing 125 new lots. DRC recommended approval as

submitted in support of the waivers. So this is the area that we are talking

about, the 125 new lots, here is Township Line Road and the existing entrance

were placed the 49 lots have already been platted and built up. Here is Avon

Avenue and there would be a new entrance off of Avon Avenue which was

approved with the original plan. Here is the original plan approved back in

2005, 174 lots and the new entrance off of Avon Avenue. So I will show you

the changes with the proposing. So there is about an 8 acre wooded area here,

they want to keep the wooded area and make it open space and then instead of

having the road go through the wooded area right here, they would terminate

it in 2 cul de sacs. It is still 174 lots it is just 125 new lots. They

would adopt the Whitmore Place architectural standards and covenant. These

lots will not change, they will still remain 100’ wide lots as approved with

the original plan. The perimeter lots will have the first floor brick wraps

all the way around over here and here. That was approved in the original

plan. They are going to add 2 retention ponds and then they are adding a

centralized playground right here, that will be accessible and for everyone

in the whole subdivision to use and the same with the wooded area, they are

going to put some trails through it and everyone in the subdivision will be

able to access these playgrounds and the wooded area by sidewalk and using

the trails. Some of the internal lots will be reduced, they will go to a 70’

width and lot area of 10,000 square feet. So the existing Whitmore Place


architectural standards will be adopted, lots 53-65 east perimeter adjacent

to Williamsburg would remain 100’ wide lots with at least 15,000 square feet

in the lot area. Lots at the north perimeter adjacent to Hidden Valley would

remain R2 minimums of 90’ lot widths and 15,000 square feet. The 8’ tall

first floor brick wraps that were in the original covenant and restrictions

would remain along Williamsburg and Hidden Valley. New open space must be

created must be equal to or more the amount of lots that are being reduced

and they also must comply with the open space standards. Interior lots can

be reduced from the R2 minimums of 90’ widths in the lot area of 15,000

square feet to a minimum of 70’ lot widths and 10,000 square feet of the 125

lots, 54 or 43% would remain R2 minimum, 71 of the interior lots would be

reduced and 9 of those would be at least 90’ wide but less than 15,000 square

feet and then the remaining 62 would be at least 70’ wide but at least 10,000

square feet. The total amount of lot reduction is 9.09 acres and the new

open space that would be created is over 10.5 acres, so they meet that

requirement of having more open space than lot reduction. Open space

standards must be preserved in the natural state, they should have a passive

development, they’ve got the trial and the path, they should have an active

recreational area, and they are adding the playground. Open space must be

accessible to everyone in the subdivision. They will be able to do that by

using the sidewalks and the trails. At least 50% of the open space must be

preserved in a natural state and so they comply with that. Then they must

comply with the residential design guidelines and the PC can grant a waiver

if they feel it is a better design. So for home design they are using the

Whitmore Place standards which are basically the basic standards of the

design guidelines, open space they meet that, they’ve got more than what is

required by the design guidelines. Street scape that is the only additional

waiver they will need. The original section did not have street trees, they

are not prosing street trees with this section. Building material doesn’t

apply, that only applies to vinyl standards and they are not going to use

vinyl standards, they are going to use hardy plant and brick. Plans comply

with the requirements the Plan Commission can grant the waivers, and is this

an appropriate use of the R2 development? Here are some revised conditions

if you do approve this compliance with the site plan and then compliance with

conditions of the approval of the original plat. These have changed a little

bit from what is on the staff report. Compliance with the Whitmore Place

architectural standards, I just wanted to clarify that. Then lots 53-65

abutting Williamsburg would have to be at least 100’ wide, then also they are

going to use an antimonopoly code that would prevent repetition of similar

Homestyle’s on adjacent lots. So with that I will have a seat, there are

representatives here and I am sure that they would be glad to answer your

questions.

Mr. Gibbs: Does anyone on the board have any questions at this time for Joe?

If not would the petitioner like to come forward and address the board?

Mr. Moon: Good evening, Larry Moon with Republic Development Corporation.

We are new to the project, the project was developed by a previous developer

starting I believe it came through zoning in 2004. We came into it a year or

two ago and started studying the plan as it was. Quite honestly found some

challenges with it through the development incentive ordinance that you have,

it really allowed us to do some things that we think are great for the

project and will make it a viable development again. Joe did a great job of

going through the details so I won’t go that much in there but maybe add a

little back story. So what we did with the plan and the ordinance I think

that makes it stand out more. The old plan didn’t have much common area in

it but there was a large wooded area that we saw on the site. We don’t like


to cut trees, we try to preserve them any chance you get, we think they can

be an amenity. We also in our development experience and we have done many

throughout the area, that common area is important to a community. You want

to have it so that people can get together and have ways to recreate and the

development incentive part of the ordinance allowed us to preserve the trees,

create an open space and a trail system, create a community park with

playground that the plan didn’t previously have. We thought all of those

were good things. The lots will be smaller, it will be a more efficient plan

for us which will also make it as a more viable development from our

perspective. We had a meeting with neighbors last week, we do have a builder

they are here tonight with us, Ryan Homes who would be the builder in the

community. We know that with development standards they are home prices etc.

will be compatible or above where they are in the current subdivision even

though some of the lots will be smaller. So we like the plan, it preserves

the trees, it opens up common space, and we think it makes for a more viable

project and we appreciate your consideration.

Mr. Gibbs: Any questions from the Commission at this time? If not I will

open it up for the public for anyone in favor or opposing this petition.

Mr. Javella: Phillip Javella, I live at Whitmore Place, 2773 Chalbury.

Anyway to make it short and simple I would prefer to keep the 1/3 acre lots.

I think 50% of the lots are being reduced and I don’t think it is in the best

interest of all. I bought in there, built in there for the larger lots. So

I would greatly appreciate keeping the larger lots.

Mr. Rogers: Chad Rogers, 7246 Horton Court. I am on the board for the home

owners association of phase 1 of Whitmore Place, but I am here speaking on

behalf of myself and not the entire neighborhood because there is a varying

amount of support for the project. Generally I am supportive of the plan, I

think it meets the requirements of the R2 incentive standards. I think that

there is a positive impact on the open space, the playground, the woods, the

pathway and the larger retention ponds. However there are a few

considerations I would ask that would make me feel better about the project.

The number one concern of many of the residents and myself are the storm

water issues that we have in the community and over the summer I recognize we

had 2 record rainfall days and I have read past Commission meeting minutes

and I know you all have talked about that. Our concern is on the drainage of

the new retention ponds and the amount of paved space in phase 2. I would

just ask that a very close detailed storm water study be done before this

moves forward to study not only where the new storm water will go and what

direction but to also take a close look at the existing Whitmore Place phase

1 storm water plan and whether it is operating as initially designed and in

particular whether spilt way overflows are where they were designed to be

placed in our existing ponds. Another consideration that I would ask if this

project is approved is consideration on restricting construction traffic

through the existing phase 1 of Whitmore Place, I would say I haven’t done a

scientific poll but I would say that there is about 75% of families with

small children in our neighborhood and I understand all vehicles have rights

to the public roads for our neighborhoods but dump trucks and semi-trucks

coming through the south would not be good for public safety given that there

will be an entry off of 267, we would prefer that construction traffic could

use that and given that hopefully just one builder in the neighborhood that

should be a little easier to enforce than the neighborhoods that have several

builders in it. The other consideration that I would ask for consideration

on is there is a straightaway coming up from the south through our

neighborhood that will be often used for new residents of phase 2 to access


Plainfield. I could see and envision a speed concern because there are

currently no stop signs until you get to the intersection there by the

playground, so I would ask that the Town consider use of stop signs or work

with the existing home owners association to purchase stop signs to place at

all the intersections to hopefully keep traffic slow and safe for our

children. Also a consideration in working with the existing phase of

Whitmore Place to implement consistent street lighting throughout the

neighborhood. Then the only other addition that I have got is, as I

mentioned that I believe the requirements of the R2 incentive of the new

development being in compliance with all of the guidelines and the proposed

development demonstrating the use of the building design that is appropriate

via the Town of Plainfield residential design guidelines have been met. The

proposed development does appear to be appropriate for the site and the

surroundings and the proposed development appears to be consistent with the

others. The other and the final of the 5 findings is that the use or value

of area properties will not be adversely effected by the granting of a

waiver. I have not been able to prove one way or another whether or not the

area properties will be adversely effected, so I am not sure how, I don’t

envy the Commission in having to find on whether the values of the properties

will not be adversely effected by this. So that is all I have for you guys,

thank you for your consideration and I also wanted to thank the folks from

the Town, Joe and Tim for helping educate me through the incentive and the

folks from Republic too have been really good to work with in helping us to

understand what the plan is here and as I said, even though I pointed out

some concerns generally I am supportive of the plan.

Mr. Gibbs: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the public? If not I close

the public portion and open it up for the petitioner if he would like to

address any of those questions?

Mr. Moon: I appreciate your comments. We have talked to a number of people

from the community last week and a few other times. Everything that Mr.

Rogers brought up were things that we have discussed. The storm water

drainage we know is an issue in phase 1, our engineer, Banning, has been in

discussions with the Town about that. It really doesn’t tie directly to the

development incentive request that we have here, but we have told them as we

design, I don’t want to speak for Banning or the Engineering department but

as the development occurs there will be more retention created and it should

actually improve the situation. There may be some issues in their phase 1

which Mr. Rogers mentioned which really are not ours to address that would be

for the Town, but we think the drainage will get better. Construction

traffic, we agreed when we met last week that to the extent we can we will

sign it and require our builder to bring the traffic in off the new entrance

on 267 and not through the existing neighborhood. The straight away and stop

signs in the existing section again that is something that the Town will have

to address with the current neighbors and the neighborhood. Consistent

street lights, we have also discussed that and we plan on having street

lights, they do not have them now they are planning on adding them and we are

talking about making sure that they match, which makes since for everyone’s

standpoint. Values, someone addressed earlier, we certainly don’t think and

our experience has been when we went into existing subdivisions and this will

be about the 4th one where we have taken over a previous developer’s debunked

subdivision. There isn’t a single case, I don’t believe in any of them that

the values went down. In this case we know for a fact from Ryan Homes

pricing of the community and where lot prices have to be and make a profit

that their home prices will be above, the average above home price in here is

in the high 250’s around $260,000.00 presently. Their average price appears


to be about $280,000.00 coming into the community. More importantly you

can’t really dictate price but the building standards that are in place,

which are fairly high, don’t allow vinyl, hardy plank and brick, square

footage requirements or roof pitch requirements there are other things with

fairly high standards, those are not being changed. Those standards that

their homes had to comply with, these home will have to comply with, so we

are fairly confident that the values will be at or above what they were

previously. The fact that we are opening up the community with a new common

areas, woods, a playground and pathways for the residents can only enhance

their values as well.

Mr. Gibbs: Any questions from the board?

Mr. Smith: I have one or two. A couple of things that came up to RDC kind

of pertains to potentially could have here for monotony, particularly when

you have a 70’ lot and you are going to have a 2 or 3 car garage in the front

that is going to go every house down the block. I don’t know how much room

or how much play you have to avoid monotony. The garages I assume are all

front loaded.

Mr. Moon: Not necessarily, especially on the larger, remember 43% of our

lots are 90’ or 100’ wide, those could easily be side loaded, so there will

be a mix with our belief. A lot of times that is homeowner preference. Some

people don’t mind the side load, some people find it a little more

challenging to pull in and out, and some people don’t like them. There is an

antimonopoly code that will be applied to the neighborhood, no homes will be

the same adjacent to each other, and we keep a fairly close track on that. I

would say that Ryan is a very large home builder but has very good

architectural standards and they even know they develop 6 or 7 different

plans and 2 or 3 elevations in each plan. They intentionally have them so

that the plans look different so as you go down the street. Now if you build

an Ashton A next to an Ashton A of course it would look the same but if it is

an Ashton next to a Beaverton they are going to look different. So you will

see that. We also did a lot fit study, I know Kent had expressed some

concern about lot size, home size, and in that study it appears even with the

3 car garage the homes will be at a minimum 18’ apart by side yard setbacks

that have to at least be 15 but it looks like they will even be a little

further than that.

Mr. Smith: My second question kind of relates back to the construction

traffic and so forth, wondering if you know now what sort of sequence you

might have for opening sections so that the ponds are built early on,

drainages dealt with early on, the park area, playground these are early on?

Mr. Moon: I can tell you the phasing will come off of 267 and go all the way

through and connect, so that will be one phase. So then you have the two

points of ingress and egress for safety of Fire and Police. The first

section likely build this lake and build most or all that. This area would

not be part of phase 1, phase 2 is these two areas and then phase 3 would

likely be the Far East side. So a lot of the amenity will be in phase 1.

Mr. Brouillard: I believe you made a statement earlier on that the new

layout is a more viable product I guess than the old one. Can you tell me

how that works, it seems like you shrunk the lots a lot and yet it is now

viable.


Mr. Moon: It is more viable from a few perspectives. In our experience

communities need amenities and need common areas. So that is more viable,

quite frankly we eliminated about 1,000’ of street which makes the financial

side of it more viable. With large lots the price point that this community

is at and losing all of your common area, it just made it too big, too

costly, and it wasn’t anything that anyone wanted to buy. By doing it this

way we are creating what we think is a better product and more attractive

community for everyone.

Mr. Bahr: Do we know what the potential impact as far as the number of

students?

Mr. Moon: To the schools?

Mr. Bahr: To the schools.

Mr. Moon: Well it is 125 lots, but that is currently what it is zoned for,

so none of that changes.

Mr. Bahr: I understand.

Mr. Moon: I don’t want to presume, there isn’t a study of school children.

I mean typically the ratio is 1 ½ students per home. This isn’t an empty

nester community or a retirement village so it will have children.

Mr. Smith: Your design in the cul-de-sacs I assume big enough for the school

bus to go down there and turn around.

Mr. Moon: Unless they make them bigger. As of now, yes. It will all be the

standard requirements for Plainfield.

Mr. Gibbs: This is an Avon school district, right?

Mr. Moon: Yes it is Avon School District.

Mr. Kirchoff: Kent, have you had the opportunity to look at this and have

some discussion since you are not too far away?

Mr. McPhail: Yes I have and I do want to thank the Developer for contacting

me early before they filed this plan because he knew it was in my ward and

that I serve and he’s done Sugar Grove and we spent a lot of time on that one

trying to make sure that everybody was informed of what was going on. I took

a look at the plan and I had some concern about the 70’ lots so I did make a

trip to a subdivision in Carmel that Ryan is building this series of homes, I

certainly believe they are comparable with anything that is currently in

Whitmore. I didn’t go inside the homes but I certainly drove through the

neighborhoods and looked at them, got some photographs if anybody would like

to see those. They did furnish some photographs to the neighbors the other

night and I did ask them to lay some houses out on those lots because I was

concerned about the 70’ and I have driven through several neighborhoods that

have got 75’ and 65’ lots in similar homes. It is not claustrophobic as I

thought it would be. I don’t know how to explain that any differently, I

didn’t count but was there 40 or 50 people there the other evening from both

subdivisions and a couple of folks that live outside Eagle Woods subdivisions

and I think overall with the exception of 2 or 3, the neighbors didn’t have a

problem with it.


Mr. Kirchoff: Okay, one of my first thoughts or reactions from the current

homeowners and the homeowners association. It is fair to say that is a fair

representation of what you are hearing?

Mr. Moon: Yes there are people who would love to see that, I think what Mr.

McPhail said is a fair representation. Now there are the vocal few that would

love to see that stay a farm field, but that is not…

Mr. Kirchoff: That has not been in the plan since day one.

Mr. Moon: I would say the vocal few were vocal, but when my talking to

neighbors there are also several that also support the plan. That is really

the only thing that I can add.

Mr. Bahr: Excuse me sir, when you say they are vocal, what are they vocal

about?

Mr. Moon: They are vocal about any development on that lot, on that land. I

believe the thought is if it is not viable to shrink the lot size then let’s

fight the shrinking of the lot size and it will never be viable.

Mr. Kirchoff: While we have you there, Scott if you could raise your hand.

Scott Singleton, have you met Scott?

Mr. Moon: I know Scott pretty well. I got his cell phone number, he called me

when I was on vacation.

Mr. Kirchoff: Very good, I just wanted to make sure from your concern about

speed and safety, Scott is the person to work with on that.

Mr. Moon: We worked together with the construction that went on at the

southern entrance and I have nothing but great things to say about Scott and

his team.

Mr. Kirchoff: Thank you.

Mr. Gibbs: Thank you.

Mr. McPhail: I will add my daughter lives in this subdivision, so I have

tried to have an open mind about the whole thing and like I said the number

of folks that were there, there were a couple that, like the gentleman

tonight that didn’t want the lot sizes reduced, but it was a very small

portion of those.

Mr. Kirchoff: I would say overall I am comfortable with it too, I think they

have done some good things. Being a resident in Sugar Grove, I have some

history with them. One of the concerns that I have is on page 2 where Joe is

talking about, if all the development incentive requirements are met the Plan

Commission can waive the R-2 standards. My concern is with item C. it says

side yards can be reduced to 5’. They are building bigger homes on smaller

lots that causes me some concern.

Mr. McPhail: It is a 5’ minimum setback but it 15’ minimum aggregate so you

can’t have a 10’ aggregate it has to be 15’. If one has a 5’ setback the next

door has to be the 10’.

Mr. Kirchoff: What is it today?


Mr. James: I believe they are 10 and 15.

Mr. Kirchoff: So it is still a 15’ aggregate?

Mr. McPhail: I don’t know what R-2 is but…

Mr. Kirchoff: But what I mean, phase 1 what is in there? What is the

standard?

Mr. McPhail: Whatever R-2 is, whatever the minimums are in R-2.

Mr. Kirchoff: As I drive through that subdivision the spacing seems to be

adequate with the current ones. My concern is as verbalized earlier you are

shrinking lots but you are putting in a nice product in there, what is it

going to look like from a spacing standpoint, I guess is my question.

Mr. James: It is 12 and a 25 aggregate.

Mr. Brandgard: In my subdivision it is 5 and 10.

Mr. McPhail: 5 and 15.

Mr. Brandgard: 5 and 15?

Mr. McPhail: Banning took several of their home site plans and laid those out

and the closest they came with the 3 car garages on both sides was 18’. That

doesn’t mean they can’t get down to 15’.

Mr. Kirchoff: I understand. I just want to be sensitive to the existing

homeowners.

Mr. Smith: Is the pavement concrete? Is that counted? Is that included, not

just on the building structure but what if you have a driveway like for a

side garage? Concrete comes up for the driveway quite a ways.

Mr. Kirchoff: What is the 15’ measured on? Is it structure or…

Mr. James: Yes the foundation of the home to the lot line.

Mr. Kirchoff: Okay.

Mr. Brandgard: Tim what can you tell us about the storm water? Everybody

had storm water issues this last summer.

Mr. Belcher: It’s hard because I don’t really want to talk about Bob’s

design on the new section but if you want you wanted to hear a little about

what was talked about tonight.

Mr. Kirchoff: Phase 1.

Mr. Belcher: We did some investigation after those floods and like they said

tonight those were historic proportions, but what we discovered in this

preliminary reviews is that in this first section there is a couple of homes

that may have been built and graded at a different height between the two

homes than they should have possibly been for what they call a flood routing

elevation. The flood routing if that is filled a little higher than it


should have been that would meant the street got higher than it should have.

So that happens sometimes within building construction, the plans got

approved a certain way then the homes get constructed at different times and

the grading between the homes might not have been as accurate as they should

have been so we may need to go back and investigate that again. I think that

the new project, the biggest problem was the area up stream of the

subdivision was undeveloped. The fact that it was undeveloped and it was

saturated means that it is going to come off there like a parking lot and

essentially make the problem worse than it more than likely would have been

had it been developed with detention ponds like the proposed tonight. So I

believe that it would create a better situation with development with the

ponds being developed in accordance with the Towns requirements. Doesn’t

mean that we don’t need to go back and look at some other things though and

we are going to do that.

Mr. Gibbs: Thanks Tim.

Mr. Smith: One last thing, are they required in anyway here to have the

traffic study? Or have they done one, Joe?

Mr. James: The traffic study was done with original with 174 lots.

Mr. Smith: I’m wondering out on 267 if you were southbound on 267 and when it

turned left into is the traffic going to have to back up behind you? Or are

you going to be able to create a passing lane?

Mr. Moon: There will be a left turn lane that was part of the traffic study

findings back in ’06. Unfortunately we are going to have to do a lot of work

on 267.

Mr. Smith: You get land from the property owner across the street probably?

Mr. Moon: No, there is actually appears to be enough right of way because

the state had already taking so there is enough width, it is just a matter of

adding pavement width and making a dedicated left turn lane so the traffic

heading south would continue south and shift over to the east to turn in.

Mr. Smith: So you made that commitment?

Mr. Brandgard: It has already been made.

Mr. Smith: Okay good. Thank you.

Mr. Gibbs: If that is it for questions I will entertain a motion.

Mr. Brouillard: Mr. Chairman I would like to make a motion. I move the Plan

Commission approve DP-16-001 as filed by Republic Development, LLC.

Requesting approval of development plan for compliance with R-2 develo9pment

incentives and approving requested waivers for the Whitmore Place residential

subdivision finding that;

1. The use or value of area properties will not adversely be affected.

2. The proposed development will be in compliance with the applicable

Development Requirements and general requirements for project open

space.

3. Proposed development demonstrates the use of building design features

and site layout consistent with the intent and recommendations of the

Town of Plainfield residential design guidelines.


4. The proposed development is appropriate to the site and its

surroundings.

5. The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of

the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance. And that such approval shall be

subject to the following conditions;

1. Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted January 15, 2016.

2. Compliance with the conditions of approval of PP-04-012 in the terms of approval of the waiver regarding secondary means of

access. All as enclosed by the Plan Commission on February 07,

2005.

3. The compliance with Whitmore Place architectural standards as stipulated and recorded at the declaration of covenant and

restrictions of the Whitmore Place subdivision which shall be cross

referenced on all subsequent records and secondary plats.

4. Lots 53-65 abutting the Williamsburg and the Woods subdivision at the east perimeter shall have 100’ lots minimums.

5. An antimonopoly code preventing the repetition of similar homes, styles on adjacent lots shall be adopted.

Mr. Brandgard: Second.

Mr. Gibbs: I have a motion and a second, Mr. Klinger would you poll the

board?


Mr. McPhail- yes

Mr. Brandgard- yes

Mr. Smith- yes

Mr. Kirchoff- yes

Mr. Bahr- yes

Mr. Gibbs- yes

Motion carries 7-0.

Mr. Gibbs: Next item on the agenda DP-16-002.

Mr. Berg: DP-06-002, we are looking for architectural and site design review

for a proposed 9,200 square foot retail use in the gateway corridor zoned GC

on a 1.35 acre lot. This is the site here it didn’t show up that well in

yellow but this is the existing building, you can see the Luxury Auto Depot

over here on the right. There are 2 entrances here and here, this is the

proposed new site, cross access there. Basically the 2 access will go away

and be consolidated smaller access to the east. We will talk more about the

elevations here in just a bit. Okay as I mentioned the structure is going to

be over here more towards the west side of the site compared to the existing

on the east. Many different points of ingress/egress. We have the one that

is going to replace the 2 here cross access from Taco Bell, an access

easement coming through here up to the mattress store which hopefully will be

able to get connected sometime in the future to create a connection between

Perry and Williams Trace. It looks like there is a stud here as well for

cross access. Sidewalk and trail connection will come through the lot here,

a demarcated crosswalk area to the sidewalk on east Main. Trash enclosures

up here in the northwest corner, it will be screened as per the landscaping

requirements. Parking spaces, they are required to have 51. Bruce, I think

you remember from DRC how they brought in a revised plan that lowered the

number of seats in the potential restaurant uses which brought the required

and place parking down which also brought the requirement for interior lot


landscaping down as well. We will discuss this part also again later. They

do have a proposed ground sign that is within the Towns easement, they will

require the Town Council to have an encroachment agreement should they chose

to keep that location. Landscaping plan they have revised this since DRC the

foundation landscaping they’ve added this here. Other than that the east and

north, south and west all comply. Parking islands they are in compliance

with those regulations as well, as well as the parking lot screening here on

the north and on the south. Their perimeter landscaping also does comply.

Photometric plans also in compliance. The elevations they are slightly

different from what we saw initially at DRC, still with brick, EIFS, the

metal that will require the wavier for the canopies there on the south

elevation. North elevation large brick and EIFS. East and west elevations

also combination of brick and EIFS and the metal light that is going to

require the waiver. The trash enclosure was corrected from the DRC meeting.

They are using utility brick coping that will match the building. They are

required cedar slat fencing and we are fine with this. Free standing sign

was another issue that has been addressed since DRC. Most notably the

requirement that the integrated center sign be placed as 10%. Again we have

our easement and this sign encroaches in to that. DRC supported the

materials waiver, they supported the more balanced elevation which they

resubmitted since then and DRC has had a chance to look at it and they gave

it the thumbs us as well. Trash enclosure was replaced, they did approve the

site plan based upon the reduced parking that the applicant brought in. My

typical comment that all signs shall be approved through the ILP process.

Other comment is that a waiver is required for the awnings and any tile

accents that are still present. As I said that I will belabor again that we

need an encroachment agreement for the sign placement. I know the applicant

is here to answer all sorts of questions that you might have.

Mr. Brandgard: I have one question to you. I want to understand where this

is at. Is this where Luxury Auto is at? If Luxury Auto will go away and

this will replace it?

Mr. Berg: Yes sir.

Mr. Brandgard: It wasn’t initiatively obvious as I read through this.

Mr. Kirchoff: I drove out there and I thought there was no room to put this

building up. So that building is coming down?

Mr. Berg: My apologies sometimes I just assume everyone is following my

thought process.

Mr. McPhail: I clarified that also.

Mr. Smith: There is a large white cinder block building on the site now,

which comes down.

Mr. Berg: Yes.

Mr. Gibbs: Would the petitioner like to address the board?

Mr. Schnur: Good evening members of the board, my name is Dan Schnur with

Roger Engineering. Also here tonight representing the developer is Ryan

Conrad. We have really enjoyed working with staff and the DRC on what we

feel is a good project and making it a little bit better. I think that

everything that we have done today through staff comments and through DRC


comments I think have certainly improved the project. One thing that we are

also accomplished is the access drive behind this retail development now,

from Williams Trace to Perry Road will be completed. I think that this

project benefits that entire run of retail shops by doing that. I don’t have

much more to add to the staff report at this point, but we would be happy to

answer any questions that you might have.

Mr. McPhail: I believe looking at the site you still have property to the

north side, is that big enough to develop into anything? Do you know what

you got left there?

Mr. Schnur: I don’t know that there are any specific plans for it.

Mr. James: They have also submitted a secondary plat to combine 2 lots.

That north part will be platted as a lot, it does meet the general commercial

standards for a lot.

Mr. McPhail: I just knew it was there I just couldn’t tell how much was

going to be left, because I talked to the property owner a couple of years

ago about trying to get that connector through there but and so we were

trying to get that done and I couldn’t get it done on the farther east so I

gave up on it, but that is really going to be a plus to be able to get people

from the carwash and the tire place and they can get back over and get the

light and get out of there.

Mr. Kirchoff: My only question is, you indicated you thought there was an

easement that was, I mean is there some way for us to make that a condition

of this approval that that easement is there or be secured?

Mr. McPhail: Well I don’t think we can hold their feet to the fire on the

easement of the adjoining property.

Mr. Conrad: Ryan Conrad with Thomas English Retail Real Estate, 725 E. 65th

Street, suite 300, Indianapolis, Indiana. I will answer the easement

question. That easement does not formally connect our parcel, this

particular parcel yet to Williams Trace, that easement is still yet to be in

place with the intent to be in place. We are proposing to make it a

condition of our approval to allow that easement in place for the neighboring

property in further development if we are unsuccessful in obtaining that

easement. So therefore currently that easement is not in place to our

parcel, to the Luxury Auto currently as it sits today.

Mr. McPhail: Do you know how far it goes?

Mr. Conrad: It stops at the property line and it is connected to the

American Mattress and the Big O Tire parcel out to Williams Trace.

Originally as you guys know this was all put together by Chris White, this is

the last hold parcel that he could not get, and so everything was set up for

this to all connect internally like other 4 parcels do outside of this

particular parcel.

Mr. McPhail: So if you dedicate the easement then it is there?

Mr. Conrad: No. We have to be added to the existing easement that is with

American Mattress and Big O Tire, Maher Properties, there is additional

easement with the Tractor Supply, Discount Tire, and Taco Bell. There is

existing easement as Eric stated that we will re-plat this parcel, this is 3


parcels currently. The parcel on the left which is spite strip where the

curb cut on the southwest corner is in place, that is currently there and

existing, however that parcel there is a sliver, there is a spite strip that

goes all the way back to the rear access, that is the part of the easement

currently, that was separated with the Taco Bell so that lot was split

therefore these three parcels will be re-platted and will be a party to that

easement in place.

Mr. Brouillard: So that little bump out up top on the north side that is

what you are talking about?

Mr. Conrad: The side parcel connects the Taco Bell in the front part and it

also jogs around to the rear access road.

Mr. Schnur: If I may what happened was that when Taco Bell and Discount Tire

lots were platted which I believe was in Plaza North 1, Taco Bell didn’t take

all of their platted lot. So there was a section of that lot that was left

undeveloped. That is the kind of green space that you see out there with the

Luxury Auto and the Taco Bell currently. What we are proposing to do is

include that in our re-plat of those 2 meets and balance parcels and that

portion of that lot 102 of Plaza North 1, we are going to take that remaining

section and combine it with the other 2 lots that the Luxury Auto sits on and

create a single parcel out of that and then continue the access easements and

the utility easements across the back of that but there is a portion, that

portion of lot 102 does contain an easement that will need to be reconfigured

and moved over to the edge of the new lot in that process. There is a little

bit going on there but we are proposing to address that as part of the

secondary plat.

Mr. Smith: Isn’t that green strip needed for drainage? I see water

occasionally running through that.

Mr. Schnur: For whatever reason that is has always been a natural swell it

comes back out towards Main Street. That portion of being part of Plaza

North 1 actually was accounted for in the drainage then the detention pond

behind TSC. We actually do have an existing manhole right up here on the

northwest corner of our lot that is actually the trunk line that takes the

drainage from the front portion of that development back to the pond and so

I’ve had several discussions with Tim and we are going to utilize that

connection point and be able to detain a portion of our onsite by oversizing

the pipes within our parking lot and then restrict that and have a restricted

release back to manhole which will go back to the TSC pond.

Mr. Daniel: Unclear to me, just help me out a little. From Perry Road going

east on the north side of those lots, is there an easement for those lots for

a street or not, I still don’t understand that.

Mr. Kirchoff: How far does it go, today?

Mr. Schnur: Today it goes to here, where that notch is. Then since that

notch is part of our lot, we are proposing to extend those easements across

the east side of our property.

Mr. Kirchoff: Then that will connect you to the existing easement on the

east.

Mr. Schnur: I think what Ryan is getting at is that this development has to

be accepted into the receptacle easement agreement for the remaining of that


development. There are 2 easements one for the east side and one for the

west side. So they are all separate parties and 2 separate easements.

Mr. Kirchoff: I still don’t understand if we approve this if those pieces

then connected, how are you going to connect these two pieces of the

easements?

Mr. Conrad: I’m not sure if it was addressed correctly or not but as of

right now is when we are proposing there is a strip of land that is off of

our parcel in-between us and American Mattress. That is not on our parcel,

we will extend our curb and the driveway up until that property line today as

it sits. We are working to get that access extended over to Williams Trace.

Mr. McPhail: How big is that spite strip?

Mr. Conrad: .34 acres.

Mr. Kirchoff: Do you see my concern?

Mr. McPhail: Yes. Does it run all the way from 40 and all the way back?

Who owns it?

Mr. Kirchoff: Kent I don’t think it is the spite strips that is the issue it

is the other end, it is not connecting on the east end. He’s quoting the one

on the west end.

Mr. McPhail: I am confused.

Mr. Gibbs: That is the property that is owned by the Mattress, well I don’t

know who it is owned by but where the mattress company sits.

Mr. Conrad: Correct.

Mr. Kirchoff: Then why doesn’t that easement run all the way?

Mr. Gibbs: They are not a party to that, there will be some sort of easement

agreement between those property owners to which they are not a party too.

Mr. Kirchoff: I understand that but he said there is still a gap.

Mr. Daniel: There is a receptacle easement agreement on those easements, is

that what it is?

Mr. James: You are going to create an easement, right?

Mr. Conrad: That is correct.

Mr. Kirchoff: But what he said was there is still a gap it doesn’t connect

to the current easement on the east.

Mr. Conrad: We would create an easement to connect them. We are proposing

too. That has yet to be done with the other parties to the east.

Mr. James: They will create an easement with the plat that goes to the

property line.

Mr. Daniel: So that notch will connect the easements then?


Mr. Conrad: Yes it will.

Mr. Daniel: Okay that is what I…

Mr. Kirchoff: That is not what I heard a while ago.

Mr. Gibbs: When they establish that easement then it will all be connected.

Mr. James: Then how do we get it punched through to get American Mattress to

participate.

Mr. Conrad: We are working on that now.

Mr. McPhail: You can connect but then you will have to have a receptacle

agreement with them.

Mr. Conrad: Correct. There is about, I don’t know the exact distance but

there is about a foot to two feet that is currently grass between where we

are proposing to extend the asphalt to the property line and there is

currently about 2 feet of grass.

Mr. Gibbs: That grass is on the Mattress property.

Mr. Conrad: That is correct.

Mr. Gibbs: So if you can enter into a cooperative agreement with them you

would be willing to go ahead and pave that area to make it match even though

it is on their property.

Mr. McPhail: Then they have to add 2 more feet to their easement. Now we

know where it is at.

Mr. Daniel: How wide is that strip there Ryan? The easement part of it?

Mr. Conrad: Well it would be about, are you saying wide north and south, it

is 30’.

Mr. Kirchoff: My point is there some way that we can guarantee that gets

done because if you look at the 3rd page in you see that there is a gap.

Mr. Brandgard: I think Bill I know where you are coming from but I don’t see

how we can tell them what somebody else has to do.

Mr. Daniel: And they have already agreed dedicate theirs.

Mr. Conrad: We are certainly willing to (inaudible) if and when the times

does come that neighboring property agrees and accepts that. They are more

than willing to extend that all the way across, that is our intent.

Mr. Brouillard: I think it would be almost unfair not to grant this just

because somebody else isn’t allowing that road to go through.

Mr. James: We have done this in the past and the condition to be that they

continue to work to make that happen.


Mr. Kirchoff: That is all I am saying. I understand that we can’t do

anything when it is not their property, but to me this is part of the beauty

of that plan is to tie all of that together.

Mr. McPhail: Absolutely. And that was the intent when it developed. I mean

the attempt has been there forever for that to be through there.

Mr. Brouillard: Does the Town have any authority to say hey you are parking

trucks on this area that we plan to be a road. All we got to do is connect

that, if we grant this there is one foot of paving that has to happen, but if

they are parking their trucks there, does the Town have any authority to say

you can’t park trucks on that road.

Mr. Daniel: Probably depends on that easement, it is a private easement or a

public easement.

Mr. Gibbs: At this time I would like to open it up to the public for anyone

in the audience that would like to speak in favor or opposing this petition?

If not I close the public portion of the meeting and open it back up to the

board for further discussion.

Mr. Gibbs: I just have a general question and comments that may have come

from the DRC and other people here on the board. Is anyone concerned that

the majority of this parking for this retail space is in the back? Did the

DRC have anything to say about that?

Mr. Conrad: I don’t recall that being too much of a comment, I think it was…

Mr. Smith: It wasn’t a big issue as I recall. I kind of recall thinking

about it a little bit at the time as I am looking at the plan. The back of

the building is kind of bland like most of the strip centers are. I suppose

we could ask them to put logos, company signage on the back. That might help

for someone to know what door to walk in. I kind of sort of thought about it

the other way around, this is getting cars off of Main Street and parking

back where we are not looking at them in parking lots. So I hear what you

are saying but I wasn’t personally immediately offended by having only one

strip of cars there, the rest of them are off the lots and maybe down the

side. The parking plan didn’t bother me but I know what you are saying about

the back of the building bland. Maybe we could ask for a little more

treatment back there.

Mr. Conrad: I am thinking another one of the comments that was made was

something to the effect that it was a good situation for employee parking as

well. That might have been DRC or TAC.

Mr. Gibbs: I believe that discussion happened in TAC, it was discussed that

employees would park in the back and then customers would park in the front

and to the side. Is there a walkway around the east side of the building?

Mr. Conrad: Yes.

Mr. Brouillard: Along that line of questioning it looks like, I’m assuming

that landscaping meets the… because it just looks kind of sparse. There is a

little out front but it doesn’t look like there is a lot of it.

Mr. Conrad: It is level 1 perimeter landscaping. The screening to the

parking lot is compliant.


Mr. Brouillard: Now that you said level 1, your right you don’t need

anything greater than that in that area.

Mr. Smith: The back elevation might be a little more important when the

private road behind goes through, you might have more traffic back there, so

the back elevation may be more visible.

Mr. Brandgard: I agree but to me if you look at back of the mattress factory

it looks like the back of this. If you look at Big O and all you have is a

wall over there.

Mr. Smith: Some of the buildings that are right across the street don’t have

too much on the back maybe a little signage. Starbucks and Panda building.

Mr. McPhail: Pretty bland on the back.

Mr. Brouillard: I understand that the seating in one of these areas is going

to be reduced because of a reduced parking.

Mr. Conrad: Well when we received it originally it was over 200 in an area

that it wouldn’t matter. It was overestimated in my opinion and what they

brought in at DRC was more again my opinion more realistic for what the space

that the restaurant was.

Mr. Brouillard: My question was how do you enforce that going forward, is

that part of the lease that you can only have so many seats?

Mr. Conrad: No, it is how it was approved at the time.

Mr. James: It depends on the seating area and the fire code.

Mr. Smith: Did you consider at all making this a 2 story building? I

realize parking is limited and money is limited, I know but in terms of scale

you have other 2 story buildings that you are within a block or two. The

Taco Bell to your west looks to be about 4-5’ higher in elevation than your

current level so they seem to tower over your building a little bit. So I

just wondered if that was thought at all.

Mr. James: The parapet adds some height.

Mr. Smith: It does, yes.

Mr. Gibbs: Any other questions or comments from the board.

Mr. Kirchoff: The only question I have is in the motion can we say something

to the effect that the petitioner will make reasonable efforts to secure the

connection of the access easement to the property on the east. Is that

reasonable?

Mr. Daniel: Yes.

Mr. Kirchoff: Mr. President I move the Plan Commission approve DP-16-002 as

filed by Roger Ward Engineering requesting development plan approval for a

new 9,280 square foot retail building in the gateway corridor on 1.35 acres

zoned GC General Commercial District finding that;


1. The development plan complies with all applicable development standards of the district in which this site is located.

2. The development plan complies with all applicable provisions of the subdivision control ordinance for which a waiver has not been granted.

3. The development plan complies with all applicable provisions for the architectural and site design review for which a waiver has not been

granted.

4. Proposed development is appropriate to the site and its surroundings. The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of

the Plainfield zoning ordinance.

5. Regarding the waiver utilizing metal clad canopy and hardy plain for an accent siting. The Plan Commission finds that;

1. The proposed development request represents an innovative use of building material and brick collar that will enhance the use or

value of area properties.

2. The proposed development is consistent and compatible with other development located along the gateway corridor.

3. The proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of Plainfield zoning ordinance. And then such approval be subject

to the following additions.

1. Substantial compliance with the building elevations, colored renderings, trash enclosure details, site plan, landscape plan,

signage plan, photometric plan and lighting cut sheets submitted

file dated January 15, 2016.

2. The petitioner will make reasonable efforts to secure the connection of the access easement with the property owner to the

east.

Mr. Smith: Second.

Mr. Gibbs: I have a motion and a second Mr. Klinger would you poll the

board?


Mr. McPhail- yes

Mr. Brandgard- yes

Mr. Smith- yes

Mr. Kirchoff- yes

Mr. Bahr- yes

Mr. Gibbs- yes

Motion carries.

Mr. Gibbs: That concludes the public portion of the meeting.

OLD BUSINESS/NEW BUSINESS

Mr. James: I’ve got some things I would like for you to consider under old

business/new business. First thing I’ve got Dave Okerson he has patiently

waited all night to address you, Dave is the manager at Schutz business on

Reeves Road. A couple of weeks ago I sent you the email that they are in

violation of their outdoor storage. They’ve got a lot of containers out back

and we sent them a notice back in November and gave them until the end of

January to bring the property into compliance, so based on the email you said

before you took action that you would like Dave to come in and tell us what

they are doing to bring the property into compliance.


Mr. Okerson: Good evening I am Dave Okerson from Schutz Container Systems,

2375 Reeves Road, suite 100. We are a container manufacturing and

reconditioning operation. Started work here in 2009 when we really started

going. We make intermediate bulk containers, I don’t know if you are

familiar with them. It is a steal cage with a plastic inner bottle. We sell

them to the chemical companies. Mr. Uno Schutz was a Formula 1 driver in the

60’s and now he has been in racing yachts. We sell our containers to

chemical companies with the idea that they are sustainable and reusable. It

is the buzz word of these years are the sustainability, that is what the

chemical companies want and that is what we provide so we return these

containers after they are empty. Say the Town of Brownsburg, say your

swimming pool has chlorine and you are buy them in a 275 gallon container it

is empty, you got 6 of them, we will come and pick them up for free and bring

them to our return facilities. There is one here, there is one in Lexington,

NC, and there is one in Houston, Texas. And we will pull the bottle out

scrape out any residue out of the bottom, grind up the bottle, melt it down

and pipe it into another injection machine in another part of our building.

So the bottle gets made into other parts that we use when we have a plastic

pallet on the bottom or we have corner protectors. These are the containers

that is our problem, they are stacked outside. When we did zoning many years

ago Charlie was here to give zoning to put in the fenced area in the back

where we have managed to contain it until the market for these went away.

Some of our competitors/customers and other re-conditioners who don’t make

these, they like to take ours. They pull the bottle out and put somebody

else’s bottle in them and resale them. So there was a market for those,

people were actually be out there buying them and so my market had kind of

dried up and a lot of that was used in the oil fracking business. Fracking

businesses is now completely gone so a lot of those companies used to sell to

those customers they are not there anymore. So they are there not picking up

any of these, so we are still take them in. In 2008 when they started

building the plant and started to put the machinery in and the investment

nobody else was really doing much of anything. We maybe under estimated the

demand for how many of these things would be coming into us, so it has gotten

ahead of us the past year or two, and we realized we had to start selling

them outside for the past year. It has really gotten too far so they

invested in a shredder to deal with the problem it was just too slow going.

We are a private company and so everything is decided in Germany when

spending this kind of money and actually Mr. Shutz who owns us decides a lot

of this himself. He will say will this shredder go to Indianapolis,

Plainfield, so they held up on the shredder because they were afraid we would

be shredding something we could actually use. The steel shredder investment

was $232,000.00 for the shredder alone, the stand we had to build was

$43,000.00, the electrical connection was $46,000.00 and $322,000.00 we spent

and it just got going November 3rd is when we just started shredding the

cages. The cages that we can’t use. We’ve installed a plastic shredder on

the inside of the building to help speed up the process. So in general when

I talked to Joe, I said we would get on this we will get on this as hard as

we can. Our plant in Houston then had a rebuild, they also take these in, so

the worse timing they could have ever had they shut their reconditioning side

down and getting a brand new line and everything rebuilt. I got an email

hopefully they will be starting this week if not next week. The President of

the company is down there now making sure that is going to happen. So some

of what used to go to Houston has been coming into Plainfield. So just

increased the number coming in when we weren’t able to handle those coming in

in the first place so it just made it worse. Anything we did still couldn’t

keep up with the demand, so that will be starting up next week so a lot of

the work that has been coming in here will be going there again and give us


time to breath and let us catch up on some of what we have got to get done.

Bottom line is we were asking for some more time to get in compliance. We

have invested heavily, not to mention the overtime that we pay the guys to

work weekends and a night shift we added and temps so we could just run this.

We have been very successful over the years, business is down now because

like I said there just isn’t many to sell.

Mr. Gibbs: What is your estimated time to complete that?

Mr. Okerson: I thought we would get it done in 60 days but we did not. If

Houston gets going. If we could have 90 days we will have that lot cleared

up and have everything inside the fence.

Mr. Brouillard: How many containers do you have on site?

Mr. Okerson: About 15,000.

Mr. Brouillard: And what do you want to take it down to?

Mr. Okerson: About 5 or 6.

Mr. Brouillard: So you have 10,000 you need to get rid of.

Mr. Okerson: Yes.

Mr. Brouillard: And 90 days you are going to get rid of it.

Mr. Okerson: We got a plan put together. We are doing everything we can to

get into compliance. We’ve worked with Joe and Terry.

Mr. Gibbs: Do I have consent that 90 days?

Mr. Brandgard: Yes, I was going to say this is not what we want to see

happen. It is obviously not what you want to see happen, but you do have a

plan to address it and we all know that plans go array, so if we give you 90

days I would ask if for my approval if this plan goes awry you come in and

see us before we come and see you.

Mr. Kirchoff: Just keep us posted.

Mr. James: I have 2 more things. We met with Loves Truck stop a couple

weeks ago. Kent, Robin, Andrew and some other staff members. They are

looking at 595 South Perry Road. They want to do truck tire distribution but

they also want to do a retreading operation. They are getting anxious, they

need a place to get this started and they would like for us to give them an

answer if that would be an appropriate use at that site or not. There is

another similar operation at 37 and 465. I could set up a tour if some of

you would like to go.

Mr. Kirchoff: Give us a sense of where this is. You gave us the address but

where is it?

Mr. James: It is just south of 465.

Mr. Kirchoff: No, your proposed site here?

Mr. Brandgard: It is the building south of Galyan’s office.


Mr. Kirchoff: What did you hear as far as the impact on the neighborhood?

Is it noise, odors?

Mr. McPhail: Watching the videos Bill we don’t think there is an issue but

we are asking the same questions as you, is there a motor or there noise and

that type of thing. If you look at the videos it looks like it is really,

and I’ve looked at several but they have the state of the art. When they

take a tire in there they can buff that thing off and take all of that tread

off. Their operation is pretty well enclosed. It takes that grinding and

takes it direct to a trailer and blows it in that trailer to haul it off. We

can’t tell from looking at that video if it is getting an odor outside or

that type of thing.

Mr. Kirchoff: So a visit might be worth wile. To me my question is the

location next to it a really nice office building, isn’t that really crucks

of this?

Mr. Brandgard: Yes.

Mr. Gibbs: I think so.

Mr. Brandgard: If it was located deeper into the…

Mr. Kirchoff: Yes.

Mr. McPhail: Did we get a report back from the Fire Department?

Mr. James: No.

Mr. McPhail: We wanted the Fire Department to make sure that because it is

within a building that the walls and everything were up to code and that type

of thing. That was another question we needed to ask.

Mr. Brandgard: You can maybe take Joe along so he can see it.

Mr. Brouillard: It would be interesting if there is a smell.

Mr. Brandgard: I remember when (inaudible) made tires here in town, you’d go

down there and it smells. It is just like walking through Target and you

smell bicycles before you get to them.

Mr. Gibbs: We don’t have that problem.

Mr. McPhail: The only thing I am concerned about is liquid adhesives and

that type of thing. The only type of place that they are using any liquid

adhesive at all is where they butted the tread together the rest of it was a

film they put on there. Then when they heat the thing.

Mr. Brouillard: I don’t know anything about this technology but I am

thinking if you shred rubber, there is a little melting or burning involved.

It’s not to say that they are not masking it or controlling it properly, it

is probably worth a visit.

Mr. McPhail: You got other tenants in the building, if that odor is getting

outside or through those walls, you are going to have…


Mr. Brandgard: They are looking at the middle of the building.

Mr. Klinger: Where is this facility Joe that you want to visit?

Mr. James: 37 and 465.

Mr. Klinger: Is it in a multi-tenant building?

Mr. James: I’m not sure.

Mr. Brandgard: It is probably in one of those truck stops.

Mr. James: I think it is.

Mr. Kirchoff: There is a lot of truck stops down there. So it must be

adjacent to that. I would be interested in a visit.

Mr. McPhail: I told Joe I would go because I am curious because part of the

job is going to be pretty good jobs, they are a little higher pay in their

warehouse part. But it is also an investment in the equipment, but it is

going to be offensive to neighbors we need to find them another spot.

Mr. Smith: Another building that is more remote.

Mr. Gibbs: They didn’t say anything about traffic?

Mr. James: No it would be normal distribution traffic. I will schedule a

visit. I got one more thing. I got this from Kelly Lawrence with City

Scape. The apartments next to the mall, it says they are finalizing

construction documents and the 4 story building has been laid out with 39

units instead of 38, so that would be an additional 3 units total. So they

would go from 306 to 309. Then also two additional garages would be added

for a total of 6 garages would be added to the overall project and then based

on market demand, they said the market tells them that they need to do more 1

bedroom units. So their original mix was 39% 1 bedrooms, 52% 2 bedrooms and

almost 8% 3 bedrooms. So now they want to go to 44% 1 bedrooms, 47% 2

bedrooms and 8% 3 bedrooms. So they want to add more single family units.

Mr. McPhail: So they are increasing the number by a total of 3, and they are

adding 6 garages and they are changing the mix basically between 1 and 2’s.

Mr. James: Yes.

Mr. McPhail: I think that is good.

Mr. Bahr: A decrease on the school.

Mr. James: If these are considered minor changes we can just approve it with

the ILP.

Mr. Gibbs: Are park impact amenities calculated on a per unit basis and we

would we send them an adjustment based on the 3 new units.

Mr. James: Yes, it is just based on the number of units not the types.

Mr. Gibbs: But they are adding 3 new units right?


Mr. James: Right.

Mr. Gibbs: So will we send them an adjustment?

Mr. James: $1,500.00 more dollars.

Mr. McPhail: We asked them to build more garages to start with, didn’t we?

If I remember right.

Mr. James: That is all I have.

Mr. Kirchoff: When will we get the next draft for the (inaudible)?

Mr. James: Hopefully 2 weeks before the March 7 meeting.

Mr. Kirchoff: What is new on the Phillips 66?

Mr. James: I forgot to update you on that. The ordinance committee met last

week and we had some good discussions on what to do with gas stations, we

think a special exception is the way to go. Maybe create a new highway

business district.

Mr. Kirchoff: My questions is about the gas station out on West Main Street.

Mr. James: We scheduled a meeting with Mr. Jesse and he didn’t show so we

started the fining process again. Then to fill you in on the updates on the

gas station ordinance amendment and the micro cell towers. We are going to

define the gas station and a truck stop and eliminate it from the Town Center

district and the neighborhood retail district and then probably allow gas

stations by special exception. Then we are also looking at special design

standards for gas stations.

Mr. Kirchoff: So does that give us more control?

Mr. James: Yes. The micro cell towers we’ve looked at Fishers what they

adopted and everybody felt pretty comfortable with that so we are going to

use that as a template.

Mr. Gibbs: The gas stations there was a lot of discussion about the design

standards. A couple of us knew of experiences where if you ask they are

willing to give it, I had that experience with Giant Eagle and Get Go, which

of course that one never got built on the east side, but they came in with a

very basic plan that was really pretty ugly, and we just asked, put the pump

in the back of the building and they were yeah we can do that. Everything we

asked for they did.

Mr. Kirchoff: I’m glad you mention this, you know I have been in Florida and

in Stuart, Florida it is interesting to see they must have some pretty good

standards too, because even some of their fast food facilities are much more

kind to the eye if I can say that, than what we see here. I think it is

somebody saying can’t you do something a little better.

Mr. Brandgard: That is like the Village Pantry up there by me, what they

brought in is not what they ended up building and then they tried to paint

it, so we got that stopped.


Mr. McPhail: We have given Joe a real challenge to write these development

standards but leave some flexibility where those that are here that need to

be upgraded that we don’t push them so hard that we won’t get them upgraded.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Gibbs: All those in favor of adjournment.

Mr. Kirchoff: So move.

plainfield plan commission february 1, 2016 7:00 ...plainfield plan commission 02-01-16 5...

Documents